What Paul is trying to say is that expensive underpants are much better at preventing your bits falling out than cheap underpants. Buy good underpants!

Sorry to say Paul but you only described why your transport interface is the best not how some digital cables are better than others. There is always a buffer on the end receiving the packets, timing for playback is the responsibility of the playback device not on the transmission cable.

I'll share my experience(s) with two projects I was involved with. I was a new kid Engineer. We constructed two data collection, not control, systems based on bascially the same hardware. Figure a central computer then distributed data collection points ( NEMA 12 Boxes ). The collection points feed their data back to the central computer via RS-232 digital cables. Some cables with rebroadcast extenders. The collection boxes could receive and resend data. The data was live data constantly changing. The two applications were oil & gasoline distribution tank farm terminals and a single Nuclear Power station. Both wildly electrically noisy. The kid engineer, me, got sent to a new start-up in Santa Clara to get smartened up on two new IC Chips. One a processor, the other an ASYNC chip to interface to the interconnecting RS-232 cables. The ASYNC chip featured a double buffer at both ends. So the incoming digital signal was re-clocked twice. There was zero, none, zippo, nada, jitter or any other such nonsense in the received data, after the buffers. Time frame: 1972 - 1975 Company I worked for: General Atomics ( ga.com ) Customer 1: Gulf & Shell Oil Customer 2: The Nuclear power plant will go unnamed Chip builder: Intel Corp. We moved jitter free, timing error free, perfect digital information over cables in horrific electrical noise environ nearly 50-years ago.

So you're saying that a file streamed over the internet, that has travelled through several server rooms, satellites, cables, etc gets transmitted faithfully without any noise or jitter, but it's just that one digital cable in my audio system that introduces noise?

I've been watching the back catalog of "ask Paul" videos and I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that many of the "snake oil" issues stem directly from deficiencies in the designs of the electronics. Do you need a power plant? Yes -- because the power supplies provided with the equipment do not sufficiently regulate the power rails. Do you need a ridiculously expensive USB cable? Yes -- because the DAC does not sufficiently isolate the input to prevent noise from coming through the USB input. The result is a klugde that is treating the disease rather than curing it. I would rather pay more for equipment that does the job right in the first place then spend money on expensive bandaids to fix equipment that is fundamentally broken.

It feels like he said it once, and now he can't stop going

Imperfection and instability of perception of the human auditory system - this is what "distinguishes" the sound of digital cables.

Absolutely love your "elabs" on audio in general & specific ! Thnx & grtz from The Netherlands

can I use 3+2 RCA cable, designed for audio/video set up, for my stereo sound system? the cable will connect equalizer with stereo amplifier.

Use great cables but don't pay snake oil margins for them...too many US$10 (FOB China) cables are sold at insane margins with some branding sticker on them.

Paul should record the video explaining level of different differences (😄) For example if he talks about: - room and imaging, it will be 20% of success to theoretically perfect stereo sound - Speakers 75% (can be noticed by everyone) - Analog cables 4.95% (can be noticed by half of listeners on their real systems) - Digital cables 0.05 % (can be noticed by 1% of this video audience on their real systems) So everyone will be aware that when he says HUUGE difference between digital cables it is within mentioned 0.05%... Like from 0.05 to 0.01 (five times, really huge!) I am guessing the numbers but you got the idea. Because now it seems a lot of people think everyone can notice this HUGE difference, but they are not -> so it is only Paul's fantasy. If you have read till this row and you know there is such video already published, please share it with me. Thanks :)

I wear pants that contain my bits.

The person ask how, in digital domain, cables makes a difference and the answer is isolating the analogue section of a DAC made a huge improvement during the design. Okay sure so the difference is not the digital cable. The problem is probably that the good sounding digital cable sound exactly the same as the bad sounding cable and bias play a huge role in what one expect to hear. My question to you would be : why does audiophiles think a properly engineered component is sensitive to the cables connected to it and why it's not the total opposite ?

Does it go through the "aether", as in ethernet, at all? Is it all cable?

ps audio amps or parasound???? amir from audiosincereview inspired u to make this video paul?

Are you going to offer an upgrade pack with the next transport in the same manner that you did with the Perfect Wave DAC to Directstream DAC Paul? I have the original Perfectwave Transport, the upgraded Perfectwave DAC to Directstream, BHK 300's and the P10.

