 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
During the search of Belden 89259 I happened to come across below site, and I am kind of dissappointed at the low scoring on Belden 89259 DIY IC. Any comments??http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/audio-cable-shootout-part-1-12-2000.html
Follow Ups:
There are other posts below, but the cable they used is not the twisted pair, and appears to use a cheap RCA plug too. Hard to tell if they all listened to one system, or that multiple users using different systems, and just compiling data from different view points. But from my experience, I'm sold on the twisted pair products, especially with Cardas or WBT RCAs. The "Weakest Link" could be the users or makers or reference equipment they used too.
Perhaps the 89259 cable was not constructed to the purist standards that everyone expects, but perhaps some of the other cables that won out over and above were actually better. Has anyone considered that? The 89259 is expected to perform well because it is the preconceived notion in this forum. But look at the technical designs of some of the other cable in the shootout. The Straightwire Rapsody II and Maestro II which were rated higher all have construction consisting of foamed Teflon dielectrics, fine braided copper shields, polymer coated individual copper strands, and are silver soldered, similar in some respects to 89259. The Maestro II has a construction similar to the 89259 in that it is coaxial, and the Rapsody II like the twisted pair coaxial combinations that everyone raves about. I don't know about all the others because I am not about to research each and every one of them. I grant you all though, all those expensive ass cables are so overpriced, a few sets of some of them would pay for a new Porsche 996. Now you tell me, where is there more labor and technology? We're not talking about cables made of diamonds here. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors marketing to create that mystique illusion that a $100 cable is really worth $2000, so we can help make someone's house payment.
Hi there,I don't normally comment much here, but in my personal Evaluation I found Belden 89259 barely better than the cheap "goldpatch" cable from Radioshack. I found 89259 to be much closer in general sound and behaviour to that kind of cable then to the other DIY and Commercial Cables with true High End performance I tested.
I put this down squarely at the stranded construction, virtually all other cables in my test where of various "solid core" constructions, true litz or foil. I personally found RG214/Mil (stranded construction, but siverplated, Polyethylen Dielectric) to sound substantially better than Belden 89259, finding it to lack the ragged and distorted sound of stranded copper.
So the result in this test do not surprise me at all.
This is not meant as critism of Jon Risch's work, but rather as an illustration of just how different cables react to both system context and the listeners themselves. The "stranded copper" distotion I'm going on about for examples disappears beneath that caused by CD's oversampling Filters and typhical "Lin" Topology Solid State Amplifers (regarless of Calss A operation or not). If Jon Rischs evaluation used conventional CD Sources and conventional Solid State Amplifiers then I'm not surprised at his findings either.
Later T
Thorsten - Which recipe did you make? There's the single 89259 version, twisted 89259 version and then the 89259/89248 twisted version.Sean H
Not to start a flame war or anything, but if you weren't surprised then perhaps you're clinging to preconceived notions.Then again lots of folks like audioquest but I aint one of them.
Peace
RC
Did you mean to reply to a post from Thorsten?? I'm confused at what I said that promted a response like this??Sean H
my bad, dude.I can be a raving loony sometimes.
Hi,My original comparison was just plain 89259 with high quality RCA Plugs. I later made some other variants, including a twisted pair using only solid core belden sounded better as the mixed one, but still, non of the stuff I made based on Jon's recipies really convinced me in my system as being worth the effort, compared to some other options (like DIY XLO). Yet, as remarked, in other system the result may vary.
Later T
We'd all like an edge up, and if the difference is that large and the costs reasonable or better, share it with us.Enjoy,
Bob
I think this is the one that Thorsten prefers or at least one of them. I don't know what his latest iterations are. You might want to check the other cables at the site. But you will see that they are his own design. It would seem like everyone else with their own design, like Chris, Thorsten, and Jon, there is definitely a designer bias to their own designs. Not to take anything away from them, this is only natural and human.
I doubt they used Jon's recommended design of two cores twisted around each other. I suspect they just used the raw coaxial cable and terminated with RCA's.
Stock Belden 89259 is very sensitive to the quality of the RCA plugs, I have had e-mail after e-mail about this, with RS plugs making the cable sound broken, and Cardas and other fine plugs allowing the cable to perform up to a high standard. Folks who complained about the sound would replace the cheap plugs, and then experience much better sound using the cables.The picture of the 89259 in the test does seem to show a cheap RCA.
Not knowing any more details of the tests other than what is posted at this site, there are several observations to make:
This was a European listening panel, which may not accurately represent the same kinds of preferrences as Americans (companies that operate worldwide often voice their products differently for the US, Europe, and Asia).
They certainly seemed enamored of the Canadian cables.
