Paul, sorry to ruin your day, but i'm going to respond to your post.
First of all, this is a forum open to all members and anybody can respond. Even if you, me or someone else doesn't like the person or what they have to say.
Secondly, you're question pertaining to the "golden age of stereo" was a somewhat rhetorical question. As such, i did not think that it was all inclusive to any other / all your comments or questions that you would make in this thread.
Third, it would be somewhat logical to assume that a recording engineer / studio using "ratty old cheap cables" might also be using "ratty old cheap components and speakers". As such, i may have incorrectly assumed that you were thinking in an exponential manner or following any form of logic. I appologize for giving you that much credit.
Fourth, the tone of your comments assumed that the mass majority of studios make recordings using cables of lesser quality. Your assumed stance from that point of view was that there is nothing to be gained by fancy wires when trying to reproduce the performance in your listening area. The fact that most studios use balanced lines throughout the entire ( or nearly entire ) equipment chain should show that they have in fact taken into consideration the importance of cables, minimizing their influence on the signal while trying to minimize the potential for degradation from sources such as rfi, emi, line loss, etc... This in itself contradicts your initial assumption.
Fifth, some of the vintage recordings that you find of higher than average quality were probably recorded in a simple format in analogue mode with minimal signal tampering taking place. As such, heavy amounts of EQ, compression, digital processing can make ANY recording sound worse, even those of today using high tech modes of operation. Comparing minimalist recordings done in a relative "purist" style to highly complex recordings done in a highly manipulative style would normally result in very different products, regardless of age or vintage.
Sixth, I'll be glad to disregard your less than articulate or specific posts that sometimes border on troll bait. Sincerely, your friend Sean
>
|
Paul and Sean, I think your both right. A lot of the recordings today by the "factory" studios may indeed care less of the quality than the budget/ profit. The sound of these recordings is placed in history and will never be better than the least component used to create it.
To me the fact that the "Audiophile" labels exist and sound as good as they do is some sort of proof to that. If the master tape is good (often the case in older classic and jazz recordings) then the better equipment will show this quality. If the playback equipment is lesser however the final presentation will also be less.
I guess it depends on your source, if you listen to a lot of the newly recorded "music" from today's mass production studios than forget wire, just sit back and enjoy. If however you have a lot of "audiophile" labels, recorded as purely as possible, then I would recommend using the best possible equipment to take full advantage of the potential left by the studio.
This discussion of cables bores me as a topic, but draws me in with the hope that new audio lovers don't get led astray with wrongful thinking.
I too have auditioned over 40 cables, to claim there is no difference is simple naive and ill informed. This site deserved better.
J.D. |
Whoa! This-here thread got away from me in a hurry. I don't know whether to apologize or thank you, so I'll do both.
Being an "outsider" again with old but somewhat fresh eyes for the jargon, I've got two observations to make that some of you may not see because you've kept up with the literature since I dropped out.
First, the WONDERFUL spoof on fishing line actually hooked me. That's really scary. It means somewhere in the dark recesses of my slowly withering pea-brain, cable claims from a decade ago are still lodged and producing a Pavlovian response in my subconscious. Driving to work, I found myself actually wondering if $3,000 fishing line might work -- I'm not kidding! -- even while my conscious, semi-professional self was screaming "If you think that ridiculous thought one more time, I'm driving this car off the next bridge!"
Second, why hasn't the industry put its efforts into figuring out "why" one piece of wire works better than another? I mean, designing a really great amp, tuner, speaker or CD player takes a bit of effort and some genuine smarts. Hasn't anyone wanted to design an active component or an ability within existing components that would give you exactly the same great sound as the most expensive cable using any conductor of electricity? It's got to be easier (and cheaper!) than buying and testing high-end cables until you find something that sort of works better than something else. This isn't rocket science folks (and even if it were, you can hire rocket scientists in Russia full-time these days for about $1200 a month each).
I would think that speaker and component manufacturers would be interested in being the first to claim their units didn't need fussy, expensive cables to sound great.
By the way, yes, yes, I do have about $600 (used) in speaker cables in my system. I'm not a complete Luddite, OK?
You all are the most intelligent, funny and sensible audiophiles (by and large) that I've ever encountered. Thank you for the great entertainment and information!
Respectfully,
Mark Hubbard |
Mark, there are manufacturers that already make the claim of their components NOT being cable sensitive i.e. all cables sound and measure the same within the confines of their system. The first that come to mind are Krell ( with their CAST system )and Van Alstine. Sean
> |
By default components shouldn't be a cable-sencitive at all but there again plays the marketing side.