Wow, didn't expect my question to actually get answered :P In any case... Noise... Yeah I can see why that would be an issue. Thanks so much Paul! Funny, I submitted a second question just a few days ago. - Remy

that's what jitter buffer is for. the bits are written at the source speed + src jitter + network jitter, etc. The bits are read out at the internal clk speed (and with internal clk jitter). over/underflow control is a different issue and taken care of separately, depending on the particulars. youtube players usually buffer a few seconds of video/audio before they start playing anything. btw, if you count on the src being jitter-free, you'd better choose a non-engineering profession.

I constantly hear how noise from the ethernet cable is transmitted through the expensive streamers/DACs, but this should be very minor. Once the bits are buffered from the network. The actual digital audio throughput requirements from the buffer to the DAC are so low that a simple 2$ optic coupler for data paired with a 3$ integrated isolating power supply will easily kill even that noise, so there isn't any excuse that a network cable or switch should change the audio sound coming from an even moderately designed streamer/DAC. (I design sensitive medical and industrial equipment) EDIT: Paul is saying a similar message, but I just wanted to point out how cheap and easy it is to fully isolate the digital signal, so there is no excuse that an expensive streamer should have differences due to cable/switch.

I'm a big fan of this channel, but "bits having jitter"? Either the data is exactly the same and then I can't understand hearing a difference or the jitter means the dat is somewhat corrupted. In any case, I didn't understand the explanation.

Hi Paul, Will there be an Audible version of your book “The Audiophile’s Guide” ? All the very best from Dublin, Ireland. Michael Buttimer.

BGP pathing over the Internet is pretty consistent. Packets can take different paths if something fairly extraordinary happens but in normal transmission, packets tend to take the same path.

"Look Paul, I ain't got no wires!" .Informative and entertaining as always.☺

Great explanation! Another discussion point / question is? Why if I Rip a cd on my home pc versus my audio server each file sounds different when I play them both back on my system? Audio Server rip being the better sound quality? What’s going on there?

The data will travel around the world bit perfect, the only place it will fuck up is at the cable and dac you are using.

I think the writer of the question got a good laugh from the answer given.

Where I use ACM Link from my PC sound card

I am not a computer engineer nor electrical, nor audio expert, but here you have one bit: 0 or 1. Can someone explain to me where is the noise and jitter in this bit? Perhaps I didn't understand the Pauls' answer, but it seemed for me he essentially said - there is no difference in data transmission and any competent digital cable (e.g. TOSLINK) will do it's work. However, it is DACs and output stage combination that matters. This seems to me legit, however, question was about cable... :) Keep up the good work, Paul! Cheers!

Hi Paul; I wish all of you are doing well. Or is it that I did miss some of the bits or are there ‘galvanically isolated’ digital audio cables out there too? Thanks in advance 'n blessings for y'all. Please stay safe guys 👍🙏👍!!!.

I'm also an IT guy Paul, been doing it professionally for almost 25 years. Even if the damn music source is digital and even if it went around the world twice, in order for your ears to hear it, it will have to go thru a Digital to Analog converter, correct? Yes, so the cables don't care, but your ears will.... Digital, unless previously degraded will be 100% perfect with relation to the type of source file it is. So what you get is what you get, whether it be an mp3 or a FLAC file, all has to be converted to analog.

A truly gentlemans response.

This answer is not about digital cable, but about transmitting and receiving electronics.

Lol! Paul, I've been watching you for about three years, and every time I hear something that I'm not sure of, or someone else says something that makes me shake my head, my imaginations always send my minds eye a cut of THE WIZARD OF OZ". And I see one of the Munchkins and one( it must be me, because I always look for someone smarter than me for help) of them get the rest of the Munchkins attention and says " Let's go to the great and powerful Oz, he'll know what's what!" And, I smile to myself and go to PS audio on Utube, and see what the all great and all powerful Paul has to say, And, Paul, you've never let me down. Paul the great and...lol 👍 thanks again, the best to family and the PS audio family too.

The cable never touches the other end of your connector, so if radio emissions from your cable _outside your unit_ interferes with the analogue signal path, that is a pretty serious flaw. And if you don't design for crappy cables and source clocks and re-clock your (buffered) signal to correct for errors, resends and jitter, that is bad too. You always need to design for everything being very non-ideal outside your unit. That is also why a lot of DACs these days dictate the sample clock, so that they can basically fix "all" timing problems with a little buffering. SPIF doesn't understand this, but most modern connects do.

Thank You.