They also seemed to prefer the expensive cables. Even though the test did not reveal the prices or specs, one would only have to look at the 89259 to see the markings. Other expensive cables would have a very nice looking appearance.
----------------------------I do know that even on an absolute scale of sonic quality, the stock 89259 is not a "bad" cable, and sounds much better than any OEM freebie, as well as most all entry level aftermarket IC's.
One thing to keep in mind is that the 89259 stock coax is not an overly forgiving cable, if the system is a bit on the rough sidel, it will show this up, and not smooth it over or warm the sound up to compensate. Most people appreciate a neutral and accurate IC, but some have come to regard them as just another tone control, and seek out "warm" or "smooth" sounding cables to help control a bright system.
Yes, the twisted pair design sounds better, but not by a huge margin, not say "twice as good", in fact, on an absolute scale, no cable I know of sounds "twice as good" as stock 89259, there just are not that kind of huge differences once we get tot he level of performance acheived here.
One only has to do a search here on the Asylum to see all the positive reviews of 89259 in it's various incarnations.
Jon Risch
Hi,Does that mean that adding the 89259 to the signal chain suddenly "reveals" distortion previously masked by nothing? I don't think so somehow. No, the rough sound IS THE 89259. If it sounds smooth then it is because the system losses detail and smoothes over this tendency, not the other way around.
Still, for the money and as a first thing to try it ain't a bad cable. But it also is not one I'd tolerate anywhere in my system.
But we had this discussion before, so I'll can it.
Later T
Ok Thorsten,Then where do we go from the Belden cables? What is the incremental cost? And is it something that you only benefit from if the rest of the system is up to the task? Is it worth spending several $K on cables when you can not afford that single ended class A?
dee
;-D
We have been down this road before, see:http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/17504.html
and related responses.only then it was with the CC89259. I do not wish to quarrel with Thorsten, but I feel that his comments need to be taken in the proper context.
As I said then, I think that it helps for others reading this to put Thorsten's comments in perspective, since he is very much a perfectionist, and speaks in absolute terms. He also is dead set against the use of stranded conductors in audio cables, and the possibility for some sort of bias is certainly there. We have discussed this in the past as well.
He has stated before that he feels that typical CD playback is completely unacceptable for evaluation of audio components due to severe quality limitations, and so for those out there that "only" have a CD player, it is unlikely that you would notice the very subtle and minute aspects that Thorsten speaks in terms of as major sonic aspects with respect to sonic perfection. These are his own words, seen at:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/27078.htmlAs for myself, I use many different methods to evaluate audio components. As a practicing engineer, I take many highly refined and sophisticated measurements in order to understand what the component is doing electrically. I use many different sources, such as CD, vinyl, my own recordings (consisting of some open reel tapes, digital to hard disc recordings burned to CD-R, etc.) as well as live microphone feeds. Equipment runs the gamut from SS to tube, homebuilt to modified consumer, and represents a fairly high level of playback performance. Numerous tweaks have been applied to the system, so I have what I (and many others) consider to be a well balanced playback system with excellent resolving power.
In evaluating components that I post about, including DIY cables, I usualy will not just rely on my own system, but check things out on other systems, and get input and feedback from some audio buddies that I visit/correspond with.
I think that I can say unequivocally and some degree of certainty that the kinds of sonic differences that audio cables possess are definitley of a magnitude far less than those of loudspeaker systems. Yet reading Thorsten's post might lead one to believe other wise.
All thing are relative, and unless you knwo the particular scale of the person who is posting, it can be confusing sometimes.When I post about component sonics, I try not to get too far away from a reasonable degree of how much things are stated to affect the sound, keeping in mind that speakers and acoustics are quite a bit more of an influence than other components, and so on down the line. My posted stance on cable sonics has always been that the differences, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM, are more of the order of a subtle nature, rather than the night and day types of comments that we sometimes hear (and no, this is not aimed at Thorsten, many others tend toward this kind of description about subtle aspects of audio). To me, speaker differences are night and day, cables are the difference between early afternoon, and late afternoon.
There is also no doubt that Belden 89259 in stock coaxial form has provided many DIYers with a decent quality IC that outperforms OEM freebies, and many of the entry level aftermarket retail cables out there. The twisted pair 89259/89248 cores take it to yet another level of performance, but still not night and day.
I hope that no one is discouraged from trying the various DIY recipes out there, including the various 89259 based recipes, as they represent excellent value for the money, and provide a baseline to work from if seeking more advanced performance in the future.
