Cable discussions are a major part of the headphone community. As long as I can remember, cables have been part of the hobby and also an important market share for dealers. However, the effect on sound quality has also been controversial for just as long. In this editorial I will try to make sense out of cables – or while doing so, confuse you even more. Let’s try to find out what measures we have to rate the quality of a cable, decipher the marketing lingo, summarize what real-world-usage teaches us and share which experience I personally made.

In case you only want to make sense of your cables specifications, you will find a glossary down below that will bring you up to speed quickly. And if you do not trust or care about my personal experience, you can jump straight to my upgrade table. However, if you are really interested in the subject, I recommend to continue reading. Even if my impressions do not match yours, they should bring you up to speed to partake in most cable discussions in audio.

Reviewing the Basics

Readers of my blog are usually not completely new to audiophile products. And you’ll also be familiar with some cable reviews (though you probably didn’t expect them from me). I never approved of descriptive reviews that claimed “improvements in tones, timbres, dynamics, definition, resolution, holographic effect, etc” (actual quote from a message on Head-Fi). Today, I want to find out if that was an oversight on my part. Which theories exist and which can I confirm?

While discussing high-end audio, there sometimes is no end to what some people think is possible – including supernatural phenomenas. So I do not want to cover every topic that exists regarding upgrading the signal path, but instead I limit my research to those that actually have a point and at least follow physical logic.

In fact, let’s start with a few measures that are undeniable and that I have experienced several times.

The ‘Resistance’

Back in 2014, a colleague from Rhines and I measured frequency response differences between various IEM cables. We published the results on Hifi-Forum.de, where a lengthy discussion eventually led us to the underlying cause: differences in the cable’s electrical resistance.

At the time we often referred to this as “cable impedance”, which is technically inaccurate. A cable has resistance, capacitance and inductance, which together form its impedance. At audio frequencies and typical headphone cable lengths, however, resistance is by far the dominant factor.

We measured cables ranging from approximately 0.5 Ω to 2.0 Ω, with the common Plastics One stock cable measuring around 1.5 Ω (used by Westone and almost every CIEM manufacturer at the time). Those values are high enough to measurably alter the frequency response of some low-impedance multi-driver IEMs, whose impedance varies considerably with frequency. Modern aftermarket cables and many current stock cables generally exhibit much lower resistance, making audible frequency-response changes less likely.

One important note regarding the resistance on balanced cables: because each channel has its own return conductor, the signal path contains two conductors instead of one shared return. When measuring a single conductor with a multimeter, remember that the complete signal path consists of both the forward and return conductors. The total series resistance seen by the driver is therefore the sum of both, e.g. double.

Crosstalk

The other easily noticeable sound effect is crosstalk. When the mass wire is shared (common ground for left and right channel), both channels return through the same conductor and that creates the effect of ‘crosstalk’. Effectively you can hear the right channel on the left output and vice versa. The effect is minor but audible, especially when one side is muted, but you can still hear it playing. Not all people find this effect detrimental and even compared it to deliberate channel mixing like crossfeed. My experience is that the return path can also be polarity inverted (depending on other variables), in which case it is definitely an unwanted effect.

This issue is completely avoided when using balanced cables as they have no ground wire but separate return paths for each signal.

Build Quality

The third more obvious issue is the build quality. Countless times have I received a cable that should never have passed quality control and was defective upon arrival. Obviously, this is very unlikely to happen when you place a custom order at a boutique shop, but production errors are definitely not rare in mass production where the quality control is done on random picks from a batch.

I don’t remember ever participating in a headphone show where I didn’t encounter at least one defective cable. Channel imbalance, inverted polarity or intermittent contacts are the easily noticeable issues when there is possibly even gradual quality loss.

Bad soldering and poor connectors are the more common sources of defects, but of course the material quality of conductor and sheathing matter too.

Haptics

Especially if sound quality is not your top priority, you will rate a cable’s quality by its material durability, flexibility and maybe even its looks. My guess is that this subconsciously manipulates the sound experience – I definitely have a strong fear that this might be the case for myself at least.