Hi Paul My question is sensitivity (SPL) is one of the most important parameter for HiFi loudspeakers in the Home Theater.Should (Must) have the same level dB (SPL) of sensitivity. Is it true? or What would you recomend? I enjoy your videos. It is amazing how you find the best way to explain complex topics, with simplest words. Thanks in advance Ignacio Martínez Monterrey México

No explanation here. What is noise?

Mr. Paul, Another great easy to understand video. I appreciate you very much. Thanks. Also, how in the hell can someone give a thumbs down to this informative video?

This is by far the best argument I've ever heard for buying premium digital cables. Still don't think I will though.

So cables don't change the digital data. However, if the analog section of your system isn't well isolated noise from a wide variety of sources can impact the sound. Poorly shielded digital cables can collect noise from the environment and properties of the cables can alter existing noise to make it more or less of a problem. That noise will not change the digital data, but can be audible in the analog signal path or otherwise affect the operation of the analog circuits. Paul also mentions various problems that only affect digital interconnects that send the clock and data together in real time.

So, as you said in a previous "Digital cable" video, it's not the actual DAC itself, it's the analog section after the digital conversion. Good grounding and true noise rejection are mostly an analog problem.

shielding around cables i believe is the most important factor period x

Make sure you just have a data cable or get a bit of nail varnish and put it on the plus pin of the USB cable from the computer

Topping e30 + raspberry pi, really good streamer for under £300 rivals any high end equipment

It's like a gaming chair makes you good at gaming.

Paul, I totally get the idea of isolating noise from small signal analog, valid points for sure. But please, that long haul Internet analogy was totally off the mark. Stick to the things you know well, which is a wealth in your case! I really enjoy hearing about high end stuff I'll likely never own, and I truly appreciate what you're doing for your company, and your staff during this broken time. Be well.

hi thanks for the extremely valuable video There is an aspect that escapes me and I can't really understand leaving aside the cheap equipment for a moment and instead analyzing the valuable ones, I swear that I don't understand why DACs and digital sources of a certain level have not adopted for the transmission of the spdif signal the BNC standard which is the one commonly used for digital oscilloscopes, function generators and digital spectrum analyzers It was a standard already available and absolutely valid since they use it up to 1 GHz Not only that, I have also seen that these units are so precise that they are able to highlight problems even in the bnc to bnc connection cable, for example with square wave tests. That is, it seems that every now and then in high fidelity there is a naïve, unscientific approach The RCA cable was not created for transferring digital signals but analog ones. I really don't understand why you should force yourself to adapt a cable wrong by design A 50USD right cable could be much superior to a 500USD cable wrong by design Obviously it's not even worth discussing cheap devices with their understandable limits

A bit .. is a bit .. is a BIT ! there is NOTHING different. The difference is in PERCEIVED quality based on PsychoAcoustics and the depth of the listeners pockets in their expensive pants. Remember the story "The Emperors New Clothes" and his expensive pants

Connected my new CD transport to my Naim Uniti Atom. One with Coaxail and one optical. Both cables/connections sound different 🤷‍♂️

So it’s really about the noise isolation at the digital interface and how good it is. So if the Streamer isolates the digital input from the DAC stage properly why you could remove the need for expensive cabling? After all they pass the masters digitally around the world don’t they?

I think there is misuse of the word "jitter". It is relevant only during real-time data transmission which will not apply if you are playing the audio file locally. Also "noise" in digital signals should not affect the data significantly unlike in sine waves. Bits are simply represented as no voltage or the presence of about 80% of the upper voltage limit (could be +5V, +3.3V or +1.8V). In digital circuits, the 1's are renegerated by the circuits inside the device (could be a NIC card, network switch, router, firewall, hub), thus any noise introduced to the square wave when travelling from device A to device B should have been removed when the bit is transmitted to the next device. DAC would have a better error and signal correction, I assumed, because it needs to ensure that the voltage level of the bits received should be high-enough to represent "1".

A Bluetooth connection can can send an optimized signal if the power cable is made of pure silver and the line-signal is filtered.

IMHO, It is not syncronous thing, it is asyncronous. The data are stored in the buffer/RAM for a while, and while the data are already stored, they are completely silent until they are accessed. The signals of data coming from the RAM when they are accessed do not contain the noise/jitter from the source, and the timing is the according the internal clock of the DAC, not the timing from USB. It is solely depend on design and built/construction of the DAC it self.