Some of the manufacturers will advice you to use only audiophile grade cables and some are fine with pro-grade or even RadioShack. |
Mark: I'd add Dunlavy to Sean's list. (He even admits his own cables don't sound any better than anybody else's!) But I suspect most component manufacturers would see no value in trying to unconvince audiophiles of something they're convinced of. Besides, the proof is there that most (note that I said most) gear doesn't require specialized cables--if you want to accept that proof. But as we know, many audiophiles do not (as is their right). I don't see what else science could do to convince them. |
Well, science doesn't understand everything, or claim to know everything. Those who say if I can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist are walking on thin ice. You do the best you can with the tools you have. There have been many, many instances in history where science has been proven wrong in its assessments (and those who follow and agree). My point earlier in this thread, which was then lambasted, is that I think science has yet devise a measurement to answer the question of what is the difference. So the Pros shake their heads in disbelief because there is no measurable proof of the claim. Attributes such as 6dB of more signal gain (lower noise floor), and high common mode rejection ratios for differential inputs (near elimination of common noise) have a solid mathematical base.
A number of manufacturers use Cardas, Kimber, and various other brands in their designs. I think the best question is, during the design process what cables (and equipment) were used to complete the design. To answer the $7500 question is different for every audiophile. Hence the previous comment on trusting your ears. There are some extremely good cables for a tenth to a hundredth of $7500, but if we could and we heard a difference, would we?
Now back to your pander… |
Lmb- I think almost everyone agrees with you that we have not or cannot measure everything.
Sincerely, I remain |
Yes, blind faith is not at all amenable to measurement. |
Sean, Dan A's CAST system averts the issue to a large degree by converting what is mainly a voltage transmission line into a current transmission line. The thinking is running a low voltage through a cable is prone to interaction/interference while running current through a wire is much less susceptible. Mr. A. also has had several wire vendors design wire just for his systems.
A little off the mark (eh?) Wadia is another company that states in its manual (paraphrase)... "It is not necessary to buy expensive power cables... since we have designed the noise reduction circuitry into the product..." Being a Wadia owner I can say this, power cables can still help, but the unit is far less sensitive to their use. Every so often I put the AC cord that shipped with the unit back in-line and definitely when I am considering a replacement. This statement does prove true. I have heard more degradation with “fancy” cables than without on this particular unit.
IMO, the $7500 used cable is worth it if you can afford it (responsibly) and can actually hear an improvement in your system that justifies the cost to you. I personally feel cable prices are sporting price tags that seem unreasonable, but I don’t pay the bills at those companies to see if the cost is justified or if I am buying someone's next Porsche. We have a choice. There is competition. Am I going to be the 1st in line for them, no. Am I open to the concept, yes? Do I hope trickle down happens in a couple of years to a price I see as reasonable, YES! |
Not my point Doc.
I remain, |
Lmb: It seems pretty clear that you know next to nothing about what science has learned about human hearing. We have measurement devices far more sensitive than the human ear, for example. And any difference you can *prove* you can hear (not just claim to hear) we can explain. When someone comes up with something we can't explain, then it'll be time to work on some new theories. |
It is not too surprising that equipment vendors minimize the need for costly cables. The more spent on wire, the less spent on tubes or silicon. |
NO, but if they can sleep at night, I guess it is OK. I doubt many of the posters here have actually talked to a recording engineer in their life, much less have an educated comment on what happens in the studio. Smoke and mirrors, boys. Do blind testing and see what you like. If it is $6K Nordost Valhalla, go for it. If not, rest assured that there are plenty of competent music lovers with very accurate systems who don't walk down that road. Most of the posters, not necessarily this thread [!], use such distorted and inaccurate speakers that they wander all over place searching for corrections. Beware, the Emporer is Naked! I love you all. Really. Enjoy your music. Charlie |
Charlie aka Danvetc brings up a good point. How many people posting to this thread have ever worked in or have intimate knowledge of the recording or pro sound reinforcement field ? I am not talking about boot-legging a concert with a portable Panasonic cassette deck and a Radio Shack mic or hauling your buddies guitar amp in the back of your van or truck either : )
For the record, i used to run a private pro-sound reinforcement company. From 1984 to 1986, i used to book concerts at a local venue here in Chicago. I was also the "soundman" at every show that was performed there during that period of time. I've recorded demo tapes on several different 24 track boards with a full array of effects for more than a few bands in several different locations. You can find my name on more than a few albums from local Chicago based bands and a few from Europe ( primarily the U.K.). I've also sold pro sound gear at the retail level as a profession. While i hated the gear that they had, it was a job : )
I currently have four very large PA "stacks" in my basement that i'm re-designing for a Chicago based band. These consist of two mains and two side-fills. In small clubs, the side-fills are large enough that they can be used as mains. These guys trust my ears and knowledge enough to put the entire sound of their band in my hands.
