The O-rings are surprisingly easy to detach and re-attach, an operation that can be done with one hand. I found this useful when cables were located in difficult-to-reach areas.

The stands are available in 3 colors: black, charcoal grey and silver. You can see all the colors here, though I suspect a normal installation would be monochromatic. I also found that using the Rocket’s different O-ring levels made the most sense for cables that are not working at the same time (e.g. cables from different phono preamps or different line inputs like CD and streamer). For speaker wiring or other cables operating together (e.g. a preamp output and a DAC output), dedicated lifters made sense to my brain.

The Basic Idea

The main thing is Convenience. Audio reviewers, and some consumers, change components or wiring frequently. Some find that having the wiring spaced with greater distances makes it easier to re-route cables needed with new configurations. And this routing can support more secure connections at each termination, especially with heavy cables.

Some people also feel careful routing looks nicer. You could accomplish some of what the Rockets do with homemade items, so the investment in a manufactured product is at least partially aesthetic (and partly for ease of use).

Additionally, engineers who know more about signal integrity than I do suggest that cable spacing can matter for electrical performance in some systems. So, before we go any further, I should say a word about why cable separation might matter. Readers and viewers have asked for some explanation of why manufacturers claim things do things. Specifically, some readers want there to be a mechanism that makes claims about performance seem more or less reasonable (only a partial explanation is requested because a full explanation often involves calculus and extensive knowledge of electrical engineering and mechanical engineering and materials science; readers generally cannot follow nor can we produce these). I should also note that manufacturers could address this issue more directly with some measurements, and to this end a few limited tests are cited in the appendix.

Apologies for the length and complexity of what follows.

The Question

Manufacturers of cable lifters suggest that cable separation can help reduce external (environmental) noise sources corrupting the signals carried by cables. Now, I must repeat this: I don’t know if cable lifters work to improve signal integrity. As a reporter and reviewer, I keep an open mind, however.

The null hypothesis that cable lifters cannot under any circumstances be beneficial is asserted as true by many consumers. That seems possibly correct. It also seems open to question.

• It seems open to question given the research papers and electrical principles involved (see notes at the end in the appendix).
• It seems open to question because both pro and consumer audio use balanced cables at times, and the understanding of these is that they help reduce environmental noise conducted in cables, so we might assume from this practice that environmental noise is an issue.
• It seems open to question because shielding is used in some cables, and shielding is thought to reduce environmentally borne (i.e. from outside the cables) noise in cabling.
• It seems open to question because extensive effort is made by printed circuit board designers to carefully lay out wiring traces to limit noise from adjacent lines and components.
• It seems open to question because many audiophiles have had the experience that proximity between devices and cables can at time cause high-level audible noise.

It seems logically odd that we accept the above conditions as worth addressing but then declare inter-component cable proximity to be absolutely immaterial. The fierceness of the null hypothesis may, of course, simply be a statement of frustration that “we’ve done so much to reduce noise, surely there can’t be more to do!” Or it may be reasoning from simplicity: “something so mundane can’t possibly work!” Or it may be an indirect assertion that there are effects, but that they aren’t audible (more on that a bit later).

To address the reader request, what follows are simply the mechanisms provided by manufacturers for why there might be benefit. You can decide if these mechanisms, and the supporting research cited, are credible or sufficient for you to do something about it.

Cable Lifters, Wire Dressing and Signal Integrity

Note: before reading this, it may be helpful to abandon the idea that electricity flows in wires like water through a pipe, if that’s what your learned in high school physics. It is more complex than that, for example with magnetic and electrostatic fields being generated and not contained by the wires. If you look at Maxwell’s equations and Ampere’s Law and Faraday’s Law, you will see that electromagnetism is at work in signal transfer. There is more in the references below.

Here are some simple effects offered by engineers for why cable lifters and cable dressing may be helpful:

Electromagnetic waves produced by currents in two wires can interfere with each other, leading to effects like crosstalk where a signal from one wire affects another.  It may or may not be a big deal, although when audiophiles are attending to >120 db signal-to-noise ratios, we can be talking about signals at, say, 1 microvolts as important. There are measurements listed in the appendix that show much worse than -100 db crosstalk (e.g. -31 db), for cable spacing from 2 inches to 6 inches. Note that the test conditions are not identical to audio usage.