Reviewing the more obviously audible effects of resistance and crosstalk, as well as mentioning the physicalities of a cable, I believe to have covered the very basics on which we can dive deeper. Let’s see which options we have to upgrade a ‘flawless cable’ to make it worthy of the term ‘upgrade cable‘ in 2026.

Before we move on, though, you might wonder as I did: “What’s the point in using an upgrade cable when the internal wiring of my headphone uses basic wiring?” Fortunately, electricity does not work like water and is not blocked by “a weakest link”. An electrical circuit functions as a complete, unified system. The total resistance of the headphone setup is the sum of every single component added together. First of all, that means removing additional components like adapters is highly recommended! Yet the cable is the longest, most physically vulnerable part of the signal path, and therefore upgrading it can logically improve the overall electrical performance of the signal path.

Cable Components

What does a cable consist of? Which elements do we have to consider when trying to objectively compare different cables? In total, to my analysis, there are at least four components worth considering in an audio signal. However, limited to the use of headphones and IEMs, only two components are actually necessary. The conductor carries the audio signal. This is usually a copper wire. Then there is insulation which prevents short circuits and stabilizes electrical properties. Not relevant – and thus only touched upon briefly – is the shielding layer which reduces noise from EMI/RFI interference. Though not mandatory, all of it is often covered by a jacket, which provides an additional layer of protection but can be important for aesthetics too.

Upgrading the Conductor

Let’s start with the conductor, which – if the insulation is not terrible – should in theory have the greatest effect on sound quality. Let’s start with copper, which is known to have very good conduction capabilities, is cheap, and widely available. But not all copper conductors are the same. The copper ore, found in its natural state, consists of iron and sulfur. It needs to be processed to turn into copper. The costs of that process will expectedly correlate with the purity of the product.

The most commercial electrical copper is Electrolytic Tough Pitch (ETP) – also known as Tough Pitch Copper (TPC) –, typically around 99.9% pure. It intentionally contains a small amount of oxygen, which makes it easier to manufacture while retaining excellent electrical conductivity. For the curious (like me): an inferior example to ETP would be Copper-Clad Aluminum (CCA) which is only used when cost is an issue (length) – or in a voice coil because it has an advantage in weight compared to copper.

Improving Purity

Improving the production quality of copper will expectedly yield a higher purity. At 99,99% (4N) we can use the term “oxygen-free” copper (OFC). Besides reducing resistance, this is also favorable to minimize oxidation. We can safely assume that most reputable brands of mass produced cables use ETP or OFC. However, further increasing the purity is not without challenges. Achieving 5N, 6N or even more via highly specialized and repeated processes is possible yet difficult to maintain. Fortunately, there is a more common production method that provides a massive engineering shortcut.

Copper is a crystalline metal and consists of tiny countless crystals, called grain. Under a microscope you can see a multitude of randomly shaped layers stacked over another. The purists aim is to reduce these grains in quantity by creating much longer crystal grains and therefore dramatically reducing the number of grain boundaries along the conductor. This process is called Ohno Continuous Casting (OCC), named after the Japanese scientist. Manufacturers can produce copper with crystal grains that can extend to several metres. However, my understanding is that the length is always finite. Although often marketed as “single crystal copper”, the conductor is usually better described as ‘long-grain copper’ rather than one continuous crystal from end to end.

Either way, removing – or at least extremely reducing – the grain boundaries has measurable advantages. Grain boundaries slightly increase electron scattering, which measurably increases resistivity. ‘Less crystals’ and ‘mono crystals’ currently both can achieve up to 7N purity.

BTW, following terms are often used in descriptions: “high purity” for 6N and “ultra purity” for 7N. So if you can’t find the purity in your cable’s specifications, the text might be an indication – of course there is no guarantee that the marketing team isn’t using these adjectives freely.

