Again, this is semantics. What we learn is which cable sounds better in our system. |
a cable does not sound better or worse in one stereo system or another. the stereo system may sound better or worse with one cable or another.
a cable does not change when it is inserted into one system or another. it is the same cable. how can it sound better or worse ? the cable sounds the same regardless of where it is placed. the stereo system is affected by the cable. |
Mlsstl, it is semantics. Since some cables sound better they must of necessity be passing the signal better and/or keeping spurious signals out better. They are subtracting less in the first case or adding less in the second case. I don't know what this perspective adds to the discussion, however. |
Tbg wrote > "I certainly would not go so far as to say cables cannot elevate the sound to a higher level of excellence. Does this not imply a zero improvement?" Perhaps just an issue of semantics, but a cable is not an active component. It cannot "add" anything to a signal; there is no amplification or gain and it shouldn't be shaping the frequency response or other signal characteristics. What a cable can do is take things away; it can fail to accurately transmit the signal. It can allow EMI or RF interference to distort the signal. It can change the frequency response. It can fail to transmit the full signal strength. But it cannot make the signal "better" than when it left the source component (unless you count on the cable's deficiency to be an inverse match to a defect elsewhere in a system.) Of course, that is an interesting approach, build a system based on combining defects and substandard performance. Not the approach one would typically think to take, but there is room for everyone in this hobby. ;-) |
Audiofeil states:
"Cables are system and listener dependent. It's that simple."
That sums it up as well for me. Cables, regardless of their cost, are very system dependent and subjective percentage improvement can only be subjectively quantified by the user in his own system. |
Dazzdax. I certainly would not go so far as to say cables cannot elevate the sound to a higher level of excellence. Does this not imply a zero improvement? |
|
Hi Ted, I'm not saying all cables sound the same. Cables could bring out the full potential of the system (provided there is already a musical sounding system and excellent system synergy), but it is unlikely they will add much more "musicality" to it. In case of a sytem with bad system synergy you cannot expect from cables (no matter what they cost) that they will "transform" the entire sound into something "magically". It is a fact that most cable advertisements are giving the impression that cables are capable of elevating the sound of a system, whatever the system and whatever the synergy, to a higher level of excellence, but this is absolutely not true.
Chris |
How does anybody ascertain the percentage increase or decrease in performance, period? I can understand the notion of the magnitude of improvement, but percentages seem to me to be false precision. |
>>$20K spent on cables may give you 4%-5% higher performance<<
How does anybody ascertain the percentage increase or decrease in performance for somebody else's system?
In the absence of any "standard", differences are purely subjective BTW, it's one of the dumbest things I've read here and that covers a lot of ground.
Cables are system and listener dependent. It's that simple. |
$20,000 more spent on cables will give you... 4-5% higher performance. If you have the money then you should do this.
I think we live in a crazy world: some audiophiles are spending more money on cables than on their equipment. The biggest improvement in sound can only be achieved with the right equipment, system synergy and good quality AC power!! My buddy's FM Acoustics amplifier sounds already great with ordinary 14 gauge copper speaker cables. Using "top notch" and pricey speaker cables yields only a small improvement (somewhat higher resolution and a bit more extended treble).
Imho to spend on very expensive cables (let's say $10,000 for a pair of speaker cables) is the least beneficial step you would make with regard to sound. Of course there will be audiophiles who think I'm talking bullsh**.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that expensive cables are useless, so don't get me wrong.
Chris |
The improvement is there, if all other links in the audio chain are comparable/equal. |
I guess tube and wire tasters are relieved to hear signal molestation. That way they get the satisfaction all that money they spent is traceable, true fidelity aside.
IMMMMHHHHHOOOOO hoho.