I tell you this not to brag, but to give you some idea as to where i'm coming from in terms of experience and exposure. As i've mentioned before, i try to keep my comments based on first hand experience. The only time that i will pass on other information is if it comes from a credible source that i am directly familiar with. I've got better things to do than sit here and spread rumours or pull people's chains.
Now let's hear from some of the others. This way we'll have a better idea as to why they made the comments that they did and how they arrived at those conclusions.
As to people using "coloured speakers", you show me a "flat" or "neutral" speaker and i'll show you a different room / acoustic environment : ) Sean
> |
Bomarc, how can you prove something subjective? Measurement is objective. Each person on this planet has differences in their inner/outer ear "configuration" which implies no two people hear exactly the same. What has been shown recently is the old problem with double-blind testing and audio. Typically, a number of non-audiophile people are asked to detect differences in electronics, etc. The tallied results indicated that all systems sound the same and people detect small variations in loudness and tend to pick the louder system. When the loudness parameter is held constant, the results indicate there is no difference. Audiophiles (and others) are/can be trained to detect small variations in phase, loudness, frequency, etc. Which implies that double-blind testing can be used to prove there are audible differences we can’t measure but we can hear. A prime example is solid-state electronics. These units have measurable errors well below audibility, yet to trained ears there are characteristic signatures to various components and even manufacturers.
As far as what cannot be measured but eventually proves true, Van Allen hypothesized there should be radioactive belts surrounding the earth, and he was able to prove the hypothesis once the US launched its first spacecraft into orbit due to insufficient measurement tools based on the ground at the time.
Here we have a situation where there are clearly audible differences in wire, for whatever reason, but there is no physical measurement to support what we hear. I assume as do many others there is a measurable phenomenon to account for the differences. Either scientists are attempting to measure the wrong thing or we need an outside-the-box thought to devise the measurement needed. |
Sean, I have been a musician in a hobby sense for 25 years although I have played in groups, jazz band, etc. I play guitar. I have been trained to be an Electrical Engineer, but I currently design and build computer networks. Part of my training in the EE realm included sound reinforcement since I really wanted to be a full-time musician or active in the industry. I have done my own recordings on 4 track devices for some time (15 years). I became an audiophile about 20 years ago. I am currently in my early 40s.
I have not doubted a single word you said. I attempted to clarify a staement about CAST and threw in a Wadia comment supporting your statement. There are many realities in music. The guy in the studio has one set of circumstances. The sound reinforcement guy has another set. The music aficionado has another goal.
I do agree the upfront (prerecording) process is very different from what one might assume. Sound reinforcement can assume numerous “faces” from quality to quantity. The audiophile’s goal (or mine anyway) is to accurately reproduce what ends up of the media no matter what happened during the process. The ultimate reference is unamplified music or natural sounds. Personally, I have never thought a mic (Shure SM-57 or whatever) sitting 12” in front of a single Greenback sounded like the real thing on recordings. Especially if the sound pressure was such that it deformed the mic’s membrane.
Acoustics are everything. Change the room, and the system’s reproduction characteristics will change period. This is measurable. Move the system in the room and the acoustics change. I do have my speaker’s anechoic measurements (Dunlavy); unfortunately I don’t listen to music in such an environment, so for my acoustic environment they are essentially invalid. I do believe DSP correction devices can help as long as the correction is in the digital domain.
Again, if you don’t hear it, don’t buy it, but most of all enjoy it regardless of the pieces. |
If I can sell this whole hobby SHORT I would. |
Lmb: Here's where we differ: We both agree that there are cables which sound different when compared sighted, but which are indistinguishable in a blind test. You conclude that there must be something wrong with the blind test. I, and the scientific community that studies such things, conclude that sighted information is a factor in the perceived difference in sound. You're entitled to your conclusion. And I'm entitled to point out that mine has some solid experimental work backing it up.
You ask scientists to come up with some measurement that will explain what you perceive. Don't hold your breath. They already have their explanation, you see. |
I don’t think we are communicating, but at least we can discuss this rationally and agreeing we disagree is certainly a valid outcome – nice change. I was trained to be a scientist. I do believe in repeatable, documentable processes. What I was trying to say in the last post is that previous double-blind testing did not involve people adept at detecting small differences in phase response, amplitude variances at a particular frequency, etc. I believe subjective audio analysis cannot be done by a layman lacking in the skills to perform the task. The listener must be trained to recognize and practice recognizing minute differences in audio phenomenon. Something that is not instinctual. My understanding is human ears seem to be designed to aid our survival (e.g. direction, distance) not our pursuit of accurate sound reproduction.