Theoretical sound improvements of increasing purity and reducing crystals

Of course this opens the question which specification is more important. Does “linear crystal” LC-OFC at 4N achieve more advantages or less than 5N OFC with millions of crystals? Reading through many cable reviews I gathered that a higher purity (less resistance) hopefully increases the macro dynamics – drums hit harder, bass is tighter, everything becomes more life-like and grand. On the other hand, reducing grain boundaries is supposed to reduce temporal artifacts and improve resolution in the time-domain which theoretically can increase the soundstage and smoothen the treble. Yep, as expected, you want both.

Choosing Higher Conductivity

Another and perhaps even more obvious way of upgrading the conductor is using a different material than copper. Obviously, silver comes to mind. It has the lowest electrical resistivity of any common metal and therefore the highest electrical conductivity. It also has a higher corrosion resistance. Silver oxidizes differently than copper and generally maintains excellent conductivity at the surface. As it’s a much rarer metal, these cables often cost considerably more.

Manufacturers found a middle ground in silver-plated copper (SPC). It is considerably cheaper than pure silver but also has its oxidization behavior. The silver plating isn’t a separate sleeve wrapped around the copper, btw. It forms a metallurgical bond to the copper surface. Electrons can move across this interface without ’jumping a gap.’ So in case you were wondering, mending silver onto copper does not defeat the purpose of having fewer grains.

Another Aspect to Consider: Skin Effect

You may have heard of the skin effect, where alternating current increasingly travels near the conductor’s surface as frequency rises. At very high frequencies the changing magnetic fields inside the wire push the electrons away from the center and toward the outer edge (”skin”). Consequently, higher frequencies flow closer to the edge of the conductor. While highly relevant in radio-frequency engineering, the effect is extremely small at audio frequencies whereas this is mostly considered an issue at Megahertz or at least hundreds of kHz. Furthermore, the wire needs to have a minimum material-dependent diameter for it to even have a “skin” in the way the effect is defined. For typical headphone cable diameters, current still flows through almost the entire conductor.

Closely related, the proximity effect describes the same issue but caused through a neighboring wire. Assuming the skin effect has an audible detrimental effect, the proximity effect would pose a serious threat as for headphones we always have at least two close wires of which the magnetic fields interfere.

Theoretical sound improvements of using different materials

The assumption is that silver allows for a clearer and more articulate treble, while copper has a warmer sound and thus psycho-acoustically enhances bass. SPC is said to hold the best of both worlds. Of course the choice of materials is not limited to copper and silver. Let’s bring gold into the mix, which has a significantly higher resistance. What previously was considered a flaw, becomes a positive when mixed with silver, because due to the skin effect, gold-plating can tame silver’s potentially sharp and aggressive treble but release silver’s unmatched low-end extension, speed and attack. This does not work with copper-plated silver, though, because copper oxidizes and copper oxide is not just a poorer conductor; it is a semiconductor.

Length vs Width

Sorry boys, when talking about cables, size is a huge factor… But! Fortunately, the shorter, the better! Shorter cables have a lower electrical resistance. However, thickness can improve the conductivity. A shorter and thicker copper wire will in fact measure better than a longer and thinner silver cable.

The ‘girth’ is often indicated by the American Wire Gauge (AWG). What that is? This is what I found out: In the 19th century wires were manufactured by repeatedly pulling (“drawing”) them through progressively smaller dies. The gauge number originally represented how many drawing operations had been performed. AWG counts can be directly translated to metric values, for example 26 AWG = 0.4mm or 24 AWG = 0.51mm.

Headphone cables often have multiple strands, in that case the diameter of each strand is added to the total, for example the cross-sectional area of 7 strands at 32 AWG each can yield to the equivalent area of a single 24 AWG conductor core. Strands can be formed to bundles. Bundles can form a wire, which is equivalent to a core.

Using more strands/bundles/wires/cores is useful, btw, because separating the total diameter into multiple elements can result in a higher flexibility and durability.

Just making ‘thicc’ cables isn’t advisory, though. They are heavier, less flexible, more microphonic and, of course, more expensive. At this point, we can already get a sense of the many variables one has to consider when designing a high-quality audio cable. (And note, we are still only discussing the conductor and not even insulation, shielding or jacket.) Let’s go one level deeper…

Putting on a Litz

Litz wire was originally invented to reduce the previously mentioned skin and proximity effects – not for audio, but for high-frequency AC applications such as transformers and RF electronics. By forcing each strand to periodically occupy different positions within the conductor, current is distributed more evenly, significantly reducing AC resistance at frequencies in the hundreds of kilohertz or even megahertz.