How's that for lighting a fuse.....? |
Thg, what ss equipment have you found? I need a new preamp. |
Regalmal - "No insult intended" . None was taken. Your note just got me to thinking. I guess maybe 'neutral' sort of means containing characteristics of distortion typical to the listerners reference setting for live music. |
Just enough that I would 'not' even 'consider' removing any of those I use, which I have assembled with careful listening and which provide a sound I enjoy, without knowing the replacement would be better. How would I know a better replacement? By listening and enjoying the sound more. Cheers |
Regalma1, on snow I prefer red to see the slope changes more easily. I am now using a ss preamp and amp as finally someone has made one that accurately reproduces music. SETs do alter the music but less than anything else, IMHO. |
No insult intended to tube folks. I have a couple of pieces myself. I just like to make the point occasionally that anything that changes the signal is distorting the signal. But that could be in a good way. A good analogy are sunglasses. Most people, including myself, prefer a lense that is not pure, neutral grey. |
Regalmal - "buy tube equipment precisely because it distorts the sound the way they like it to be distorted." Agreed. But sometimes I think it is that we like to imitate the acoustic reflections, frequency attenuation , etc, that we are used to hearing in a live setting with a 'good sounding' building or room. |
I read the HiFi+ review that David12 mentions. It seemed to be a well set up DBT. There were three judges, a high end audio salesman, an esoteric cable company owner and the magazine's test engineer. The last was a total disbeliever in cables. They all ended up prefering the same set of cables (set being interconnects and speaker wire all from the same company and group within the company's line). The one they preferred also happened to be the one preferred by most of the editors of the magazine. Was it a perfect test? Was honestly reported on (don't underestimate the importance of the objectivity of the writer)? I can't say. But it did open me up to the possibility that cables can make a difference. I recently bought my first pair of esoteric IC's. I had read two reviews that made them sound like they could make the change that I was looking for. Within the limits of my ability to objectively evaluate them without any of sort of blind testing I would say they made a big, and positive difference. I really like the sound much better. I would also judge that they did this by acting as low pass filters. So transparent they are not. What's new? I think we all understand that the objective of esoteric cables is not transparency. But then people buy tube equipment precisely because it distorts the sound the way they like it to be distorted. My next step is get out my real time analyzer and see if I can measure a change in the frequency response of my system. It was pretty flat before I started. It might be interesting to measure the flatness at each end of the cable. |
Gee thanks Psycicanimal. :) |
The closer the system can approach neutrality, the more evident most cabling sucks. Words of wisdom. *** |
Joeylawn, that is another meaningful dimension. Ultimately, I suspect all of us have a pricepoint beyond which we will not go. |
"There can be no difference" versus "I hear a difference" -
How about a third point of view? Mine is: While I agree that some expensive cables sound better than cheap ones, I REFUSE to spend big bucks on cables. |
Well said, David12, this thread is just another of the "there can be no difference" versus "I hear a difference" threads. They are a waste of energy. |
This is an eternal question there is no answer to. One side says you can't possibly hear a difference, you are imagining it, the other that the difference is manifest and obvious. Who is right, who cares. I am not being flippant in saying who cares. Second hand cable is pretty cheap and resellable. Try some good cable, even better, borrow from the cable company. If you don't hear a difference, what have you lost.
By the way, what are these DBT that knowone could hear a difference in. I have seen published trials where there was good uniformity of views, HiFi+ for example.
Me, I bought an Acoustic Zen cable set on this site, with advice from this site and I really can hear a difference. That was 4 years ago and I'm still using it. If you don't hear a difference, thats ok, I am not going to impune your audiophile credentials. |
"most components in current production are relatively "colorless", that is they don't have any serious audible flaws."
I have to disagree with this statement. I've heard too many components that are colored and some do have some serious audible flaws, regardless of what cables are being used to "fine-tune" the system. IMHO |
cables may be the last opportunity to voice a stereo system to suit your taste. most components in current production are relatively "colorless", that is they don't have any serious audible flaws.
cabling and speakers may be the only way to voice a stereo system to one's taste. |
Slow train coming for me....cabling was the last "upgrade" I took on in the early development of my system. Over the years, I have come to believe that cabling is every bit as important and significant to a system's presentation as speakers...
I currently have a fully Crystal Cable ReferenceConnect wired system, (4) power cords, (2) set of interconnect and speaker wire. MSRP of the lot is iver $22,500.00. Insane? Yes, but this hobby is insane as a whole. I love them and do not anticpate changing ever (?!) again...
John |
Thanks for the response Jim.
FWIW , unless I inherit cables in gear purchases,I make my own and have been quite happy.
