The inter connects that are supplied with the Biketronics kits are extremely stiff and make you really think of the placement of the line levelers/rca connections and routing to keep from putting a side load or any binding on the connection when using them

 

The LL mounts to the Amp plate pretty easily with the BT RCAs. It worked for me. To each his/her own..

 

There are about 500 pages of RCA discussions. Check em out.

Used the BT RCAs for about a week.

U r indeed correct, to each his/her own regarding the details associated with elevating ur audio.

T.

 

I agree the Krystal's look to be better quality then the Stinger 4000 series particularly where the grip on. Once the 4000's get loose squeezing the cheap tabs makes no difference. Now if like most just install them and forget them they will be ok. The flexibility issue has a lot to do with how much room is available under the fairing after everything is installed.

 

================================================== ===========

Hi All,

I have always tried to use measurement data to back up both theoretical calculations as well as subjective observations. Making statements and claims without facts seems a possible waste of time. (Unless you are a Politician.) We are blessed to have an amazing instrument in our lab from Audio Precision, a world renowned company based in Beaverton Oregon where they also make their instruments. In the audio world, it is rare that you will find any argument with results from an AP - they make the best audio analyzers - bar none.

(Open invitation to members: If you would like us to measure one of your parts, please contact us to arrange. We will do our best to accommodate your request.)

I have been reading here about different RCA cables and I wanted to show how the ones we supply with our products stack up. There have been remarks about physical properties as well as electrical performance.

The essence of these measurement-backed findings are as follows:

1) Physically stiff cables generally have better shielding.
2) Be careful assessing what you read on the package of the cable.

Frequency response was measured at one (1.0) volt RMS input level, as well as the Crosstalk at the same level. One cable driven, the other cable quiet. I also looked at the noise response of the cable with each end terminated. The cable we include in our kits and one of the popular cables mentioned on this forum were analyzed. I have attached a pdf that shows five (5) figures. Figure 1a and 1b show the response of both channels of each cable in dBV and in RMS volts. Figure 2a and 2b show noise performance. Figure 3 shows a response chart on the package of the popular RCA cable.

So if you look at fig 1b it shows about 0.9925 volts RMS across the band and rolls off around 30 kHz. (The cable we use are the top two traces in both Fig 1a and 1b) No surprise - there is not much difference. Overall about a 3 mV (0.003 volt) difference in the audio band from the highest to the lowest trace. Put 1.0 volt RMS into one end of the cable and get out 0.9925 volts RMS out of the other.

Figure 2a and 2b show the noise performance of the cable (as well as the incredible measurement performance of the AP.) The plots show frequency on the horizontal axis and noise signal in dBV on the vertical axis. (The funny low frequency response under about ten (10) Hz is due to a mathematical operation used to convert voltage measured over time to levels over frequency and can be ignored.)

Notice how the unshielded cable (fig 2a) is susceptible to noise and how much quieter the shielded cable is (fig 2b.) In either case the levels are quite low (-140 dBV = 100 nV, or 0.0000001 volt. Even out of your amp at 40X gain (1nV X 40 = 0.000004 volts) - you are likely not going to notice.

There is no chart for Crosstalk. Crosstalk is the amount of signal from one channel that bleeds into other channels. So on the AP, you drive one channel (in this case with one volt RMS) and listen on the other channel. Our cable had better than -135 dBV from 1kHz to 20 kHz. The other cable had better than -81 dBV over the same band. Now -81 dBV is about 0.000089 volts RMS bleeding from the driven 1V channel over to the quiet channel.

What does all this mean? There is not much difference between the two cables measured - at least not that you are going to hear at interstate speeds with chainsaw ambient noise. Sometimes we worry too much.

Finally, look at fig 3, the chart found on a popular cables box. It says “Increased Frequency Response.” Huh? They show that compared to a “typical interconnect” that they have more high end response. Why would we want that? Hopefully we can all see through the hype and nonsense the cable and wire industry sometimes tries to promote.

Anyway my two cents - with measurement data.


Regards,

-MM

 

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to do RCA testing.

 

Very good info Mike!!! Thanks!

If u take all the .00003 info out of the equation, it still comes down to flex for me as I don't think ants could get to a crumb of cheese on my sled if u set the crumb of cheese on top of the amp with the fairing on. The side load on the BT RCAs was a bunch more than I was comfortable with, and this feedback seems to be fairly consistent.

So as consumer feedback, most of us average Joes all understand the chainsaw noise factor rolling down the road but the install flex seems to be the closest alligator to the boat for most.

T.

 

T,

Noted. Were looking into flex.


-MM

 

The results of the test would mean more to me if I knew what cable you were testing, compared to your cable! How many quality cables have you tested against your cable, and the differences between said cables. Picking out one "cable that is popular here" doesn't really tell me much, as I am sure even some well know quality cable company's lower end cables are not all that great! One Knukonceptz cable recently discussed here is their Krystal cable which is triple shielded and really quite flexible for about $9 for 1.5 m, for example. Any way I realize that you probably can not say what cable you used for comparison because of legal reasons! The results would mean more to me if I knew how many quality cables you had tested, and if more than 1, what the results of those tests showed! While I appreciate the test results Mike, I am also wondering if you used a cable that didn't test well to prove your point, or perhaps ALL quality cables under perform and are a waste of money since you can't hear the difference at speed! I think this is a good STARTING POINT for the discussion "do RCA cables really make a difference"! I wish there was a good article where a bunch of RCA comparisons were shown, with results showing the best bang for the buck!! Also who makes your RCA Mike!!

 

Moto Mike: I agree more cables you be nice and enable us to get the best bang for the buck.

A couple of points this data shows is one brand/series of cable we have been recommending here on the forum is actually of less quality then the cables BT supplies in this testing. See hint below.
The other is the BT cables are not junk as have been suggested in this forum.

The main reasons I swapped cable was for flexibility as T mentioned.
The other reason is the BT cables don't fully seat into the opening on the Line Levelers like they do on the BT amp. The opening in the LL case is to small and some don't line up well. IIRC this is what brought the RCA discussion up in the first place.

I have a BT LOC on the shelf and tried four different cables.
The BT does not fully seat.
The Krystal Kable seats further but does not fully seat.
The Stinger and NVX seat all the way but do no grip as well.

On the BT amp the Krystal Kable grips the best. The BT cable grips almost as well. Both these cable are new and never used.

If a amp or HU has a female RCA jack protruding fitment should not be an issue, just how well the cable grips.