As mentioned, for headphone cables operating below 20 kHz, the electrical benefits are far less obvious. However, Litz construction still offers practical advantages. The enamel insulation on each strand prevents internal oxidation, very fine strands improve flexibility, and the manufacturing process itself is considerably more demanding than ordinary stranded wire.

Now we are entering the realm of cable architecture. The number of cores and strands tells you little about whether a cable uses Litz construction. Instead, Litz describes a manufacturing method in which each individual strand is coated with its own thin layer of enamel insulation before being assembled into a conductor.

If a conductor consists of multiple strands and every strand is individually insulated, it is considered true Litz wire. The strands may then be grouped into one or more Litz bundles before forming the finished conductor. Contrary to what the German origin Litzendraht (“stranded wire”) may suggest, simply twisting or braiding bare strands together does not make them Litz wire. The individual strand insulation is the defining characteristic.

Litz Architectures

Litz construction can also be hierarchical. Smaller Litz bundles are combined into larger bundles, which are then assembled into the finished conductor. This is commonly referred to as nested or multi-level Litz, and manufacturers often describe these constructions using Type numbers:

• Type 1 – One bundle of individually insulated strands.
• Type 2 – Bundles of insulated strands combined into a larger bundle.
• Type 4 – Multiple hierarchical bundle levels.
• Type 6 – Even more elaborate multi-level bundle architecture.

It is important to note that these Type numbers describe the complexity of the bundle structure—not the quality of the insulation. Type 1 is just as much “true Litz” as Type 6, provided every strand is individually insulated.

Finally, a word of caution. Verifying any of these claims as a consumer is nearly impossible. Unless you’re willing to cut open a cable, remove its insulation and examine the conductor under a microscope, you’ll largely have to rely on the manufacturer’s specifications. As with any premium market, some companies provide detailed engineering documentation while others lean heavily on marketing terminology. A healthy dose of skepticism is therefore always advisable.

Cryogenic Treatment

I’m throwing in one final method of “upgrading the conductor.” Cryogenic treatment is a manufacturing process in which the finished metal is slowly cooled to almost -200 °C before being brought back to room temperature. Rather than fundamentally changing the crystal structure, the process primarily helps relieve residual stresses introduced during manufacturing and may stabilize microscopic defects within the existing material.

Audiophile marketing often describes this as reducing crystal defects and improving electron flow. While there is some evidence that cryogenic treatment can produce measurable electrical changes, the result is much closer to the measurement margin of error than the potential advantages of OCC associated with conductor geometry.

Where cryogenic treatment is better established is in its mechanical benefits. The process has long been used in industrial applications to improve wear resistance, dimensional stability and material durability. Those are certainly welcome characteristics in a portable headphone cable. And while we are speaking of mechanical improvements, this brings me to the next chapter…

Wrapping the Conductor

Dielectric

The conductor needs a non-conductive mantle, referred to as the insulation. Considering its properties that we are most interested in, ‘dielectric’ is the better term because its electrical properties matter and not the fact that it insulates. The dielectric effectively separates the conductors, preventing shorting to adjacent conductors and also determines the cable’s capacitance.

Choosing the right material is often the choice of deciding for the lesser evil. Take Teflon (PTFE) for example, it has a great dielectric but due to its stiffness it’s also prone to microphonics. Going through a plethora of cable specifications, these are real-life options I found:

Material	Pros	Cons
PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride)	very cheap, durable, highly flexible	relatively high permittivity
PE (Polyethylene)	cheap, better electricals, decent flexibility	stiffer than PVC, more vulnerable
TPE / TPU (Thermoplastic Elastomers / Polyurethane)	elastic, low microphonics	moderate permittivity
Foamed PE	air injection decreases dielectric capacity, flexible	expensive, fragile
FEP (Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene)	upgrade from Teflon (PTFE) but more flexible	still relatively stiff, strong microphonics
Cotton	basically air (excellent dielectric)	highly vulnerable, especially to moisture

For a headphone cable, durability is a must. So manufacturers have to find a way around the fragility, stiffness and high microphonics. It seems that TPE and TPU are also often used in upgrade cables and foamed PE being a rarer pick. I also found several boutique manufacturers using FEP.