In a very recent test with audio reviewers, a small sample set which can imply invalid sample size, in a double-blind scenario gave consistent, repeatable scores well above random guessing, (80% and higher if memory serves me). The scientists then hypothesized with further testing, this may invalidate the layman testing done previously. I agree with the premise. I agree more testing needs to be done, but at least there is some reasonable assertion that we’re not all convincing ourselves of manifestations of our minds. I think this holds true in many disciplines. Article appeared in TAS or Stereophile and no I don’t believe everything I read.
I am with you man. I understand the issues on your side-of-the-fence, which most of the time is my side-of-the-fence. However, my perceptions tell me otherwise and on this one, and I have jumped ship. I am simply saying consider it. Whack, the ball’s in your court. |
Anyone trying to bring science into this discussion I question what your religion is? Science will not admit that a power greater then us is possible, could they(scientists) be wrong twice?
~Tim |
Tim, I was not aware that science and religion were mutually exclusive. Where did that come from? If one equates faith in God with faith in Nordost Valahalla's ability to "transform" a system, and/or the fact that some scientists are aetheists because they cannot prove the existance of a supreme being and therfore all scientists are areligious, are we not blowing this out of proportion? BTW, I am an Episcopalian. Enjoy your tunes. Charlie |
Actualy Einstein was quite religious but I do not think he could change a tire.
Sincerely, I remain |
Perhaps it was an over statement, but I hope most of you catch the drift of what I am saying. I think I have watched the movie "Contact" one to many times :)
In other words, do you love your spouse? kids? prove it scientifically |
Lmb: By this point in the dialogue one side or the other usually gets snippy, and the other side leaves in disgust. If we keep up with this civility crap, we could bore ourselves to tears.
Training is essential in valid audio tests, although the type of training isn't necessarily what you pick up at the local audio salon. And I suspect the variation in hearing between audiophiles and non-audiophiles is smaller than you think it is. Absent data, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
Or...somebody could get some data. I'm not up to it myself, but someone so inclined could do a DBT of cables using a state-of-the-art system and the best audiophiles he could find. You'd think somebody would have an interest in proving us narrow-minded objectivists wrong.
As for your reported positive test, I'm afraid I missed it. Please provide details, or a specific cite. |
God, should you choose to accept his existence, exists beyond His creation and for that reason may not be "measurable." All evidence of anything made by man is certainly measurable by man.
Of course some scientists are or were religious, and some are or were not. No real correlation there.
But, the real purpoe of my current message is to call your attention to Sports Illustrated. On the back cover, there is an ad. The ad has a picture of a young woman in a two piece "swimsuit." The caption: "Yes, God Is a man." |
funny coincidence (or is it?): god came over to my house this past weekend. she loved the salsa and chips and taught me how to measure theistically, deistically and scientifically the differences among ic's, pc's and cables. 'course, youÂ’ll have to take this on faith, since she told me that if i gave up the secrets, i'd be as good as dead. at best. -cfb |
Kelly - now we all know that you must be joking as everyone knows that God is a man...ask any guy (just don't ask any women) |
Can we trust Northwestern U? Link to recent auditory testing:
http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1183 |
Lmb, you and bomarc restore my faith in the 'gon. When I first became a member of this community, one of its most prolific posters wrote to say that he was by no means sure that I was welcome (in his eyes) because I had dared mention the utility of testing and measurement. And here you are, having an erudite and thoughtful discussion with no one playing pile-on. Wonderful!
Lmb, you make the clearest case for the value of careful testing with trained listeners that I have read. I wish I had written it. If audiophiles are willing to lay aside some of their apprehensions about controlled testing and lend the testers their highly educated ears, we could make enormous progress. |
One of my favorite folks in audio is Lynn Olson, I quote
"The deepest challenge of designing high fidelity equipment is... reconciling the interior experience of listening with the technical world of measurements. If you can't reconcile the two, or insist that only one exists, you are flying blind. Since I've been designing system speakers for the last twenty years, I've spent much of that time finding associations between the perceptual experience and measurements. With so many possible analytic techniques (frequency response, group delay variation, inter-drive phase angle, polar response vs. frequency, cumulative waterfall display, IM distortion vs. frequency, etc), the hard part is deciding which set of measurements are the most significant." from "Finding Common Ground" at www.aloha-audio.com/library/findingsCG.html
The Article "Finding Common Ground" goes on to describe his findings using a spectrum analyzer that, he argues, undercut many of the common assumptions about distortion that have directed the development of audio for several decades. It's very nice and worth the read.