I have some friends who changed all their power and IC cables and really felt it made a huge difference but I have yet to be convinced to go that route. |
No one hearing my system first can tell me a blind test is necessary for telling for sure the difference of this amp or that amp. I had a two very respected maker amps servicing my speakers, and they both sounded nothing like each other, and neither approached the fidelity of my amps.
Like I said before, wires create distortion. Wires and ribbons cannot be improved on through insulation. They just go through make up and costume.
We tried different digital cables on a fine Audio Note SET system. One was a simple AV triwire we get with cheap video purposes. There was also a Silverline Audio, an Audio Note silver, Audio Quest, and the most expensive, a Virtual Dynamics. We had one blindfolded listener, who is an audio reviewer, and four other honest audiophiles, including me.
Without the blind folded person knowing we exchanged the wires from the cheapest to the most expensive. The AV cable sounded really good on this excellent system. The next three sounded..... No different. I was the cable skeptic of the bunch. At the time I didn't have the system I am enjoying now.
I was feeling quite vindicated.
Then it was the $900 VD's turn. To all of our amazement, It sounded decidedly more vivid. The Blind folded guy was the only one allowed to speak during this test. He too heard a difference only with the VD installed.
Structurally, the VD is very different.
The moral is, science can make a better wire. It's just that most audio wire makers are more interested in creating the most successful lure. That's what sells. |
Mothra,
Appreciate the intelligent response, specifically the example of turning up the jitter effect and then returning it to its normal level. These discussions need more elucidation of that sort, and less ad hominem.
While we must consider whether or not the listener knows what he's listening for, I wouldn't say that the phenomenon you describe undermines the credibility of double-blind tests, but rather more clearly defines what they actually achieve. In other words, DBT's never proved that amps sound alike, but only proved that the test's participants couldn't readily identify the difference.
I guess we should always qualify the question of audible difference in terms of whose ear(s) we're considering. The general public wouldn't be expected to differentiate between cables, but those individuals who CLAIM they can tell the difference (like those in your example who've already heard the jitter turned up) should have little trouble discerning reliably in a blind test. |
jim,
Sigh. This is why i stopped posting at rec.audio.high-end. It seems the reductionist camp and the "everything is magic" camp never tire of arguing.
Unreliable and being level matched certainly sometimes.
People tend not to name what they are hearing if they don't understand properly what they are listening for or how they are listening for it. This doesn't mean they do not hear something, it only means they cannot identify it.
I remember there was a DBT test a friend of mine who is a mastering engineer participated in some time back, where people were asked to identify dithered and non dithered material. Most people couldn't not identify the sound of jitter or could not say what it was. However, when the sound of the jitter was turned up so one could hear the way it sounds and then turned back down to its original "inaudible" level, most people could tell the difference in the DBT because they knew how to indentify the sound they were listening for.
I don't have a problem with DBT's myself, I do them when I can to listen for differences in gear.
The history of DBT's has been spotty though. They have showed us apparently, that no amps sound different, that vinyl does not sound different from cassette , etc., etc. So, one can say that these were poorly conducted, but at some point something everyone knows, like that there is a discenable difference in the sound of amplifers, has been "proved" wrong by a DBT.
I don't particularly care whether people swear by them or don't and I am also suspicious by nature about tweaks, cables and other things that seem less than scientific. Since my job is in audio, I am constantly testing for audible differences. However, this process has a lot more wiggle room than determining that a motorcycle can't get you to the moon. |
Some stereo systems, because of their components, are more neutral than others. A trained listener is a person who attends live acoustic performances. If the stereo can reproduce a cello and a violin convincingly, then that is a trustworthy indication it can get other musical entertainment accurately as well.
The closer the system can approach neutrality, the more evident most cabling sucks. The majority of expensive cabling is heavily jacketed with synthetics. On a super revealing system, that insulation floods the signal with a static mess. I can prove that.
