Headphone Cables/Builds w/ Pictures - DIY

Thanks!

I don’t know of anyone else offering the same sort of setup on a commercial basis.

A couple of boutique builders offer some limited converters/adapters that go from one headphone to another, e.g. HiFiMAN to Audeze, though they’re a bit unwieldy since they’re either a connector stacked on a connector or socket-cable-plug configuration that goes on the end of an existing cable.

I do build these to order for other people - with a fair warning that these are premium cables, using premium parts, and as a result they’re not inexpensive.

3 Likes

Thank you

Well Now … I was silently wondering if you do builds albeit orders for people . . you kindly answered that question for me. I’ve numerous high end cans and could probably want all 9 items pictured at the top of the thread except to change up >> the less common 4.4mm TRRRS “Pentaconn” connector used by Sony and Sennheiser to a 3.5mm termination - the amp side cables being 6’, would suit my proposes.

And you’re quite right, I can sense this would not be a cheap expenditure by any means considering materials, time and effort put into these very nice cables. I’m very curious if these are financially viable for me to order.

In light of what I wrote above, how might I get a quote from you and what would be the time frame albeit build time of such a venture? ( also to note, I’m in Kingston, Ontario, Canada )

Thank you

1 Like

Of course. I’ll shoot you a PM here in a bit with the details.

Why thank you very much :slight_smile:

1 Like

Can I get some deets as well? :slight_smile:

1 Like

No soup for you!

2 Likes

I mentioned in the RAAL-requisite SR1a thread, that I’d post a bit more info on the custom interface/headphone cable I built for them:

I wanted something a bit “prettier” and more “audiophile” than the stock cable, as well as wanting to experiment with different cable resistance, as this has a noticeable difference on the treble-response of the SR1a. I built versions in 0.05 Ω, 0.1 Ω and 0.2 Ω and would up preferring the 0.1 Ω configuration.

Cable basics are:

  • Proprietary* dual-interleaved, quad-helix, geometry.
  • Ultra-low resistance** and capacitance.
  • High purity, oxygen-free, pure-copper wiring.
  • High-density, plated copper-matrix shielding.
  • Electron-beam irradiation (EBI) - for improved flexibility and reduced microphonics.
  • Cryogenic treatment - because … “Why not?”
  • Reflective and Glow-in-the-Dark cable sheathing.

Raw parts cost is as follows (with shipping included, since each part comes from a different vendor):

Part Price Qty Total
Eidolic 3.5mm TRRS Connector $30 2 $60
Neutrik 4-pin Female XLR Connector $10 1 $10
Splitter $16 1 $16
Sheathing (per foot) $1 12 $12
Sundries*** $5 1 $5
Total $103

The cable itself is a complex assembly/winding involving four conductors per channel, with cotton spacers and a special wrap to maintain the geometry. The raw wire is $6 per conductor/foot; so that’s 4 x $6 = $24 per channel on raw wire, with another $4 per foot for the spacers, wrap and shield - so $28 per channel/foot. Or $56 per stereo foot, and thus $336 for a 6 foot run of the 0.1Ω configuration.

So that’s a total of $439 in parts, and cryo and EBI treatments come to $25 total.

Grand Total: $464****

The 0.05 Ω version requires twice as many conductors which would double the cable costs (total would be $875 with $772 in cable), and requires ditching the shield in order to avoid the cable becoming too heavy and inflexible.


The build itself is not particularly challenging, except for a) winding and binding the cable assemblies and b) ensuring the overall resistance of the cable is under 0.2 Ω (which is the maximum permissible):

  • You could, in theory, build a 0.2 Ω version of this cable using something like Canare Star-Quad cable, which is much less expensive at about $0.50 per foot. That’d be just $6 total for the two 6 foot runs required, so would save >$300 on parts (and a LOT of time in assembly, since there’s no cable to wind and bind). Though it’d be thicker, heavier, less flexible and a lot plainer looking (unless you stripped the jacket and re-sheathed it). You’d also need a bigger splitter and would have a lot of fun getting two runs of it into the back of the XLR connector!

  • Measuring very low resistances does not work with basic/inexpensive multi-meters. For that matter, it isn’t really precise enough with expensive, calibrated meters either. My Fluke 289 measures anywhere from 0.08 to 0.19 Ω just directly connecting the probes together (the variance comes from exactly where they touch and how much of them are actually touching). Meters with a “Relative” mode (like the 289) help some, here, as you can cancel out the inherent resistance of the probes. But it’s still more variable than we want. In reality you need to do the four-wire (“Kelvin”) approach with an appropriate meter (which is, incidentally, how I do it for things like this).