Shielding

The insulation layer is, however, not responsible for shielding the signal. When used, this is a different conductive layer wrapped around the insulation. Unlike microphone or interconnect cables, most headphone and IEM cables omit dedicated shielding altogether. Thanks to a headphone amp’s relatively high signal levels and low output impedances, interference is rarely a practical concern.

However, this can be an important component in other audio cables, especially when used in close proximity to wi-fi transmitters, chargers or basically any chaos that resembles a studio.

Outer Jacket

As with shielding, the outer jacket is an optional layer. On many high-end premium cables it is omitted so that the transparent shielding can show off the conductor. However, nylon jackets are very popular, so I do think it is important to at least mention it. It can also be an important element to reduce microphonics, prevent yellowing and improving overall durability.

Real-Life Experience

Wow, that was a lot of theory, right? It took me a while to piece everything together. You can find a cheat sheet at the end of the article for the short overview. But first let’s see if anything of that matters in real-life experience or if we can string the characteristics together. All my sound impressions fortified before getting into the theory and this shows.

Cable Examples

I quickly realized that A/B-testing cables got me absolutely nowhere. I am stepping extremely far outside of my comfort zone trying to find differences. That could be very personal, though. I am aware that everybody ‘listens’ differently and picks up different cues and nuances in audio. I trained my hearing to quickly notice peaks or dips in a frequency response. Cable nuances, however, are a challenge to me.

So I decided to spend a lot of time using a specific cable for a while without jumping back and forth. I used it for as long as I “got into the zone” and felt fully immersed in the audio – for me, that’s nothing that I can trigger or that I can control. My subsequent notes are based on an impression, a feeling, almost like a forced claim that I make while a gun is held to my head, just for the sake of not ending up with nothing.

Here it goes…

HEDD GTC Upgrade Cable

Actually, I began this research when I was still working at HEDD and we wanted to launch the HEDDphone TWO GT with an upgrade cable – I only scratched the surface of what this article finally entails as we quickly settled on the GTC Upgrade Cable. BTW, let me share the specs: 8 cores of 5N copper with linear long gain crystals (LC-OFC) where every core consists of 5 woven bundles of 19 strands each, for a total of 760 (with no specific Litz Type architecture AFAIK). I can’t remember the exact thickness, but this is a very thick cable.

In fact, when trying to figure out if it was improving the sound quality, I was not the only person at HEDD to perceive the cable as enriching the HEDDphone TWO GT with more warmth and possibly even more control and a deeper soundstage. Even after everything I’ve learned, I still cannot confidently tell you which specification produced the listening impression.

Softears x Effect Audio Kryptos

This is the official upgrade cable for the Softears Enigma. I received this with the review sample of the Enigma and I really have to say that I did not like it at all! Granted, I wasn’t the first user, but the cable is flimsy, stiff and has an obnoxiously strong memory. It is borderline unusable for me.

That may or may not have influenced my auditorial perception but I used the cable on various IEMs and I always thought the treble sounded brittle and a little sharp. I simply do not like this cable and I think the Enigma sounds better with a decent copper cable (ideally the default cable that’s included in the RSV-II).

The specifications are actually among the best our theories provide, suggesting 7N purity through mono crystals:

• UP-OCC 24 AWG silver-plated gold wire and pure silver enamel-coated wire
• UP-OCC multi-size pure silver wire + pure copper wire

The marketing claims: “it enhances the atmosphere and the smoothness of vocals.” This did not match my impressions, though. Effect Audio could argue that my impressions suggest a more direct and unfiltered presentation, thus making it the most transparent cable – similar to my experience with the iBasso D17 –, but that could also be a stretch. The Kryptos cable costs 1.399 USD when purchased separately and I simply wish the Enigma would be cheaper by exactly that amount.

