[LaughMoreDaily]

Have you guys measured fibre optic cables?

I noticed the new one I have sounds much better than the last.

 

[hakuzen]

@hakuzen , can you provide any info on this CEMA cable 22AWG , specifically the silver one, it makes the bold claim that it is pure silver and 22AWG, extremely interested in it if thats true, thanks.

i don't own any of them. anyway, i doubt it is pure silver wire. 22awg of silver wire would be more expensive than that.
besides, it says "Pure silver was plated by 7n frozen OCC with 140 cores per share"; guess they mean silver plated OCC (copper).
resistance will be very low in both cables, though

 

[hakuzen]

Have you guys measured fibre optic cables?

I noticed the new one I have sounds much better than the last.

fiber optic cables are meant for digital signal transmission. in my opinion, if the cable allows enough velocity and there are low amount of errors due to outside interferences, there shouldn't be any sound differences. of course, fiber optic is the best for digital transmission; fastest, no outside interferences

 

[ArkNerevar]

i doubt it is pure silver wire

I see, thats helpful ty.

They also have this warring states red rabbit cable, claims to be 27AWG pure single crystal silver and frozen, Ive been looking at it and your cable 174, this warring states one has slightly better AWG (27 to 28) and is just silver (so they say) no gold and has cryo treatment, its also a bit cheaper, possibly beause of the lack of gold, can you provide any info on this warring states one? thanks.

 

[LaughMoreDaily]

fiber optic cables are meant for digital signal transmission. in my opinion, if the cable allows enough velocity and there are low amount of errors due to outside interferences, there shouldn't be any sound differences. of course, fiber optic is the best for digital transmission; fastest, no outside interferences

There seems to be different materials used in fibre. Glass or plastic, perhaps? I guess my other cable isn't as good as my new one because it's allowing outside interference to harm the digital audio connection or maybe its fibre is plastic and not glass?

 

[hakuzen]

They also have this warring states red rabbit cable, claims to be 27AWG pure single crystal silver and frozen, Ive been looking at it and your cable 174, this warring states one has slightly better AWG (27 to 28) and is just silver (so they say) no gold and has cryo treatment, its also a bit cheaper, possibly beause of the lack of gold, can you provide any info on this warring states one? thanks.

cable 174 is around 20% more expensive than that warring states cable while being slightly thinner, due to the used wire. i don't know if the 1% gold in the alloy justifies that difference, or just the different manufacturer has got different prices. they say that red rabbit uses frozen 6n single crystal sterling silver. the wire of 174 was made by another manufacturer who was using UP-OCC wires in other cables, although i got different wire in different batches. so i don't know which one will be better. i haven't tried this red rabbit cable, but was delighted with 174.

 

[hakuzen]

There seems to be different materials used in fibre. Glass or plastic, perhaps? I guess my other cable isn't as good as my new one because it's allowing outside interference to harm the digital audio connection or maybe its fibre is plastic and not glass?

digital signal are 0/1 streams, which need to be converted to analog signals by a Digital to Analog Converter (DAC). if your digital cable gets a lot of interferences, more info has to be resent because the receiver can't distinguish some 0s and 1s, decreasing the velocity of the transmission. but you should never get noise nor distortion nor any sound difference due to this; the DAC will be the first responsible of these sound parameters (followed by the amplification, and phones).
optical fiber (but also coaxial cables) allows very high velocity, more than enough to carry even heavy (DSD) streams. i don't know the materials used in optical fiber, but either glass or plastic shouldn't suffer electromagnetic interferences. so the only chance to get some lag and/or cuts, is a defective cable (bad aligned connectors, or bended/cracked wire). i use optical fiber in all the digital interconnects i can (toslink), and they are very cheap cables; coaxial cables (canare/belden) for coaxial SPDIF; cheap coaxial to optical converters; and i only use litz geometry copper/silver canare protected cables in USB connections (in this case, the shorter, the better).

 

[ArkNerevar]

the wire of 174 was made by another manufacturer who was using UP-OCC wires in other cables, although i got different wire in different batches. so i don't know which one will be better. i haven't tried this red rabbit cable, but was delighted with 174.

I see, so it may or may not be pure silver then, but you've spoken well of this seller (CEMA) so it's unlikely with their reputation they would flat out lie.

I plan on getting 2 silver cables, one for my IEM (UM3DT) & one for my headphone (ZMF Verite open) I did previously try a NiceHCK IEM cable & a Lunashops HP cable (it's your cable 130) and they are definitely not pure silver (ofc they say it is), basically considering between your cable 174 and this red rabbit cable, hmm I do like this idea of being pure silver and single crystal frozen, it is 4 core though, I did read your intro on lower resistances and broadly follow, I still would like to ask if you feel that the 8 cores to 4 would give a sound difference for the HP specifically (zmf verite open mini XLR to XLR 4 pole) and can I say that this thread was really very helpful, after being disappointed previously (cable 130) it's great to have an explanation and recommendation on how to get the real thing, you deserve kudos for this thread, thanks man.