In any event, we have to reconcile the listening experience with measurements and I certainly do not think we have learned how to measure everything or that we measure the right thing all of the time. If we think we understand it all than we'll stop looking, eh? That being said, I fall on the side on the argument that measurments will tell us most of why wire does what it does and that a huge body of folklore and hype can be avoided with a little respect for EEs and very basic measurements. I use very inexpensive but well designed wire.
As the good Bishop notes, It's nice to have civil discussion on the topic without anyone calling the other deaf or naive.
Sincerely, I remain |
Well, this is just like S-pile! A straightforward report on a nice piece of research involving training listeners to hear differences, and then a paragraph of pure tripe:
"Although small in scope, both studies lend credence to audiophiles' assertions that they can hear minor differences—such as those between amplifiers or CD players, devices with extremely small frequency-response discrepancies—and that the ability to do so improves with practice. The studies also call into question the validity of blind tests that do not account for the skills of the participants or provide a meaningful way for them to learn the sonic characteristics of the equipment or recordings being compared."
This research provides NO evidence that audiophiles or anyone else can hear the kinds of frequency response differences between typical solid-state amplifiers (which is not to say that all amps are indistinguishable). And anyone doing auditory research knows you have to train listeners (including audiophiles, who would need to be trained in detecting the particular differences under test).
Granted, not every DBT ever done has been accompanied by adequate training. But the only way to really discredit such efforts is to do a test where listeners ARE properly trained, and show that they can hear differences. And that, as people like me love to point out, ain't ever been done yet. |
Well said Bomarc, but Spile has to accomodate it's advertisers, of course.
Bishopwill, it is certainly the knee-jerk reaction of 99% of "audiophiles" to completely reject the notion that they may fall prey to marketing hype, aesthetics, and popularity. Seems to be lots of hyperbole, i.e. "amp A has a MUCH LARGER soundstage than amp B" etc...,but never the willingness to have a friend over, relax with a drink [or not], and do some blind testing.
IMHO, pride can "get in your back pocket."
Charlie |
Thanks Bishopwill for a little support. I have been an AudioGon member for some time. I too have been frustrated by the apparent attitude that some threads have. I finally stopped coming to these formus for probably more than a year because discussions are interesting and informative until they become personal.
I did qualify the link by saying more testing. Is it not a standard practice in scientific research to form a hypothesis during the testing phase to try and validate the question? Since there are two independent groups testing, this should help eliminate bias. Differences in solid-state electronics do occur from improper shielding and design which manifests itself as noise or non-linear operation within a specified range. CD players differ in sound at a minimum due to poor design (jitter). Is it being stated that a ladder DAC and a single-bit DAC produce the same output for the same input?
I would like to pose a few questions.
Do the folks making a living in recording, mastering, or reinforcement areas, claim we have all the measurements necessary to full characterize all aspects of wire performance?
Does anyone from group above understand the basic concepts of electromagnetic field theory. Why does Kimber braid his cable? What is the difference between CAT 3 and CAT 5 wire for networking (digital communication)?
Does the mathematics for line transmission theory applied to audio cable (i.e. a transmission line can be characterized as a LRC type of circuit) which implies a “Z” impendence or phase shift?
What is skin effect? What is a boundary condition is (signal reflection)? Why pieces of cable act as antennas? What is noise and do we care?
Why some manufacturers, use shielding, twisting, and passive filters on their wire? Would this not imply that different cables sound different simply by design? Pushing it a little, I know.
What are the measurable differences between silver, copper, and hybrids? Why wouldn’t these differences possibly be audible?
Thanks. |
lmb: i'm sure you already know the answers to all your questions. i don't and feel NO need to find them. i prefer just listenin' to music through my system, which includes the wires that sound best to me. it's really that simple. but, hey, if measurin' is what floats your boat, then keep on keepin' on. just don't interrupt me with your results. -cfb |
Well I don't know about CFB, but I would like to hear a detailed answer to each and every one of Lmb's questions, plus about 20 others. A seriously good technical discussion on cables, along with what is speculative but possible, would do a great deal to clear the air on this board and on pro audio boards as well, since the topic generates flames everywhere. |
I should also like to add that too free a belief system that sound is all that matters will leave you vulnerable to what others call snake oil. $7500, or $23000, or literally whatever for wire does have a certain amount of tulip mania about it, no? |
Thank you all for your sincerity and insights. I realize this thread quickly evolved into areas far beyond my original question, but I gained tremendous respect for the quality and depth of thought that many of you have given to this subject.