DUNU Blanche

Six years ago I wrote about specific cable impressions for the first time. I still love the Blanche and it’s married to my Softears RS10. Nothing about my conclusion has changed, for some reason I am under the impression that the sound is fast, snappy and more lively with a slightly brighter presentation. Depending on the IEM (for example Softears Turii or Enigma), I sometimes find the presentation too hot.

Looking at the specs, we are talking about an 8-core pure silver wire with individually insulated strands (Type 1 Litz) at 27 AWG thickness.

While 27 AWG seems rather thin compared to other high-end cables, my impressions suggest otherwise. Could the pure silver have an advantage here? Or could the Litz architecture actually improve the dynamics? Because of the excellent flexibility of the cable, I would have bought it again if it were still available – sadly my Blanche turned a bit yellow (as did my RS10).

Anyway, if all silver cables sounded alike, my impressions of the Blanche and Kryptos should have been much closer.

1812 Overture Phoenix Copper 2

This was a blind purchase that kept showing up in my TaoBao recommendations. Since I didn’t enjoy the Effect Audio Kryptos cable on the Enigma, and my main portable source was the 3.5mm Chord Mojo 2 at the time, I completely fell victim to the marketing and ordered the Phoenix Copper 2 blind. The feature list and marketing texts were seriously convincing.

The Copper Phoenix 2 boasts cryogenically treated 6N OCC copper conductors consisting of two cores and multiple strands each, which sum up to 52 strands at 21 AWG. Unlike any other cable featured here, this one has separate shielding with multiple layers. Plugs are palladium-coated.

To be fair, the things that bother me are not linked to the sound at all. I just think it’s unnecessarily stiff and has strong microphonics. I now learned that this suggests a superior dielectric, or it’s the shielding layers that come into play. Or, the cable is just too thick in diameter. The design of this cable clearly favors sound performance, but my real-life experience says that I would have preferred something more flexible with less microphonics – and I never took this outside either. Trying it again with my 64 Audio A18t while I type these lines, I actually wonder if I am tripping or if macrodynamics did in fact improve over the SPC cable I had previously hooked up. I feel like the bass has a bit more physical punch and the overall sense could maybe be grander.

NiceHCK DragonScale 2

On my trip to CIHE 2024 I had already mentioned that “NiceHCK also had some very beautiful cables on display”. The one that caught my eye was the DragonScale 2, a ridiculously humongous IEM cable. Granted, its thickness comes from the jacket made of fabric, but it’s a looker nonetheless. I saw another manufacturer use this cable too, so I ordered one shortly after for myself – based on looks alone.

The conductor is a cryogenically treated silver-palladium-alloy, which sounds counterintuitive as palladium has a much stronger resistance than silver. However, this seems to be a popular material conductor in the ultra-high-end category. Physical advantages include reducing microphonics (compared to pure silver) and corrosion.

NiceHCK is easy on the marketing, but similar cables promise a holographic soundstage and fatigue-free ultra-details. Hmm. It’s definitely not a bad cable, but I can’t say I have noticed large improvements to the sound with any of the IEMs I tried it with.

Yongse BlackSea

This is my most recent cable, and to be honest, I didn’t buy it. It was given to me by Yongse at their booth at High-End Vienna this year. This ‘freebie’ is obviously a production sample or throw-out as nothing about it is Black. Instead, all coloring on the metal parts failed. But I still want to mention it not because the sound changed or improved when paired with a specific IEM – because it didn’t – but because I think it has the best feeling in the hand. The materials are exceptionally pleasing to touch and to wear. There is decent weight to it and that makes it feel reassuringly well built (except for the failed coloring). And, ultimately, as long as there is no audible flaw, I would claim this matters more.

Technically, BlackSea features two cores, one from OCC and one OOC SPC with 27 AWG. While 27 AWG sounds rather thin, due to the Litz design, it feels thicker. BlackSea actually has a coaxial two layer shielding consisting of a graphene composite PVC and OCC SPC. Below the Y-split there is an additional nylon jacket that feels very robust.

