Measurements and conclusion
Contents
We did a few measurements on the cables. First, the “standard measurements” on the Sourcetronic LCR. Think: capacitance, inductance, impedance and conductance. Also, to look a little deeper, we measured propagation variation and noise behavior on the Tektronix scope. Please know that propagation variation is very difficult to measure properly, since it is partly a manual process…. so those values are not absolute, but an approximation.
Measurements Dyrholm Phoenix
The Dyrholm Phoenix falls in between the Kimber and OePhi in terms of noise. This makes sense given its structure and LCR scores. It’s not the quietest, but it’s also not the most “noisy” cable. That’s kind of how we experienced it in the listening test.
In terms of propagation variation we see very good scores. Better than the OePhi even. This is remarkable because the capacitance is higher. We see 11.88ns at 1V, 11.92ns at 2V and 11.84ns at 2.5V. That’s only 40ps both ways so 80ps total. Neat score: we rarely see it that good.
LCR measurements Dyrholm Phoenix
We see no weird scores in these measurements. The Dyrholm Phoenix is nicely balanced. Capacitance is fine under control with 150 pF on average. Conductance is decent at about 55 Siemens and inductance is fine with an average of 1.3 uH. This results in a neat impedance that is a minimum of 18 mOhm and a maximum of 2.2 ohms.
Measurements OePhi Reference
The OePhi is not a very “quiet” cable. We hear that, too. The advantage is that the character is energetic AND that it is a cable rich in detail, although we do not know if there is a real connection there. It did stand out during the listening test. The difference in detail between the Kimber and OePhi is huge. The Kimber shows less in the quieter parts.
In terms of propagation variation, the OePhi scores well, which is not surprising given its insanely low capacitance. We see 10.36ns at 1V, 10.56 at 2V and 10.68 at 2.5V. Those are small steps. Between 1V and 2.5V, we see 330ps difference, which is negligible. Neatly done.
LCR measurements OePhi Reference
The OePhi is not a monster when it comes to conductivity. 27 Siemens is just not very much and that in turn manifests itself in a fairly high impedance. 37 mOhm and a maximum of even 5.45. This is due to the high inductance of 3 uH. Capacitance again is insanely low at 24pF. A bit of a wacky cable measurement-wise.
Measurements Kimber Kable Carbon 18XL
What becomes immediately apparent is how quiet this Kimber is. And that is actually true of all Kimbers. This is obviously due to the geometry of the cable. One disadvantage of this geometry is the very high capacitance (see below). High capacitance also leads to large propagation variation, as we now know from the large cable test. We see a step from 27.9ns at 1V (which is already on the slow side) to 28.8 ns at 2V and finally 28.5ns at 2.5V. That’s almost a 1ns variation between 1V and 2V. That is a lot…
LCR measurements Kimber Carbon 18XL
This Kimber is a bit of a mystery cable. Conduction (converted to 2.5M) is not super high at 45 Siemens. However, Kimber has managed to keep inductance very low, so this cable does not peak very high in terms of impedance, which is favorable for coloration. We see a minimum of 22 mOhm and a maximum of only 1.35 Ohms at 300 KHz. This makes the cable quite constant over a wide bandwith. Capacitance, however, is particularly high at (converted to 2.5 meters) 1411 pF.
Comparison
We have made an overview of all cables for your convenience. In it we see – not entirely surprisingly – a clear relationship between conductance, inductance and impedance. Interestingly, the Kimber has a lower maximum impedance than the Dyrholm, while the Dyrholm has a higher conductance. However, the inductance of the Kimber is much lower, thus resulting in a lower maximum impedance (at higher frequencies). The OePhi confirms this picture with a very high maximum impedance and thus also a high inductance. So the high bandwith OePhi claims is not entirely true.
On average – we think – the Dyrholm has found the best balance when it comes to capacitance, inductance and impedance. We estimate that if Dyrholm did not use Rhodium plugs, this cable would sound even better than it does now.
Measurement on speaker
It is very nice to see the warmth of the OePhi reflected in this measurement. However subtle the differences are in reality (we are talking about tenths of dBs). The Dyrholm measures the tightest up to just over 10 KHz. After that the Kimber passes it, which is true if we look at the impedance (and also sound for that matter: the Kimber sounds undoubtedly fresher and more open than the Dyrholm). What is striking, however, is that a Supra entry-level cable simply comes out better than the OePhi in this measurement…. We are talking purely about frequency response of course. In terms of timing and propagation variation, the OePhi goes a lot further.
Measured values are per meter or for the full 2.5m length?
2.5m
Hi Tobias, Thanks for your kind suggestions and your appreciative words.. I can’t promise when or where, but I will try to experiment with it, let’s call it an A-B test.
Wait and see!
As always i love reading your tests and value your opinions on everything you compare!
This is just a small suggestion, that i hope you are not offended by.
When testing things like cables, switches and power, have you thought about replacing phrases like “How do they sound” with “How do they influence this setup to sound”?
It might sound like a small nit picking, and maybe it is, but i truly believe that many of your readers that often might be sceptic are going to be even more sceptic when someone says that a cable has a certain sound. Isn´t it so that the cable only influences other parts of the system downstream to behave/react different and change the sound in components after the cable/switch/power. That could potentially mean that the same cable could “sound” different in another system, meaning that it doesn´t have a sound, as such? I actually think it will make a big difference what wording you use, from an educational perspective.
Hi Tobias,
Thanks for reaching out.
You are absolutely right in your assertion that a component’s sonic presentation is related to its match in the audio chain. That’s why we always mention the review setup.
In our livestreams and reviews we always mention that what we hear, doesn’t necessarily mean it sounds the same in your system. Everything is relative and so are our and your experiences. In writing and in videos we try to share what we hear with you, our audience. That doesn’t mean that this is THE truth.
We entice you to let your ears do the talking. To not take a brand’s claim for granted. To not take our view for granted. Our measurements are an additional service that (sometimes) clarifies what we hear or where the differences in sound come from. I really don’t think that a semantic change, as you so kindly suggest, would make much of a difference. If people are sceptic, let them be sceptic. We enjoy what we do and we enjoy the beautiful music and feel privileged to share our experiences.
For me (and my others i suspect) the semantic would have made a very big difference initially in my journey. The general HiFi press semantic delayed my understanding just because i didn´t even try to listen due to the wordings used. I think you where actually the ones that where much better than others in articulating this in a better way than others so that I started to listen. So, you are obviously already doing a great job already! But when you get into this hobby and you have a computer background, as many now a day´s have, then you won´t even try to understand if someone say “this switch sound…” or “the cable sound…”. As i said, I know you are very careful and good at explaining already now, like you just said, which is great. But i actually think the devil is in the details here.
Wording won’t convince skeptics. We don’t try to convince people, not our mission in life. There are much nicer things to put your energy into.
Ok, i put it badly. What i am trying to say is that you are standing out in the HiFi press as someone you can trust, due to the way you work and how you approach HiFi. If you want even more readers/consumers, which i assume is the whole point with journalism, then i think these things matter to get peoples attention. People are not deniers because they want to, they really need some help, and easy one-liners, to understand and many are not going to dig into a long article if you see simple wordings, like headlines, that put you off, i believe.
I´m not gonna ramble more here, and i might be wrong! i just want to share my honest opinion since i love what you do.