That’s still not technically possible. If the bits had noise/jitter they effectively would NOT be the same. Digital cannot add noise to the file.

through the air... meaning optocoupled obvs

I’m not sure the cables are as important as galvanic isolation. I have a denafrips ares 2, which I’m sure deals with jitter well. Nonetheless, if I had an ifi ipure 2 spidif to the DAC, being fed by a sonos port, there is definitely an upgrade in sound quality. I suspect it is because it is galvanically isolating the DAC from the noisy streamer.

What does this galvanic isolation mentioned in the video have anything to do with digital audio cables? Does anybody realize that ethernet is galvanic isolated by design? The differential pairs offer common mode rejection and go through both inductive isolation through the transformer and capacitive isolation. The DC coupling is done at the PHY. A cable has NO SOUND. A cable has RLC, period, end of story. If you do the math the amount of RLC has to be GROSS to impact the low frequency of 20kHz. If your cable is magically changing the sound either 1. Confirmation bias or 2. Fundamentally flawed audio gear in build or design.

Interesting!!!!

If you use wifi instead of a cable, you don't have a cable connection that produces jitter or noise. We don't have a data loss with WIFI- 5 or 6 either, so why not better WIFI right away?

So the conclusion is, network cables do not matter cause the TCP stack will take care of everything. Though the last few feet/inches of the signal path within the device does matter, since the DAC chip is sensitive to bit/word jitter. So if you have all your cables above the bare minimum and don't get any retransmits due to transmission errors you will be fine.

What happened to your speakers? Do I need a Schrodinger test to see if they are dead or alive :-)!

The correct answer is that coaxial digital cables are not bit perfect. They stream digital data asynchronously without error correction at the packet level. Any interference “can” cause distortion on the signal. However, this distortion is likely not predictable when talking bout a digital source. Anyone who’s says “this coax cable is better for low frequencies” or something similar, is just parroting something they heard. Optical cables offer the truest signal, but they do have a more limited bandwidth. The industry should invest in developing a higher bandwidth optical connection, but then they couldn’t sell the coax snake oil products, so it’s not likely to happen

Where is the noise with a cheap optical cable? The only thing I can gather is that if your getting noise couples into your DAC from an Ethernet cable, maybe you should consider a better designed DAC. Ethernet does inherently have its own isolation. What you describe for your new product with isolation and maybe moating is a very standard design practice, its just new to you folks.

Wow that was a bunch of this and that but nothing real. Thumbs up the video as always:)

Bits come in one at a time and are buffered, the digital data sent exactly matches the data received and is lined up in the buffer, it's bit perfect. That said, I have some "new old stock" wax and paper capacitors for your Stratocaster I'll sell you for $100 a piece and I'm sure you'll agree they have a better "sound" then the same measured value new caps.🤞🙄

Right, except on a blind test I have yet to find a person that can actually distinguish between a straight signal from an audio source to the DAC with a "cheap" Monoprice USB cable and a $1000+ "audiophile" super duper conductor cable with jitter filters and reclockers.

i noticed that some Chord coaxial cables are around £500 There really is no need to spend all that money on a coaxial audio cable. instead… i make my own with high quality 100 satellite cable. It’s just as good. Wednesday evening 26th July 2023. Southampton England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇫🇷🇮🇪🇩🇪🇮🇳

ppl interested in streaming audio should visit The Hans Beekhuyzen Channel

Not the packages, or the file, not how it is read, but how it is interpreted the bad distortion noise is in the amplifier output.

I think this comes down to more of a cable's ability to transfer data from point A to point B reliably. Hence why you can't pump a digital 4k 120hz+ signal through older HDMI cables. They are digital, but the bandwidth isn't necessarily available. Higher bandwidth demands higher quality cable construction. I would say that lower quality cables could result in a cable being susceptible to noise which could potentially impede the cable's ability to have adequate bandwidth for said signal. But in terms of perceived quality, bits are bits. If you receive the bits without packet drops, the actual sound of the audio simply cannot be different. However, if there are packet drops it could lead to stutter or something.

What boils my brain is this new trend of "audiophile" network switches & PC's Paul put it best, the greatest audio PC is the cheapo laptop running off a battery. Any pre-source running off grid is bound to impress honestly. That includes a DAC using even the poopiest of cables.

Hmmm not sure I'm with Paul on this one! Blind tests using the same equipment please!!

I love you, Paul, I truly do. However :) you pick 2 cables any price -- I'll throw in an Amazon Basic one. Would you bet $10,000 you could pick the Amazon one in a true Blind Test >60% of the time while switching randomly 100 times?

