A pair of cables for connecting audio equipment

I was offered an audio cable to try—not taste it, obviously, but in the general sense—and I thought, why not? A cable is a useful thing, and it’s bound to come in handy.
So today I’m reviewing two cables: a regular one with wires and an optical one.


Originally, they offered me just one cable, but I decided that wouldn’t be very interesting, so I ordered two for the review. They differ in every way: connectors, length, type, and how they transmit data. One is, broadly speaking, analog and the other digital, though there’s nothing stopping you from sending a digital signal over a copper cable or an analog one over an optical cable, if you really want to.


I picked up a small box from the post office with the Ugreen name on it. Both cables were inside, and this is where I’ll make a brief digression.
I have no complaints about the optical cable’s packaging: a bag and a box. But the regular cable’s packaging is rather too modest, in my opinion. Some audiophiles buyers like to shop with their eyes, and they probably could have made the packaging at least a little more attractive. No, let me put it this way: they should have made packaging at all.


So, we have two cables:
1. An "analog" cable with 3.5 mm plugs. Depending on the length (20 cm–10 m) and connector configuration, the price ranges from $14.85 to $67.85 — link
2. A "digital" cable, available with just one type of plug and in lengths of 1.5, 2, and 3 m. It costs $11.39–$17.09, link.



I’ll start with the "analog" one.
Despite the very economical packaging, the connectors were wrapped in bubble wrap as well, presumably to protect them from damage. At least that’s something.


The cable is very flexible. I ordered the 1 m version, and it’s actually 3 cm longer.
Why 1 m? I don’t need anything longer, and the only shorter option was 20 cm, which seemed far too short. In general, with cables like these, it’s best to keep the length to a minimum rather than buying a 10 m piece "just in case" to connect a couple of components in a rack.


It uses microphone cable, which is partly why it’s so flexible. The manufacturer is listed as Prolink. The printing is clear, but I can’t say whether it’s genuine, a copy, or a counterfeit.


The cables come in three connector combinations: straight-straight, straight-right-angle, and right-angle-right-angle.
Mine has two right-angle connectors, but I can’t tell you why I chose that option because I don’t remember. For some reason, I was sure I’d picked straight + right-angle to show the difference, but my order says right-angle + right-angle.


The connectors look and feel well made. The cable doesn’t wobble, and the opening fits its diameter precisely. The cable itself is 6 mm in diameter, and the plug is 14 mm long, plus an extra 4 mm protrusion.


Naturally, I wanted to see "how it’s all put together", especially since the product page has a photo of the cable cut open. I didn’t really want to cut it, and that wouldn’t have told me much anyway, so I decided to take it apart instead.


But the cable turned out to be more complicated than it looks. Both connectors were screwed on almost impossibly tight, so I had to use pliers to unscrew one.


The reason it was so hard to get to the body insides turned out to be very simple: the interior is filled with something like hot glue.
The braid is soldered neatly. The connector’s ground contact isn’t integral with the connector itself; it’s held in place by the flared section of the connector. But I have no complaints about either the crimping quality or the design—the cable is held firmly in place.


Yes, it really is ordinary hot glue. After I removed some of it, the connector became much easier to assemble and disassemble.


Let’s go back to the store photos so we have something to compare it with.


Surprisingly, I have to admit that the cable is just like the one shown on the product page. My only complaint is that not all the strands in the shielding braid are soldered. Most likely, that’s because the braid really is quite thick and simply wouldn’t fit through the connector opening.


Since a family of bears trampled on my ears when I was a kid, I went into engineering. So I’ll judge the cable by measurements, not by trying to pick out the "soundstage", "depth", and "midrange transparency".

1. Cable braid resistance: 16 mΩ/m.
2. Signal conductor resistance: 0.1 Ω/m
3. Capacitance between the braid and the center conductor: 110 pF
4. Capacitance between the signal conductors: 47 pF
5, 6. The inductance of the braid and center conductor is 1.1 and 1.5 µH, respectively, with the cable laid out straight on the table, without loops.