Here are my reflections, now that I've read more than 80 of your responses:
1.) The perception of the importance of wire is driven largely by the audio press and the vast market availability, and by the fact that there are audible differences among some types of wire, some of which are perceived by some people in some systems to cause significant improvement in playback quality sufficient to justify their apparently disproportionate cost in relation to active components.
2.) Perhaps just as easily, this attention could have been given instead (and in many cases was) to other tweaks or to other parts of the signal chain, such as speaker cabinet modification; room acoustic treatments; addition of subwoofers; DSP; ambient restoration devices; home wiring; stick-on discs; green pens; elimination of A/C as a power source; as well as upgraded power supplies, potentiometers, capacitors, wiring and circuit layout within active components.
3.) However, messing with the guts of an assembled component (or speaker system) is still considered somewhat taboo on the playback side of things, usually adversely affecting potential resale value. On the recording side, adventurous musicians and engineers who find the status quo unacceptable are tearing apart microphone capsules and replacing parts that have been considered "unreplaceable" for half a century, looking for (and definitely finding) improvements in sound quality that were unobtainable even five years ago.
4.) Most of those who identify themselves as audiophiles are more likely to spend significant amounts of money on trying new interconnects and cables (or new speakers and components) than on experimenting with improving what they already have. The audio press supports the market-driven illusion that component replacement *is* improving what one already has (which ignores the entire underlying argument). Yet how many of us have purchased an "upgrade" that in all honesty was no better (or even worse) than what it replaced? How many of us even want to A/B our own "upgrades" for fear we won't hear what we want to hear?
5.) Listening preferences in playback are learned. Most audiophiles seem to believe there is a single scale of quality in sound reproduction that is relatively linear and can be described loosely as valuing that which "sounds the same as the original event."
6.) Little thought is currently given to matching playback quality with recording quality. Few people purchase multiple systems (with intentionally selected limitations) specifically to make the vast majority of recorded music sound listenable. Most audiophiles appear to believe that continual improvement of the playback signal chain (less coloration, less noise, greater purity, more power, etc.) will (or should) eventually make all recordings sound better, despite overwhelming experiential evidence to the contrary.
7.) Exceptions are those "system companies" (such as Conrad Johnson or McIntosh) and some British manufacturers (such as Rogers and Creek) that studiously ignore the pursuit of accuracy or fidelity in the audiophile sense, instead concentrating on making ordinary playback sources sound reasonably musical. Some of these companies have followings that simply ignore the audio press. Others have carved out a niche within the popular culture.
8.) There are largely unexplored disconnects between internal and external wiring, and between the process of recording and the process of playback. Should matching be a consideration? Does it make sense for the internal wiring of an active component to come off a $5 spool of 22 gauge copper wire and terminate at a gold-plated plug to which we connect a $1000 one-meter interconnect? Why *not* continue the internal wiring to the next component, eliminating two mechanical connections in the signal chain (and a significant and perhaps unnecessary cost)? Does it make sense to increase playback resolution and apparent "accuracy" to the point that mainly the faults and limitations of the original recording are revealed? Might it even be reasonable to build a system around the studio monitors on which the engineer chose the shape and color of the original recording, or to have multiple sets of speakers to more closely match the limitations of original recordings?
Over on a recording site, I recently read the most remarkable statement. An acquaintance of mine, a very fine high-end purist recording engineer in Boston, is basically "giving away" his mint-condition DPA 3529 stereo microphone pair and matching preamp for $3,000 (its list price in 1998 was over $8,400). He cannot find a buyer, despite the fact that this set will produce the most accurate recordings of live performances imaginable, straight into a DAT deck or hard drive recorder with NO compression, reverb, or effects whatsoever. The accuracy of these B&K mics is legendary -- the best stereo recordings of orchestral and choral music in the world are made with this set. They reveal EXACTLY what was heard!
But when we started discussing them among recording engineers, one finally stepped up and said, "Yeah, they're completely accurate and BORING!" His comment spurred other experienced engineers to agree. In other words, the realism, fidelity and clarity sought (and paid handsomely for) by audiophiles is considered too tame for many sound engineers, who want "better than real" sound in their recordings.
Where does that leave us?
Thank you for your patience and consideration.