A final word on resistance if you are going to make such a cable yourself. Cleanliness of the solder points, contact area between them and the conductors (as much as you can get!), and the quality of your solder and soldering all will be factors here, especially if you’re attempting a longer cable. For the 0.05 Ω cable, after doing the basic assembly, I used a hot-air station to reflow the joints and cooled them over a 20 second period, instead of the natural 1-2 seconds you’d get when you simply remove the iron from the joint.

I do not want to dissuade anyone from making their own cable here. If you’re careful, are proficient at soldering/cable making, use the right materials (most importantly a suitable gauge of wire and avoiding cheap knock-off connectors which may have more resistance on their own than you can afford for the whole cable), take your time, and keep the length to 6 feet, then building a 0.2 Ω version of the cable will likely work “on faith” (i.e. without having to measure the resistance or take special measures, at all).


*It’s possible that other cables use the same geometry, but I am unaware of any.
**As low as 0.05 Ω for a 6 foot cable.
***Heat-shrink, grommets, hot-glue, speciality solder etc.
****Without labor or accounting for tools, so you couldn’t sell or buy this cable for that price.

7 Likes

In this case, for the 0.1 Ω configuration, is this this 6 feet before twisting?

Is there a minimum AWG you would recommend for a cable like this? Or would you be recommending a cable that meets certain requirements in resistance and capacitance?

The Canary Starquad I’ve seen recommended was 22AWG as was the cable available on Norne. 24AWG seems to be often used as well and Mogami W2534 advertises as flexible at 24AWG. Mogami W2534 is 26AWG but is ultra-thin with less outer shielding.
I am sure there are way more pieces at work than the thickness, but I am getting around to building a new cable and have no clue what really makes it up, going off of that “custom cable parts thread” on here. All of these different cables have varying resistance and capacitance per square foot. Building one for a pair of Grados I am building out.

2 Likes

6 feet finished-length, so a little shy of 7 feet of conductor length.

In general, assuming good quality cable, proper assembly/soldering, and a conductor length of no more than 7 feet, 24 AWG should be sufficient to keep the overall resistance under 0.2 Ω. Which is the limit for proper operation of the SR1a/interface.

If you’re asking about for a 0.1 Ω version, however, 22 AWG is probably the right spot, again for the same length of conductor. With a bit more care and precision needed in choice of parts and assembly.

But, the proper way to do it is not to rely on wire gauge alone and actually look up the specs of the wire you’re using.

Those considerations are really pretty specific for the SR1a, however.

For “normal” headphones, you really don’t have to worry about such things. Even with very thin, standard, wire, “beginner” level soldering, standard leaded solder and inexpensive connectors, you’re unlikely to manage to come up with something that’s more than an ohm or so in total resistance (unless it’s very long). And while lower-resistance is better, 1 or 2 Ω in the face of a 30-300 Ω headphone impedance is largely immaterial.


The Canare “Star Quad” cabling that hits 22 AWG would be L-4E5AT and only when taking two conductors as a pair (the individual wires are 25 AWG). L-4E6AT is 23 AWG per conductor or 20 AWG for the combined pair. I wouldn’t use either to build a headphone cable, unless stripping it down just to get at the raw conductors (in which case it’s great). If you want to use the wire “as is”, and leave it assembled for most of it’s length, the L-4E6S (or L-4E5C) is a better choice (though 1 AWG smaller in each case).

Even the 26 AWG Mogami W2893 is fine for normal headphone cables. It’s 0.13 Ω/meter or 0.26 Ω for 6 finished feet, is perfectly fine for such things. But, obviously, just the wire is already over the limit for the SR1a.

3 Likes

OK, interesting. Thank you.

Just the wire itself is over the limit of what? Is that a unique specification to the SR1a?

Are there factors dependant on the headphone to take into account when creating a cable then? If I were to go out and build a Utopia cable, should I just be focusing on having good copper trying to get close to 0.1Ω or is there a way to calculate something out?

1 Like

Yeah, it’s unique to the SR1a in terms of presenting a specific load to a specific adapter box.

With regular headphone cables I’ve seen everything from the manufacture from <0.1 ohms to >1 ohms, and it shouldn’t be a factor of major consideration unless you have extremely low impedance headphones or is trying to use extremely thin wire.