Yongse’s marketing goes deep into sound enhancements and recommended pairings. To be fair, I don’t think I have any bad cables in use anymore, so maybe that this cable doesn’t stand out in any way is an exceptional feat. After all, it is also the cheapest of the ones featured in this article, so you might consider this a clear recommendation.

Personal Learnings

Putting this overview together was a lot of fun. I’ve been avoiding cable discussions for too long. Obviously, there is a lot of science involved in creating superior cables. However, I do not want to be the person to blow this out of proportions. I would currently claim that short length, small AWG and Litz wiring likely to have the greatest engineering significance whereas the outer jacket will remain as the deciding factor on how to match a cable to an IEM – yep, that’s how superficial I can be.

On the other hand, if you were waiting for me to conclude that single-crystal copper is snake oil, you’ll have to wait a little longer. The metallurgy is real. Copper does form crystal grains, and manufacturing methods can reduce grain boundaries. The real question isn’t whether these structures exist but whether their measurable electrical differences become audible over a 1.2 m headphone cable.

Unfortunately, there are many variables at play here and while I would finally give in and say that there’s a chance that cables influence the sound – though not easily readable from SPL curves –, I have failed to crack the code and say which spec will have which result. Perhaps that’s why cable discussions continue to divide the audio community. The engineering is real, our listening experiences are real, but connecting the two remains far more complicated than many manufacturers or skeptics would like us to believe.

The Year is 2026

One thing to note is that the previously default Plastics One cable has become extremely rare. Many IEMs now already include a cable that would have been considered high-end just a few years ago. I absolutely love the stock cable on the RSV-MKII (cryo-treated 6N OCC), the Grand Affinity cable of the Supremacy (OCC + OCC-SPC with fabric jacket) or the stock HEDDphone TWO GT cables (5N SPC with nylon jacket). Even 2nd tier stock cables, like from IO Audio or DUNU, do not make me crave an upgrade cable.

I just think the audible differences are becoming extremely minuscule and obvious differences are a rarity. When I change the ear tips on my IEMs, the tonality and sensation is heavily altered, I couldn’t care less about less than 1% which the cable may or may not attribute to the audio chain. However, we audiophiles are never at ease, and knowing that a cable could potentially limit the full depths of staging, flatten the macrodynamics or slightly veil fine nuanced details in the sound is putting us at unrest. That’s why we are willing to pay for overkill.

Finding Common Ground

If this article has changed my opinion at all, it is not by convincing me that cables definitely do – or definitely do not – change the sound. Instead, it has made me appreciate just how much real engineering goes into their design, while also showing me how difficult it is to translate that engineering into reliable listening predictions.

That is perhaps where I differ from many cable discussions online. I have no difficulty believing that two well-built cables can leave me with different listening impressions. What I struggle with is confidently attributing those impressions to one specific specification. I cannot look at a cable and say, “this one will sound brighter because it uses silver,” or “this one will have stronger bass because it uses copper.” After researching the underlying engineering, those statements seem far more complicated than the marketing slogans suggest.

What I can recommend with confidence is good engineering. A cable should have low electrical resistance, solid connectors, reliable solder joints, appropriate shielding where necessary and a construction that is comfortable and durable in daily use. Those qualities can be measured, explained and appreciated regardless of whether they ultimately change the sound.

What I cannot recommend is chasing individual buzzwords in the hope of achieving a predictable sonic result. I cannot tell you how many grain boundaries are acceptable, which Litz architecture produces the best vocals or how much silver plating is required for better treble. Perhaps future research – or future listening experience – will answer those questions. Today, I simply don’t know.

And I have become surprisingly comfortable with that answer.