With warm regards,
Mark H. |
Lmb: So many questions, so little time. But I'll take a flier at a few:
I don't know about recording and mastering engineers, but my sense is that the folks whose business it is to actually study the propagation of signals do indeed think they have a pretty complete handle on how signals pass through cable. For example, silver is only about 6% less resistant than copper. If you plot their relative effects on frequency response, the differences will probably fall well below the known thresholds for human detection. No law that says you gotta accept that (or believe me, for that matter).
My favorite question of yours is: Why some manufacturers, use shielding, twisting, and passive filters on their wire? Would this not imply that different cables sound different simply by design?
My answer: No, it implies that they need a gimmick to distinguish their product from the other guy's, when they both sound the same. (A bit unfair: Shielding can be important in some cases, and I don't want to speculate on passive filters. Why you'd want such filters if they do affect sound I'm not clear on.) |
Bomarc, you've just set the stage for the basis of marketing high end cables! All this twisting, filtering and pseudoscientific explanations is what marketers cling to! Power cords epitomize this. Use a little filtering, a 'unique' twisting and then power cords start sounding 'different'...
I've previously posted that power cords should not have any filtering incorporated in them--there's gear specifically for that.
Jon Risch's website sheds a lot of light on this subject. Just pure and simple copper with proper dielectrics and off you go! No need for the Voodoo...
I'd rather make my own cables and spend my saved money on a cable burner. |
|
In its simplest terms, it is used to "break-in" a cable by running a range of frequencies, which may extend several orders of magintude beyond the audio band, through the cable for 24 to 72 hours. I think one of the assumptions is that the free electrons available for conducting electric signals tend to be polarized in a “broken-in” cable. The idea is if a cable sits idle too long, is new, or just doesn't sound like it use to, this device will rapidly condition the cable for use. Conditioning is supposed to make the cable less harsh in the upper octaves and more defined in the lower octaves. This conditioning process is applies to ICs, speaker, etc, depending on the connections on the unit.
This question should cause uproar like the original post. I do not have an opinion here as I have not participated in the process. I would like to do it double-blind. |
First of all, I agree that cables should not have filters, unless we want a cable to alter the sound.
The field of science of electromagnet fields tells us through mathematics that whenever an electrical signal passes though a conductor, it generates a magnetic field around the conductor and a force on the electrons in the wire. This is termed EMI. Braiding provides these benefits. Since half of the braid is positive and the other half is negative, the signal currents are in opposing directions. The EM fields created will cancel each other. This configuration radiates very little EMI and is less susceptible to interference.
Secondly, braided wire is used across a broad range of industries. For example, aviation, instrumentation, pro audio, audio, and networking all rely on braiding for improved performance. To answer one question I posed. The difference between CAT3-phone & CAT5-data is the number of twists per foot. Braining reduces conducted, inducted, and capacitive interference.
I have completely refrained from such voodoo dances in my entire discussion. Look at all of my comments in this thread. Then search for information on the Internet (or library) from scientific organizations. Check it out you will be surprised.
The dielectric industry is a big business because the use of dielectrics is very complex. Changes in temperature, interaction with metals, conductivity, and capacitance are some of the variables. The bottom line is all you can do is minimize the interaction. Someone who I have a great deal of respect for, Harvey Rosenberg also had an article appear in Listener in which his cable design was two pieces of wire separated by a couple of wood spacers using Radio Shack termination (i.e. no dielectric).
I assume the cable burner is a sarcastic snub. |
Thanks Mark for the post and everyone else for the civility on this topic.
Lmb: "one of the assumptions is that the free electrons available for conducting electric signals tend to be polarized in a "broken in" cable." I am not certain what you mean and I do not want to put word in your mouth.
I have heard similar explanations at more length. My problem with the argument is as follows. (Please understand that I make no claim to understand the intricacies of how an audio signal works and am, quite frankly, dumbfounded by it the closer I look.)
1)The audio signal is an ac signal, that is, the direction of the current flow changes with each half cycle.
2)This means that there is basically no net direction to the current flow. "Current" flows equally in both directions. If this is true, even if there is such a thing as "polorized electrons" how could that aid the flow of electrons if they are moving in two directions?
3)In any event it is not the "flow" of electrons that carries the audio signal but rather the electric field/voltage that transfers the energy of the signal.The field moves through the electrons a little like a wave through water (very imperfect analogy). Electrons move at the speed of light but the "drift velocity" of the electrons in a cable is very slow (a couple inches per second). It's slow because of the huge excess of electrons available. During the negative half of the signal electrons are actually pulled back into the amp and basically go back and forth in this manner. Many electrons leaving the amp may never make it to the speaker. The electric field/voltage on the other hand moves at the speed of light.