 

[ArkNerevar]

Well it wasnt exactly cable 130, that has gold plating, it was this "99% pure silver" one , I presume its the same but without the "gold" plating.

 

[hakuzen]

I see, so it may or may not be pure silver then, but you've spoken well of this seller (CEMA) so it's unlikely with their reputation they would flat out lie.

I plan on getting 2 silver cables, one for my IEM (UM3DT) & one for my headphone (ZMF Verite open) I did previously try a NiceHCK IEM cable & a Lunashops HP cable (it's your cable 130) and they are definitely not pure silver (ofc they say it is), basically considering between your cable 174 and this red rabbit cable, hmm I do like this idea of being pure silver and single crystal frozen, it is 4 core though, I did read your intro on lower resistances and broadly follow, I still would like to ask if you feel that the 8 cores to 4 would give a sound difference for the HP specifically (zmf verite open mini XLR to XLR 4 pole) and can I say that this thread was really very helpful, after being disappointed previously (cable 130) it's great to have an explanation and recommendation on how to get the real thing, you deserve kudos for this thread, thanks man.

thank you for your appreciation.
based on my listening experience, i'm pretty sure cable 174 uses pure silver (with a bit of gold) alloy; bass is very clean and impactful, upper-mids and treble are not perceived forward (like it happens with silver plated cables), but also very clean. the difference between batches might be due to the wire manufacturer, but all of them are pure silver.
if there is a cable maker i trust in ali, it is CEMA. if they say roger rabbit cable uses 6n frozen single crystal sterling silver, i'm pretty sure they are not lying.
take an example with the first cable you linked (22AWG); title says pure silver, but you can read this in the description: "Pure silver was plated by 7n frozen OCC" (which states a plating, although the traductor is wrong, it probably means OCC copper plated by pure silver). they don't lie and usually provide decent amount of info about the wire.
so i bet you can be safe of getting silver, either with roger rabbit or 174. if you try roger rabbit, please share your impressions here; it looks interesting.

i was going to ask you for the output impedance of your sources, and if they use coupling capacitors in the output. but you are using dynamic drivers in your headphones (300ohm) and IEM (25ohm resistance, not too low), not balanced armatures. you won't notice any difference in sound between 4 and 8 cores (around 0.084ohms difference, insignificant in this case).

EDIT: and now, knowing your phones, i understand why you seek for pure silver. right choice, IMO.

 

[Hal Rockwell]

Any recommendations for impedance adapters?

 

[hakuzen]

Any recommendations for impedance adapters?

In my case, I haven't found any situation where impedance adapters are needed. I try to figure out the reason to increase output impedance (it probably exists) while I'm always seeking for the lowest possible.
I only checked impedance adapters with etymotic er4p (75ohm to "convert" to er4s) and kz zs6; one of the goals was to modify the frequency response (upper mids and highs: raising them in er4p, taming them in kz zs6, due to the impedance of the balanced armatures + crossover), but even in this case, I much prefer rolling tips, filters, or equalizing.
Another possible application of these adapters is to burn-in or measuring sources without using phones (you simulate a load of plain impedance), but you have to close the circuit after the adapter (left to ground, right to ground). I tried this kind of devices from iBasso and xDuoo (impedance adapter + closed circuit), see measurements below.

Anyway, if you are into impedance adapters, I recommend those which use a circuit of some different resistors rather than simple in serie resistors, because you get a more acceptable and fixed output impedance.

My resistance measurements of some cheap adapters in ohms.
-simple adapter (resistors in serie) (L-Gnd, R-Gnd):
generic chinese 30ohms: 19.9/19.97, 19.82/19.9
generic chinese 80ohms: 67.65/67.35, 68.7/68.35
-adapters with fixed (and lower) output impedance (L, R, L-Gnd, R-Gnd):
dunu 75(DC-21,green): 74.25, 74.9, 15, 14.97
dunu 150(DC-22,white):
dunu 200(DC-23,black): 199.8, 197.2, 15.02, 14.99
-closed circuit (load, to burn-in) (L, R):
xduoo X-L01 burn-in: 15.84/15.84 15.86/15.66
ibasso burn-in: 66, 33

So I suggest dunu ones (15ohms output impedance) over generic chinese ones. There are fancier adapters somewhere, which use audio specialized resistors and so.. more expensive surely.

 

[castleofargh]

In my case, I haven't found any situation where impedance adapters are needed. I try to figure out the reason to increase output impedance (it probably exists) while I'm always seeking for the lowest possible.
I only checked impedance adapters with etymotic er4p (75ohm to "convert" to er4s) and kz zs6; one of the goals was to modify the frequency response (upper mids and highs: raising them in er4p, taming them in kz zs6, due to the impedance of the balanced armatures + crossover), but even in this case, I much prefer rolling tips, filters, or equalizing.
Another possible application of these adapters is to burn-in or measuring sources without using phones (you simulate a load of plain impedance), but you have to close the circuit after the adapter (left to ground, right to ground). I tried this kind of devices from iBasso and xDuoo (impedance adapter + closed circuit), see measurements below.

