Solid core copper!

Solid core copper!

I am using solid core Do copper conductors better than 7N occ copper exist? >_<

And yes, admittedly, it's more correct to say "faux-shielded", meaning it's shielded for only part of the length.

urm.... *ignorant* how do you do that?

to prevent the cable from acting as an antenna.

Is there anything to suggest that this can actually happen in a passive component?

urm.... *ignorant* how do you do that?

You shield them for most of the way, and then just stop shielding just before the drivers (or just before the split).

Is there anything to suggest that this can actually happen in a passive component?

Well, it's not so much acting as an antenna, as preventing RF interference. And it's not so much that you'll hear the RF itself, if you're going to hear anything, you'll hear a by-product of the RF with the signal going through the wire.

And it's highly unlikely that you'll hear it in headphone/speaker cable, you're more likely to hear it if you have a problem before the amplifier, as the amplifier will amplify it.

So yeah, we're getting to the point of severely diminishing returns here, but there is a non-snake-oil explanation for it.

i can tune in local radio stations if i move my headphone cable and interconnects just so. at least i used to be able to with my old PPX3 Slam, i haven't tried with the new one.

Interconnects, yes, but that's a difference case with active components. I read Dusty's reply but I'm still not seeing what the potential impact is at such low impedances.

I am using solid core Do copper conductors better than 7N occ copper exist? >_<

Not sure, sounds like you are set to me.

Because he's going balanced?

Urm, one question, shouldn't balanced operation render the headphones even less suceptible to EMI/RF interference? I'm planning to go unshielded, but with 6 twists per foot or something like that.