Why not use optical cable, then? (product idea: accept LAN/electrical bitstream, convert to optical)

Paul I'm sorry but you are mixing up different aspects of the digital signal path. The transmission of USB data, assuming the cables are operating within spec are basically perfect because they are transmitted with packets just like the internet example you gave! Just because you've seen improvements at the end of the component chain of you SACD player doesn't mean it has anything to do with the USB data transmitted and received then passed to the DAC. Any issues, again assuming USB cables are operating within spec, it outside of the realm of the USB sub-system.

Thanks for the insight Paul. I appreciate that you take time to candidly explain complex and even controversial concepts like a fireside chat. I’ve spent my life teaching and installing computers networks always passionate about audio, i can give countless reasons why digital interconnects shouldn’t make a difference. Having performed blind testing I can guarantee that they do, can’t explain it but it’s there. If anyone watching this has the opportunity to attend a hifi audio show I’d recommend it, there is a lot happening thot you can’t see on a spec sheet.

Paul,now you have done it "Audioholics" now gets to make two videos on the'SnakeOil' of cables,even though,he is given a very high cost brand of cables .For his use. Doc BC

better than the $99 PS AC noise harvester?

What a fantastic reply and explanation. Thank you Paul. Seasons greetings.

My bits are huge Huge.. HUGE. Lol

The bits r bits crowd seems wrong headed to me. Of course bits r just bits. BUT what is all important is the way those bits get out together for conversion to analogue and then out to speakers. How about this example: bits that get sent to different computer screens all look different depending on the type of screen. Why wouldn’t audio bits be the same?

Hm, maybe this is the Reason why my System sounded a bit better as I switched from an old noisy PC to a Laptop/Dock setup as digital source. Then again it could have been the impact of the old and cheap PSU on the Powerline or the lack of Fan noise.

No. Bits do not have details. There is no noise or jitter in bits. You do not understand what you are talking about. Not even close. Optical isolation is used for blocking noise translated through electrical wires, that is very effective. But no, the noise still is not in the bits. If you have a DAC with optical isolation the cable can not possibly have ANY effect on the result. But I know, you will not admit and/or believe this.

I didn't expect such a good answer that explains differences. I'm glad that I watch this channel every day. There are lessons to learn when you wouldn't expect them to be.

Remi good question. I am out. Exit. Now it sounds like a sort of religion. A bit is a 0 or a 1 period. I can't believe he uploaded this. I am beginning to question about the factuality of his previous videos where my knowledge goes not that far.

So what Paul is telling us is that his digital input circuitry is insufficient to prevent analog noise on a digital cable from polluting his DAC output.

so, im guessing Paul goes commando!??!

Almost in the same time Amir from AudioScienceReview did a KZfaq on this same subject: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mrKXm8phtr60qqc.html. In my neophyte understanding is that if you have a good modern consumer DAC, not necessary at all at $$$$ level, and if you measure, not what it enters in the DAC, but what the output is, the 50 $ cable and the 2000 $ cable are exactly the same - and what you need is the output of the DAC to the amplifier. That means, the DAC knows to use only the pure information from the bits, that means no matter the cable... the result will be the same. I also think that if you have the worst cables, you can have a difference in the DAC output, because finally it has to deliver with what it received and maybe some problems in the transport to the DAC. Maybe I get it wrong, but I'm sure there is somewhere a limit in the quality needed for the DAC to process the information - so in my opinion the limit stops to under 100 bucks for the cable.

Cable conflict reminds me of contact lens worn by the rich and the poor. Rich pays $300 , poor $30. Only catch, lens made of same plastic, but exact vision correction.

The difference between capacity and latency in data at rest vs. data in transit.

Both noise and jitter are measureable, both have been proven repeatedly to be inaudible by any human regardless of cable, this is just straight up measureable fact..

Sorry Paul. No human can tell the difference between digital cables. Jitter is a measure of latency fluctuation, not signal interference. You don't get noise in TCP connection, because it will drop the packet if it is corrupted in transit (ie gets induced with noise). Sorry. Nope.

Amir from Audio Science Review did a video. Showed absolutely no difference in USB cables in any measure. Please, everyone in the audio/audiophile world needs to learn about expectation bias. These are effects that neuroscience has explained. Our brains create signals based on expectations. What you report is personal experience. I can set up a blind listening test and I bet you anything you will not be above chance.