The field that is less discussed but potentially more important is the electrostatic field.  This is said to matter greatly as this is how most radio frequency (RF) noise is induced into a cable and modulates (distorts) the low-level signal. Thus, a pressing issue may be induced RF noise that is capacitively coupled into a cable (the electrostatic field).  That will create a modulation or masking effect that reduces resolution of low-level signals. We have had the experience of RF coupling into line cables driving amplifiers into thermal overload. Proper shielding should prevent this but note that shielding only measures as reducing interference by 20-60 db (it is a filter).

We talked to cable makers, and they said “for most of cables, around 5” to 6” from each cable to any solid surface such as a floor or cabinet will reduce the coupling.  One needs to be practical, but these are technical ideals.” There is a paper at the end suggesting minimum 2” separation between cables as a rule of thumb.

The issue with the floor, even when conductive pipes and other materials aren’t present is the relative ease of a dielectric insulation material like wood, marble, stone, brick, or carpet to couple RF noise directly into a cable, versus suspension of said cable in air, the latter having far greater electrostatic resistance. Thus, it is said, coupling of induced noise is greatly diminished.

Static electricity can also affect signals in cables, sometimes causing issues like signal dropouts or reduced data transfer speeds. Static electricity, also known as Electrostatic Discharge (ESD), can disrupt or even damage electronic components. This can happen when static charges build up and discharge through cables, especially in environments where static is prevalent.

As I said, this is not proof; these are possible mechanisms supported by some measurements. These mechanisms are what engineers working on cables and electronics point out can happen. You can decide if these mechanisms are worth attending to.

Value

I will mention, in case it is helpful, that the set of changes that may make small audible differences, like cables, cables lifters and isolation, and better connections seem to add up. And they may be more significant as system sophistication increases. It helps, in my experience, to understand that these adjustments aren’t like switching speakers, where you go from one set of large errors to another set of large, easily noticed errors. That, however, doesn’t automatically mean the differences with cable products aren’t useful. The differences tend to show up in the ability of a stereo system to resolve small details and timing information. You may or may not find these to be audible, and if you are still working on voicing your system, cables and cable lifters are not likely the most effective approach. On the other hand, if you are investing in high-end cables and don’t have cable lifters some suggest you may get sub-optimal results. A similar bit of logic could be applied about budgets. Spending $2k on cable lifters, even assuming that lifters work, for a $10,000 system is probably not good budget management.

Summary

I found that the VIABLUE Rocket and Rocket XL cable lifters worked as I wanted and as I imagine you would want. They are easy to use, make re-wiring easier, and I found them attractive. The Rocket and Rocket XL may be appropriate for well-developed systems and could be considered necessary for some.

Test references on cable interactions:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334630266_Analysis_of_Several_Typical_AC_Power_Cable_Crosstalk_Simulation_Tests

This shows a crosstalk level of -21 db to -31 db for cable spacing of 2-6 inches. Test signal is AC, 115v, 400 Hz. Coupling cable is unshielded.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320829869_Analysis_and_simulation_of_cable_crosstalk

General references on cable interactions:

https://www.signalintegrityjournal.com/blogs/12-fundamentals/post/3441-how-interconnects-work-anatomy-of-crosstalk

https://www.flukenetworks.com/blog/cabling-chronicles/cable-testing-101-cross-talk-near-and-far

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/21675/what-should-i-know-about-interference-between-wires-in-a-multi-conductor-cable

https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/1451-4869/2019/1451-48691903311B.pdf

And here are books outlining how the effects mentioned are suggested by Maxwell’s equations, Faraday’s Law and Ampere’s Law:

* J.D. Jackson, *Classical Electrodynamics*, 3rd ed. (Wiley, 1998)

* David J. Griffiths, *Introduction to Electrodynamics*, 4th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

* F. Terman, *Radio Engineers’ Handbook*, McGraw-Hill (1943)