In any event, I do not understand how you polorize a particle that is by definition negatively charged and what good it would do if you could do it.
Sincerely, I remain
|
Instead of cable burner I have a great recipie on how to burn without burner. If you're interested send me e-mail.
I do appload to Mark for this great discussion and conclusive thought about reality. If anyone wishes to ask me about the calculated numbers on different interconnect wires, equivalent circuits and how they're actually calculated in difference from the manufacturer's "scientific" explaination I will try to bring it to you in the simpliest English and digits. I would also want to try to check the legal side of that issue and take on my arms osciloscope, multimeter, pen, calculator and the paper to prove that there is NO difference between $7500/m interconnect and $35/m interconnect since I'm an engineer and I do understand what's going on. But wait, if there is a group of consumers why not sell and who finally will win?
Unfortunately not engineers in that case. |
Responding to one of Mark's posts above, I am not a Luddite either, but I am a Neanderthal (figuratively as well as genetically I think).
As I've said many times before, I love these cables threads on A'gon, because they go on and on. As some have noted above, it is nice to be able to have a civilized conversation abut this subject. On the other big websites, you can't talk about it. No mention of DBT is allowed at the Cable Asylum, and that's fine - I am not critical of that rule. At Audioreview.com's Cable forum, you can't suggest that anything sounds different from or better than 12 gauge stranded from a hardware store or the interconnects that come in the boxes of mid-fi components without being drowned out and subjected to ridicule.
Here we have 3 or 4 camps with subgroups all talking, and the benefit is someone may learn enough to question his own assumptions and either find a killer cable that makes his system sound better or save a lot of money by deciding for himself that the cheap stuff is just as good.
I was going to say something about alternating current and "direction," but I think Clueless has covered the subject better than I could.
I have tried and rejected some mid-priced speaker cables (like Nordost Blue Heaven, Kimber 8TC and one of the MIT cables) because I didnt like the way I thought they sounded (on a sighted basis, and one or another of them may have revealed some deficiency in the system I was using at the time, - so if I were testifying in court that is all I could say). I have played around with sub $400 interconeects, compared them to the Radio Shack cables recommended by John Dunlavy (which aren't as bad as they are annoying to use) and settled on some well shielded cables with locking WBT-like barrel connectors made by a local pro gear company that cost $40. The interconnects I use seem to me to get the job done. For some strange reason, all the other interconnects I have tried seem to alter the signal somehow or, let in too much rfi, emi and just noise from light fixtures and such. I don't know how an interconnect makes the sound brighter or duller, but some seem to do so (again on a sighted basis - the differences I perceive may disappear in a DBT).
I am inclined to believe the ees who say simple competently designed cables are as good as anything else you can buy. Their arguments make sense to me and since I'm cheap I am biased in their favor.
The initial point of this thread way up there was not "don't all cables sound the same," but is it necessary to spend a fortune on good cables. I think most people here probably agree that it isn't necessary. Disagreeing are a lot of people who havent responded including a few who have invested in the Nordost Valhalla or that even more expensive stuff, and who evidently thought it made sense to do so.
What does it mean when you know less than someone who is "clueless?" |
Marc, I have been using a cable burner for quite a while now (Audiodharma, made by Alan Kafton) to break in all the cables, before I send them out to my customers.
Since I had chance to audition more than 50 different brands of cables, I can tell you, it made always a huge difference before and after.
I am putting again a brand of cables to the test against my HMS cables and the day I got my competitors cables, I put it straight into my system. They sounded quite edgy, metallic, if you want. After two days on my cable cooker though, it had vastly improved.
Now I was able to conduct my private little cable shoot-out, to see if other cables can best the price-performance ratio I have found in my cables.
(Since I do not want to bash the competition, I do not say names here anymore) but as you must be aware of, I have done some rather bold statements regarding HMS cables, which, up till now, still hold up.
So yes, in my opinion a cable cooker is a wise investment.
Talk to Alan about it (I am getting no provision here). He will explain everything much better than I can. But for me, a cable cooker works. |
Yes 7500 for cables is a lot if your paying for the manufacturers ad in this months audio specialists mags.But there are many super cables out there that do not have the press or the trendy exposure and reproduce the music without killing your pocketbook.Cables do make a big difference.Have an open mind and cautious wallet. |
theaudiotweak: boy, does your post make me feel a lot better. i paid $15,000 for a pair of .5 meter interconnects that have never been reviewed. or even heard of by all but the "true insiders." thank goodness! -cfb |
For $15K I could have kept the model I was after in Mexico... |