3 Likes

The < 0.2 Ω limit for the cable is an SR1a-specific thing.

If you tried to use Mogami W2893 to build an SR1a cable, then even without considering the resistance in your connectors and the joints, it’s 0.13 Ω/meter specification means that for a 6 foot (finished) or 2 meter cable you’d be at 0.26 Ω just from the wire … more than is acceptable for an SR1a cable.


For other headphones, there are no specific limits to meet, other than, broadly speaking, lower resistance being better. Ideally, you want the total output impedance of your amplifier + the resistance of the cable to come in at no more than 1/10th the impedance of your headphones, and lower is still better, but it’s not that critical.

And it’s not that critical because in most cases you’ll be hard pushed to build a cable (properly) that has even a full ohm of resistance to it.

For example, let’s use bog-standard general purpose copper wire (no fancy high-purity, long grain, oxygen free stuff) and industry standard assumptions about conductivity and resistance. Even at 28 AWG it will have 64.9 Ω resistance per 1000 feet, or 0.0649 Ω/ft. Which will result in a 6 foot cable having just 0.39 Ω of resistance.

Connectors and joints won’t bring that up to even 0.75 Ω unless you screw up the solder joints, use plumbing solder instead of electrical, or have crap/tarnished connectors. And that’s low enough even for an ultra-low-impedance IEM, never mind a full-size headphone.


I’ve built lower resistance cables for other headphones … but they’re more firmly mounted on one’s head so you can get away with fatter wire gauges and more conductors than would be good for the SR1a

4 Likes

On a completely different front, I decided to build some lighter, more flexible, adapters to use with my DAPs and my modular headphone cable system.

First pass on this … for the N8 (so I can use it’s tube output with the Vérité more easily, for example):

My primary cable build is just too big to fit into the cable entry on a 3.5mm or 2.5mm jack, and needs the largest 4.4mm barrels I can find … so this bridges that gap, but lets me keep the primary “reference” cable implementation intact.

3 Likes

A quick, and important, note for those building their own SR1a cables …

Some TRRS jacks, have the sleeve in electrical-contact with the shell of the connector. If this is the case with your connectors, and the shells themselves are conductive - they if touch, you’ll short the “-” connection between channels.

If you’re running a single amplifier this may not cause a problem (though it’s not a good situation). It’ll almost certainly either fry, or at least trip the protection, if you’re using multiple amplifiers.

You can address this in three ways:

  • Use TRRS connectors that either have a non-conductive shell or that don’t have the sleeve and shell in electrical contact.

  • Insulate the outside of the TRRS connector (suitably rated transparent heat-shrink will work here).

  • Don’t connect the sleeve to the cable and, instead, just attach it to the 2nd ring. This may make it harder to get the low resistance required, especially for larger cables.

1 Like

Hey @Torq, I had thought of building a modular cable system such as yours but had a bunch of doubts and since it looks like you know A LOT about it, can I bend your ear a bit? :stuck_out_tongue:

First, is there any benefit to using balanced mmcx cables instead of single-ended besides more amperage (provided, of course, that the amp gives more juice at balanced output than single-ended)?

Second, on a balanced mmcx cable the negative signals are soldered as ground, correct?

Third, given that 2nd is correct, if I split the cable for modularity using a 4-pin connector, could I switch between 3.5mm single-ended jack and 2.5mm balanced jack with no damage to the amp? Meaning, 2.5mm jack would use 2 pins for negative signals and 3.5mm jack would use those same pins for ground.

Thanks in advance!

1 Like

There’s nothing special/unique about MMCX connectors when it comes to balanced vs. single-ended wiring, so the benefits that apply with other balanced headphone cables/connectors apply here too.

So beyond any power/drive benefits that’ll include typically include improved separation (or reduced crosstalk, depending on how you want to look at it) and, usually, a slight increase in resolution (detail and micro-dynamics). Though to a certain extent this depends on the amp and headphones in question.

If you mean in regards to how you’d combine the two negative phases from the 4 conductors (2 per driver) feeding the headphone/MMCX-end to a single-ended (3 conductor) connection on the amp end, then yes.

Yep.

You can safely take a single-ended amplifier output and share the ground line to feed the negative side of a 4 conductor (again, 2 per driver) cable.

What you must NEVER do is take a 4-pin/balanced amplifier output and combine the negative connections to yield a 3 conductor configuration to the headphones. That’ll at best trip your amplifier’s protection (if it has any) and at worst kill it instantly.