Paul, love your videos.... I'm not going to pile on, but I agree with the Techies, then again I am a SCADA engineer.

I think this would be better explained by saying that a bad cable will carry with itself any electronic noise that was generated in the signal generator and this will reach the receiver of this signal causing interference on the electric components inside of it that will ultimately affect sound in some way or another. It's also important to note there needs to be any noise to begin with and if you just power everything from batteries and live in the country side with not much RF interference the difference will be far lower meaning your mileage will vary depending on your specific situation and electronics used.

I have some very well broken-in vintage USB cables to sell. They have an extremely good tonal balance and clarity. The price is 1 BTC per cable. Takers?

Welp it's official, I'm no audiophile, that's for sure.

There is only one way to settle this. Measure a sample of cables and provide those measurements. Then see what is in the audible range. Also see what the DAC does to the noise and jitter. That’s what science is for. I see NO measurements from these cable companies on their products.

This was not explained very well. See Hans Beekhuyzen explanation. Key point is “bits are bits” until the moment when said bits get converted to analog. That’s when things can go wrong because the dac doesn’t know if the timing is off, and the square wave isn’t really square…

OK Paul I think you skipped passed the question the OP IT engineer asked and that is a shame. So let us break it down: "Ethernet Cable" -- we all should understand that when internet/broadband etc.. comes into our property - typically via one port - we then tend to distribute this via a network switch to spread ethernet across the property - often daisy chaining switches AND also often we use a wireless router to provide wifi as well. All the ethernet is distributed using "generic" ethernet cabling typically Cat 6 (sometimes higher quality), which is somewhat shielded (well it should be ) and it works well - ultimately it gets to a port/socket near your equipment. So WHY am I supposed to upgrade from a normal Cat 6 cable to some audiophile version -- what magical thing happens close to Hifi gear. and really a bunch of snake oil salesmen are simply trying to gouge the uninformed. Maybe it is RF interference - the two easiest ways to eliminate this is by Shielding and Grounding - The simplest answer is to upgrade to say from a Cat 6 cable to a far more shielded Cat 8 cable and be ensuring the Switch provides great grounding but this only works if the switch is cat 8 compliant and so is the equipment. The 3rd leg is by "filtering" well this is performed by circuits installed in our equipment. Fibre is becoming increasingly common and for those with long runs and high data demands it is the answer but the cable and active components are still very pricy. Ultimately one has to step down to whatever fits into the equipment. I consider upgrading Ethernet cables above Cat 8 to be a waste of money. "Digital Interconnects" - Digital Audio Coaxial -- S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface) - similar issues to Ethernet but obviously much shorter runs and typically used to connect two equipment boxes together. Top answer is to use Balanced cables wherever possible AES3 being the gold standard. AND then one simply ensures the cable is highly shielded and connectors effectively ground the shielding. Sure the cable design and materials make "a" difference - some claim huge other simply cannot hear it. You and others have provided great guidance and YES we can spend 50% of the price of our boxes on such interconnects or more. I like fittings like BNC which ensure the cable is secure and the grounding connection is at least made. [Yes one can use TOSLINK - but this comes with its own issues]. Analogue interconnects -- these are the most vulnerable to interference from other sources and cables. Particularly ultra low voltage microphone/phono level interconnects. Far far better to use balanced connections. There are various levels of balanced but as a rule a good basic balanced cable will perform better in "noisy" environments close to many other cables than a simple phono cable. For phono cables - yes buy/use good quality well shielded cables but keep them away from sources and signal types that generate noise/interference. Speaker cables - here is the final leg. The main issue for me is that the power carried by these is the highest in the signal chain and therefore there has to be something significant to add noise or reduce transmission - and that is the cable itself and how it is connected. 100% twisted libre cables appear to be better than solid cables. BUY/use shielded cables and bundle speaker cables together. Whether or not propping up speaker cables off the floor makes a difference depends on what is in the floor. Try to keep speaker cables and unshielded power cables apart. Great guidance can be found - AVIXA F502.01:2018 Rack Building for Audiovisual Systems tells us that we are better following some simple separation rules - you can tie cables carrying similar signal types together and separate cables carrying different signal types apart. AC power cables (unshielded) should be 12" away from a microphone level phono interconnects and 4" away from Audio line level interconnects [I use shielded mains cables], HDMI and most other signal type cables should be at least 2" away from cables bundles carrying different signal types.