The Cheat Sheet

Glossary

• American Wire Gauge (AWG): used to specify the diameter and cross-sectional area of a wire, in our case usually indicative of the total diameter of all conductive wired in the cable; lower means thicker
• Conductor: the internal core material that physically guides the audio signal’s electromagnetic energy from one component to another
• Conductor materials:
  • Alloy vs Plating: as an alloy two or more metals are reformed into one whereas plating is a layer of one metal on top of another
  • CCA: copper-clad aluminum, which is considered to be a far inferior conductive material compared to copper but can be useful as it has a considerable weight advantage
  • ETP/TPC: electrolytic tough-pitch or tough-pitch copper, which is considered the basic good quality copper that is most-prominently used in audio products
  • OFC: oxygen-free copper, which applies to copper rated with at least 4N purity
  • SPC: silver-plated copper, which basically consists of a copper core with an enameled layer of silver
  • GPS: gold-plated silver, which is a pure silver conductor with a thin gold layer; unlike gold-silver alloy which is the result of melting both metals
• Cryogenic treating: a manufacturing process in which metals are slowly cooled down to around -190°C using liquid nitrogen; said to relieve residual stresses and may slightly improve electrical conductivity while increasing mechanical stability
• Dielectric: a material wrapped around the conductor to support an electrostatic field; can sometimes also function as insulation
• Insulation: the isolating jacket or sleeve around a conductor that prevents shorting and adds overall protection to the cable; can be the same layer as the dielectric
• Litz: a wire, strand or bundle that is separately isolated; improvements include reducing the skin effect and oxidation; several types – defined by the New England Wire Technologies – are relatively common:
  • Type 1 (simple twisted): individually insulated strands are twisted directly together; frequently used in entry-to-mid-tier audio
  • Type 2 (grouped twisted): Type 1 strands are twisted together again; ‘the standard’ in high-end audio cables
  • Type 3 (multi-grouped twisted): multiple Type 1 bundles are isolated again; rare for headphones because it makes the cable rather stiff
  • Type 4 (cabled core): Type 2 cores twisted around a non-conductive core, effectively removing a ‘center’ in the core; popular in headphone cables to reduce the proximity effect
  • Type 6 (multi-grouped braided): Type 4 cores (which are already braided) are braided as whole again; very rare in audio
  • Type 5, 7, 8 and 9 are not used in audio
• Microphonics: audible cable noise caused by physical movement
• N-Rating: the number of nines in which the purity of a conductor is rated; sometimes referred to as “Noni” or “Nones”; indication:
  • 3N: 99,9% pure material while the rest consist of air, iron, sulfur and other materials
  • 4N: 99,99% considered “oxygen-free”
  • 6N: 99,9999% considered “high purity”, abbr. HP
  • 7N: 99,99999% considered “ultra pure”, abbr. UP
• Ohno Continuous Casting (OCC): patented production method which produces much longer crystal grains and is often associated with very high-purity copper; named after its inventor Dr. Atsumi Ohno
• Proximity Effect: the phenomenon of where magnetic fields of multiple conductors interfere and restrict the usable cross-sectional area of the wire; can increase resistance and cause phase distortions
• Resistance: the inherent opposition of a conductor to the flow of electrical current measured in Ohms (Ω); less is favorable
• Skin Effect: the tendency of alternating current (AC) to distribute itself unevenly within a conductor, forcing higher frequencies to flow closer to the outer surface (“skin”), effectively reducing the usable area of a conductor and thus increasing the resistance

Upgrade Table

Design Choice	Primary Effect	Secondary Effects	Frequently Associated With
lower AWG	lower resistance	reduced flexibility	increased dynamics
higher purity	slightly lower resistance	fewer impurities	cleaner presentation
OCC	fewer grain boundaries	often combined with high purity	better staging
silver conductor (vs copper)	lower resistivity	better corrosion resistance	improved treble details
Litz	reduced AC losses at high-frequencies	improved flexibility and oxidation	improved details
better dielectric	lower capacitance	strong impact on flexibility (depends on material)	larger soundstage
cryogenic treatment	residual stress relief	slightly improved conductivity	cleaner transients

The listening claims shown above summarize common descriptions found in reviews and marketing material. While the engineering mechanisms are measurable to varying degrees, I was unable to consistently predict the reported sonic character from the construction alone.