5 Likes

If you can just bear with me a little bit more :stuck_out_tongue:

Are there connectors at the headphone end that actually make use of the negative signals instead of just grounding them, making for actually balanced headphones?

No, I meant feeding the headphone end from a TRRS connection on the amp end. On mmcx connectors you have a signal and a ground on each driver, so a regular balanced cable wires the positive wire to signal and the negative wire to ground, right?

So, in a modular system, to feed the mmcx drivers from a TRRS balanced output I’d just follow the same route, positive to signal and negative to ground on each driver. But what about a single-ended output?

A 3.5mm jack at the amp end, for example, how would I deal with the 2 negative/ground pins out of the 4 pins in the modularity connector? Can I have a wire for each ground pin connected to the same ground surface in the 3.5mm jack?

And what about a 3.5mm at the headphone end and a 2.5mm balanced jack at the amp end? I’d have to use a 3.5mm TRRS jack at the headphone end, right? If my headphone 3.5mm female jack is TRS would that be a problem to go with a male TRRS in it? What happens if I wire the negative pins on the amp side but ignore them in the headphone side? Might be a damn stupid question, but by now you can see I don’t know the first thing about audio electrics.

1 Like

The connectors, regardless of type, are not a factor in this. They’ll pass whatever they’re fed, regardless of whether it’s a +/- feed or a +/GND configuration.

For standard dynamic and planar headphones, and a 4-wire configuration, you can just assume that GND and - are the same thing from a wiring/pin-out perspective on the headphone end.

Again, this applies regardless of connector and, in fact, any headphone that has two individual conductors feeding each driver.

On the amplifier side of things you just connect both of the -/GND conductors from the headphone to GND (technically it’s "signal return, but that’s not really important for our purposes here) on the single-ended plug.

Yep, in fact it’s really the only way you can do it - see above.

No, the headphone end connections wouldn’t change at all. You’d do L+/L- from the amp to the 2 conductors feeding the left driver, and R+/R- from the amp to the 2 conductors feeding the right driver.

You need to make sure you don’t connect any of the pins coming from the amplifier together in this case, or you’ll short it (and possibly kill it). In other words, if there are 4-connections off the amplifier/it’s plug then those need to be kept on 4 separate conductors.

Depends on the socket. There’s no reason to do it. At BEST the TRRS connection will wind up shorting the two rings (RR) in the socket so that they act as the same connection (making it effectively a TRS configuration). The driver still only wants two connections … one for + and one for -/GND.

You won’t get any sound.


If you’re not experienced in assembling these things, be VERY careful with your connections and solder work on balanced amplifier connections. TRRS plugs, especially 2.5mm ones, are a fiddly pain in the arse at the best of times, and if you half-ass the joints and one comes loose in the connector it can wind up shorting between other pins, which is definitely a bad thing (good chance it’ll kill it).

If these connections fail on the headphone end of the deal, then all that’ll happen is you’ll get intermittent/no-sound from one side (i.e. the side that has failed).

2 Likes

I should’ve been more specific, I meant headphones with a single 3.5mm jack on their end instead of one for each driver. In this case to use a balanced output I have to go with TRRS, right? Like you said, I need to keep the 4 conductors separate.

And just to confirm again, a TRS socket would work fine with a TRRS plug? No danger to the amp?

Thanks for taking the time to clarify this stuff out for me, @Torq. Really appreciate it, man.

1 Like

In that case, if the 3.5mm connection on the headphone end isn’t already a TRRS jack, then it won’t work as balanced anyway.

Attempting to connect 3-wire/connection headphone to a balanced output will short the amp and probably kill it.

You cannot drive a headphone with just 3-pins (be it XLR like the AKG stuff or TRS), on a single-sided cable entry in balanced mode. You’d need to modify the internal wiring on the headphones and fit them with a 4-pin connection of some form.

That’s almost the opposite of what I said.

The BEST case is that the TRRS plug would mate with a TRS socket and short the two R connections together and consequently work as a TRS plug. You’d have to test it to know exactly what was going to happen with any given socket/plug pair. It’s entirely possible you’d not get the right things connected at all.

And, if you were silly enough to plug an actual balanced connection from the amplifier coming to a single TRRS plug on the headphone end into a TRS socket on the headphone, then you’ll definitely short the amp and, again, it’s probably toast at that point.

There’s literally no reason to do it. Use the proper plug for the socket in the headphone.

3 Likes