Jon Risch
where I part company with you is when you ascribe a certain sund to "being revealed" by 89259 when in my experience the fact is that what you hear is the distortion CAUSED by the stranded nature of the 89259 being revealed by a revealing system.That's all. I honestly do respect your work and part of my trials (and errors) with DIY cables where strongly influenced by you. I only object in general to the overhyping of a fairly mediocre (in the ABSOLUTE scheme of things) wire, namely Belden 89259.
I have seen regulary comments claiming that "nothing better" and such, not claims by you I might add. Still, while 89259 might be a nice step up from generic wire, it is from where I stand on one of the bottom rows of a fairly tall ladder.
And considering the work required for the twisted pairs (I remember now - I found two pairs I made up ages ago - one solid solid and the other per your instructions - listened again and still did not like what I heard) I feel that there is better sound to be had for that kind of work.
Ciao T
This shouldn't stand out so much but it is such a contrast with what you see in so many public forums everyday.I think it is also instructive of how much controversy there is in high-end audio. Here we have two respected individuals who honestly disagree on a few matters. Never seen that before. (sarcasm)
I think it points toward the need for everyone to make decisions about how/what they feel about a particular product or technology on their own merits. The Internet has encouraged people to seek out one or another "expert" opinion on a topic to decide what is the "best" product to buy. I would hope that the people in the industry would take the high road on this and discourage "best" and talk more about relative quality and subjective differences. I think Doc Bottlehead is a good example of this. He never slams another product and is always careful to explain that personal preferences are a big part of what is "best".
Thanks Jon and Thorsten for the civilized debate.
Hey jon,
no need to explain yourself, the number of people using your cables and the popularity of it around the world proves itself!
br
Wilks :)
Have you tried the 89259/89248 recipe? This is the one I have where the 89248, 18 gauge solid copper is used for the hot connection and then the 89259 for the return. Twisted with no shield. Sounds excellent to me.Sean H
Hi,Yes, I recently went through all my stuff and fund two pairs of cables I made up. One was exactly as you decribed. I tried them (again) and removed them quickly. Sorry.
If you like what you hear great. But keep trying.
Later T
> Yes, the twisted pair design sounds better, but not by a huge
> margin, not say "twice as good", in fact, on an absolute scale,
> no cable I know of sounds "twice as good" as stock 89259,
> there just are not that kind of huge differences once we get to
> the level of performance acheived here.So right. No, I have not heard the mega buck cables, but I take Jon's word for it. Once I heard the 89259/89248 twisted pair I was sold. It's a no brainer. Done deal. Make the twisted pair and you are done. They are fantastic. Some sort of $300+ silver cable, or even cheaper let's say, might give you more inner detail but it I'd be hard pressed to believe it has the sheer "rightness" and "correctness" of this cable. Period.
There, I said it.
Sean H
Hello Jon,
How are the Canare RCAs used with the 89259? Are the Canares a bit better than the RS, and how are they (canares) rated among audiophiles ??P.S, the RCAs looked like HK$5pair, also, didnt mention whether the cables had been burned in.
thanks & B.R
Wilks
The Canare's do sound better than the RS plugs, and overall, they sound pretty good. However, and this is my opinion, the one's I have heard have not been quite as good as the Cardas or WBT RCA's I have heard.Jon Risch
I think they are a very nice overall RCA. I use the Canare F-10 connectors. It has a teflon dielectric (the F-09 use polyacetal), and a nice nickel plated body shell that can accommodate small to large cables via the use or non use of the nickel plated strain relief. The gold plated plug though does not have the grip of death on connection - just regular. I don't know if that's good or bad or if that even affects the sound, but I couldn't tell. As for practical use, this may be good or bad depending on the diameter of the RCA jacks on your equipment. They are perfect for the jacks of my Sony ES cd player, but a slight bit loose on my Kenwood THX processor. I have a older set of Audioquest cables that gripped so tight, it ripped the jack off my equipment. The Canare's may have been designed that way on purpose to have reasonable release for pro sound studios ect. I also use Canare's RCAP-C4F 75 ohm RCA plugs for all my video cables which I think are the best for video and I think will work execellent for audio also. The plug uses several internal spring pressure type fingers which provide multiple points of good jack contact, while having easy release. The plug is a crimp type plug, the outer shield of your cable can only be crimped on, so use some Caig Pro Gold on your wire prior to crimping, however this will provide a perfect coaxial termination.
Thanks,I'm just worried that PROGOLD will gum up in about a few months, and especially with the CANARE 5CF, they are not that fun to take apart to clean & rewire.