The calculated cross-sectional area (assuming it's copper) is 1 mm² for the braid and 0.16 mm² for the signal conductors. In my opinion, that's a pretty good combination for a cable like this: the braid is clearly dense and should provide good shielding, while also reducing the effect of potential differences between system components.
It's hard to say much about the capacitance. The braid/signal conductor pair carries high frequencies, while the capacitance between the signal conductors affects channel separation. I think 110/47 pF is fine, but it would be good to compare it with something higher quality. Maybe I'll do that in the future.


But since I wanted at least some kind of comparison, I grabbed a cheap 1.5 m cable, the kind supplied with monitors that have built-in speakers. It's new, thin, and ultra-budget.


1. Braid: 0.28 Ω, which is 17.5 times higher, meaning the cross-sectional area is about 11 times smaller.
2. Signal conductor: 0.352 Ω, almost 3.5 times higher, so the cross-sectional area is 2.3 times smaller.
3, 4. Capacitance is 380 and 200 pF, compared with 110 and 47 pF for the cable under review.
5, 6. It's hard for me to assess the inductance since this is more of an additional test, but the meter shows it to be 4 times higher.


And here's a more interesting test, one that often ends in flame wars and people shouting, “All the instruments are lying!” :)

First, four measurements of the cable under review, then four measurements of the “monitor cable.”

Overall, they're almost identical; the cable under review has 0.1 dB more noise.


Actually, the results above show the second attempt, using different sound card settings. Initially, I tested in 16/44 mode, and there were some major oddities in the THD level: the difference between the cable under review and the “monitor cable” was 2–3 times, and not in favor of the more expensive one.
I wonder why?


Now for the second cable, the optical one. I ordered the shortest length available because I don't like having extra cable that always ends up dangling somewhere and getting in the way. I ordered the 1.5 m version; it's actually 3 cm longer.


The cable seems to have a rubber jacket inside, but the extra “sleeve” makes it very stiff.


The cable is fitted with standard connectors for audio equipment, and the ends of the optical channel are covered with soft caps attached to the cable.
The manufacturer is Ugreen. I don't have much experience with this company's products, but, for example, I've been using a USB hub with their logo for a long time, and it works great.



Optical channel output.
I first encountered an optical cable about 27–28 years ago. It was a marvel of our military industry: a one-meter cable with a large number of optical channels (around 500, by my rough estimate), terminated with brass tubes about 3–4 mm in diameter and polished smooth. I think the optical fibers were even arranged in a specific order, with the pattern at one end repeated at the other, but many years have passed and I can't be sure. And I certainly couldn't figure out what it was used for.


I couldn't think of anything to measure in an optical cable. Of course, I could have dug the transceivers out of my desk and tested something, but the cable passes light just fine, so I simply connected the DAC to the TV box.
Well, it works. I never did get the “tight bass,” “silvery highs,” or any of the other supposed qualities. It just works.


Now for the conclusions.
As for the “analog” cable: it's well made and flexible, the conductors have a decent cross-section, especially the braid, and the connectors are sturdy. The only thing you could complain about is the price. If you know your way around a soldering iron, it's easier to make one yourself. If you have a friend with a soldering iron, it's easier to ask them and then celebrate together. But if you don't fall into either category and the price works for you, it's a perfectly reasonable buy. I doubt you'll regret it.

As for the “digital” cable: it's a cable, neat, with good connectors, but stiff—somewhat beyond what I'd consider an acceptable threshold. Overall, the quality matches the price.

People often ask whether I'd buy the product I'm reviewing. In the case of the “analog cable,” probably not—not because it's bad, but because it's easier for me to make one myself. As for the “digital” cable, yes, I'd buy it. Apart from the stiffness, I have no complaints.



That’s all for today. I hope this information was useful, and as always, I look forward to flame wars comments and questions.