Anyway, if you are into impedance adapters, I recommend those which use a circuit of some different resistors rather than simple in serie resistors, because you get a more acceptable and fixed output impedance.

My resistance measurements of some cheap adapters in ohms.
-simple adapter (resistors in serie) (L-Gnd, R-Gnd):
generic chinese 30ohms: 19.9/19.97, 19.82/19.9
generic chinese 80ohms: 67.65/67.35, 68.7/68.35
-adapters with fixed (and lower) output impedance (L, R, L-Gnd, R-Gnd):
dunu 75(DC-21,green): 74.25, 74.9, 15, 14.97
dunu 150(DC-22,white):
dunu 200(DC-23,black): 199.8, 197.2, 15.02, 14.99
-closed circuit (load, to burn-in) (L, R):
xduoo X-L01 burn-in: 15.84/15.84 15.86/15.66
ibasso burn-in: 66, 33

So I suggest dunu ones (15ohms output impedance) over generic chinese ones. There are fancier adapters somewhere, which use audio specialized resistors and so.. more expensive surely.

All in all, it's probably better to avoid impedance adapters. But there are cases where it's a reasonable option.
The first one requires a good deal of luck. If the impedance curve of the IEM is shaped like an EQ you'd like applied to your IEM, and the initial amp impedance is low enough to allow for a significant impact, then an adapter might end up working as a tuning solution. I personally would suggest to use an EQ if the purpose is EQ, but I've had like 3 IEMs(rare cases) where extra resistance in the cable made it sound better to me subjectively(because of the new FR!!!).
Another case is to save the amp. If the amp distorts when feeding a given power to a very low impedance IEM, chances are it's a current issue. Often enough the amp would behave better if it sees a bigger load(that would reduce the flow of current).
Similarly, if the amp's noise floor is audible with a very sensitive IEMs, in many cases, an adapter might push that noise down and you only have to turn up the volume to objectively end up with better SNR(that only works if the noise floor doesn't go up as much as the music when you turn the knob so it won't work for all background noises).

Depending on the situation, trying to remove hiss with extra impedance would also ruin the FR, or have other annoying stacking of effects. In that case it might be worth trying a bunch of values to make a voltage divider instead of just adding resistors in series. But IMO, all that is sort of rare and the solution if it exists, will tend to have to be more or less tailored to a specific need for best results. More often than not, the best answer for me is getting another amp, another IEM, or get a proper solution for EQ. Like you, I tend to prefer a strong impedance bridging and cables that have little impedance.

 

[hakuzen]

All in all, it's probably better to avoid impedance adapters. But there are cases where it's a reasonable option.
The first one requires a good deal of luck. If the impedance curve of the IEM is shaped like an EQ you'd like applied to your IEM, and the initial amp impedance is low enough to allow for a significant impact, then an adapter might end up working as a tuning solution. I personally would suggest to use an EQ if the purpose is EQ, but I've had like 3 IEMs(rare cases) where extra resistance in the cable made it sound better to me subjectively(because of the new FR!!!).
Another case is to save the amp. If the amp distorts when feeding a given power to a very low impedance IEM, chances are it's a current issue. Often enough the amp would behave better if it sees a bigger load(that would reduce the flow of current).
Similarly, if the amp's noise floor is audible with a very sensitive IEMs, in many cases, an adapter might push that noise down and you only have to turn up the volume to objectively end up with better SNR(that only works if the noise floor doesn't go up as much as the music when you turn the knob so it won't work for all background noises).

Depending on the situation, trying to remove hiss with extra impedance would also ruin the FR, or have other annoying stacking of effects. In that case it might be worth trying a bunch of values to make a voltage divider instead of just adding resistors in series. But IMO, all that is sort of rare and the solution if it exists, will tend to have to be more or less tailored to a specific need for best results. More often than not, the best answer for me is getting another amp, another IEM, or get a proper solution for EQ. Like you, I tend to prefer a strong impedance bridging and cables that have little impedance.

Thank you for enumerating the possible scenarios where an impedance adapter can be considered, master!

Respect the use for saving a low current limited amplifier (or amplifier stage of any source), I can't stand for the lack of related info from manufacturers; they usually provide some info about voltage limitations, but nothing about current limits, so you need to find for bench tests or to measure yourself. Fortunately, most amplifier stages have got overcurrent protection (the signal is clipped, but your components are safe).
Respect the use to decrease hissing, I hear you, SNR increase due to higher volume needed will be worse than the IEM hissing in most cases.
I agree with you, better to look for a suitable new amplification, or for other IEM (if you can't live with its hissing), than using an impedance adapter, because of the unwanted frequency response alteration.

 

[Hal Rockwell]

Ended up getting the JCally Impedance Sticks. All of them measure 15Ohm higher than the stated resistance value, except the 600Ohm one that has a 20Ohm bump.
400Ohm adapter has a 15Ohm channel imbalance - left channel measures 390Ohm and right 405Ohm.