I've got 3 cans coming my way!!!Last night I changed the RCAs of my DVD Digital Coax from 'Emeralds' (Made in USA) to the CANARE 5CF - I used the Audioquest VSD4 digital (18AWG solid silver core) . Listened to a new CD, the sound was a 200% turnaround! - didnt know whether the CD was good or results of the RCA. will check again tonight.
as used in KCAG? This is the only good RCA I can use for IC connecting signal sources to a vintage amp with a tight space between the L & R channel input.Kenneth Chan
It sounds like they used the simple 89259 cable. I thought Jon Risch's 89259/89248 recipe to be far better. But then again the simple cable had cheap jacks, the 89259/89248 has Cardas. Anyway I'm never going to buy a commercial cable again :-)
This cable stuff is a marketing business. They can't make the product better, because the truth of the matter is a coat hanger will do the
job.So If you don't pay the piper you get slammed. If you don't advertise in this 'phile' or that 'phile' you don't get reviewed.
Heck I can design and build cables that I can't distinguish from cables costing thousands of dollars. And I'm just a shmuck. So you have got to have clever marketing skills to peddle your wares. This cable business never ceases to amaze me.
You know Cut-Throat, I have somewhat started to share your sentiment about cables. I'm a firm believer in cables- IC's, speaker cables, power cords, in that they DO make a difference and sound different. There's no question there in my mind. But, all of my current cabling is home brewed and it's better than any cables I have ever owned. But, then again I haven't owned the mega buck stuff, then again never will because it seems ludicrous to me. I guess I have owned cables that aren't what one might call "cheap" too. More power to the people who have the mega buck stuff, that's there prerogative. I'm a newbie to DIY cables and I'm just floored at what you can make for literally next to nothing. I'm talking good stuff, really good stuff, not just "better than zip cord" stuff.Sean H
(nt)
nt
I'm just echoing Corbett's comments in that we have no idea which type of 89259 style IC's they made?? Bound to be QUITE the difference from say a straight 89259 IC and a 89259/89248 twisted hybrid IC. Did they use a shield? How was eveything connected? Who knows.Sean H
It's a shame this review is not written in any form of deciferable english.They state: "cable quality cannot be objectively evaluated", which indicates a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of cable design.
Some of the conclusions, such as "symmetrical cable is usually terminated with XLR connectors " are simply not true.
As for the testing, I can't say that I agree with the proposition that you can take a range of untrained listeners with a large variety of mostly non-reference-standard systems and derive any solid conclusions from this. Many of these components and speaker cables are highly suspect and will likely change the results dramatically, particularly some of the amplifiers and CD players. The Denon DCD 1800 and it's problems with certain cables reinforces this assertion. It may be that the winning cables actually modified the sound of sub-standard components to make them sound better somehow. I have been lead down the garden path by cables that created a lot of resonant ringing myself. The effect is similar to that of the pleasant distortion harmonics that are created by some tube amplifiers. This is why is is critical to have the right program material with trained listeners.
A more accurate test would be to use a known reference system and play music with subtle vocals and percussion etc. The better cable will be the one that would allow every listener to hear and recognize these subtleties. Also, non-music noises such as running water and percussion should be used, so the recording venue and mixing etc.. is less of a factor. The cable that makes these sounds more natural and lifelike will be the winner. Another measure could be the subjective depth and width of the soundstage on certain recordings. Particular tracks on known-good recordings should be specified, not just the disk. There is simply too much program material used in this test.
My own experience is that as cables are improved, more and more detail can be heard and more lyrics easily understood. The soundstage also gets deeper and wider on good live recordings.
I've never heard people say that lyric intelligibility was increased with cabling changes before, but it is just that which drives much of my tweakaholic tendencies! Glad to hear I'm not alone, or nuts. On that point anyway.
That's what sold me on cables. I could understand what James was yelling on Kill 'Em All. That and I heard Lars using more than one cymbal!
The type of RCA connectors, solder and quality of construction of the overall 89259-based interconnect are notably absent.I can't help but think of the guy who confused instructions between two different cable designs and left one end of the outer shield unconnected with the basic 89259 design, i.e., there was no return path through the coax. Who knows what those amateur testers did wrong?
I've built a practice set of basic 89259 interconnects using RCA connectors from RS and they're quite good nonetheless...at just $19 a pair. I'm building interconnects with Cardas plugs shortly, and I'm sure they'll be even better.
I looked over the results and looked at the picture of the connectors and it appears to me that two highest rated cables used Cardas (it looks like the SRCA model) and "real" WBT RCA plugs...conversely, the Belden cable looks like it uses some cheeseball RCA's that I can buy locally for 88 cents each...they sound like they cost all of that 88 cents, too!I have made identical copies of cables but used different RCA plugs and there has been distinct differences in the sound....
Too bad the picture showing the connectors was so tiny and it doesn't seem to me that they included the PAD cable's plug....I would have liked to see if the "E" connector was a real WBT or one of the clones...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