Highly obscuring cables are for what ales your source, preamp, amp, and speakers. Get those items right, and rid yourself of the need to cable roll. |
no cables, no components, no stereo systems are neutral.
a trained listener can detect coloration after an extended period of exposure, with suitable sources, to any stereo system.
it is better to admit that all equipment is voiced, intentionally or otherwise, as it is sold at a price point. |
Mothra, I'm sincerely curious as to what you mean by "well documented that DBT's are unreliable themselves". Unreliable at doing what?... because the only thing a double-blind test (as applied to audio) claims to do is determine whether a person can distinguish a sonic difference by hearing alone. Participants in the test are given ample opportunity to identify the difference between conditions 'A' and 'B', and that's all the test aims to determine.
Now I realize that some people will confuse the question of auditory perception with that of explanatory physics, which is an entirely different issue. When listening tests fail to identify phenomena that can be measured with other instrumentation or mathematical models, this is no different than a motorcycle "failing" to get you to the moon.
Can you give an example of how a double-blind listening test would be unreliable at its intended purpose (determining how consistently one can identify an audible difference)? |
Muralman1
Makes sense as those 9k cables are basically funding an R/D effort to tailor the sound with R,L,C, and dielectrics tuned for a particular voicing. These cables are far from "neutral", despite their best efforts to sound that way. |
Well, i think it s pretty well documented that DBT's are unreliable themselves. I am the last person to argue in preference of high cost tweaks, but I think neither the DBT or the non-DBT community likes to admit that everyone is a little bit right. |
I have a system consisting of speakers with extreme revealing properties, and a power section that matches it. I can distinctly hear the difference between cables.
They go, from transparent as my other gear to real garbage mouths. The hierarchy is not cost dependent. The worst I've had was a $9,000 speaker cable. The second worst was a $7,000 speaker cable. The best I have heard, meaning I don't hear them, have been $25 per foot DIY ribbon speaker Cables. and $1.00 per foot interconnects.
Power cables are a different matter. |
Bin, I would go one step further and contend not only that the vast majority would hear no difference in a double-blind test, but that the vast majority of those who claim they CAN hear a difference would likewise fail said double-blind test. This has been pretty well demonstrated and documented. |
I don't think anyone will argue, for instance, that capacitance will affect sound. However, it's not going to cost a lot of money to simply find a lower or higher capacitance cable.
Where people start to wonder what is going on is when the cable makers start to use a lot of other "science" to explain why you should spend thousands of dollars on their product. R&D costs something,ads and small part manufacture are issues for making small quanities of anything (though they don't have machining costs in cable manufacturing generally) but wire is fairly cheap.
The very idea that 30K speaker cables exist scares a lot of people. |
I wonder what group of people participated in the double-blinds. It may be the masses. For example in double-blind tests, the results show most people can't tell the diff between Coke and Pepsi. A friend of mine said I couldn't tell the difference on that as well as some other items. I proved him wrong in every case. I think it would be the same with cables as well.
I think it's the same with audio. My wife says she can't hear any differences in my various audio setups. I can clearly detect differences in cables alone. I found the differences became more pronounced the more I upgraded my system. I'm running a Krell now and find it's very sensitive to not just cables but to any sort of source. On my previous two systems (Marantz and NAD) the differences were noticeable but considerably less than the Krell.
Cables have inherent capacitance and conductance. These attributes and resistance are the components of a filter. With high input impedance you can imagine the multiplying effect this is going to contribute the filter parameters. My ears tell me there's a difference and scientifically there's a basis.
regards, David |
Jim Davis has the right of it. However if you spend more and hear a difference, then you do, and thats all that matters! Can you imagine Mike Lavigne, with his excellent system, with lamp cord as speaker cables... He would be mortified but the vast majority in a DBX test would NEVER hear the difference. A sad but true fact. I think Randi has a million dollars for anyone who can hear the difference. |
I believe the expression is "...a boat load of money..." rather than "butt-load". But wait, are you incarcerated? |
In a well-matched, ultra-low-power, single-tube, single-driver system, with clean isolated battery power (lemon/CU/ZN), ideal feng shui, purified air, properly oil-suspended granite floor slab, and fibonacci-sequenced room proportions... you really shouldn't need actual cables, as they interfere with the natural electrosonic energy path. So I've done the only sensible thing, and eliminated those damn thangs altogether. My plebian neighbor claims he can't hear the pure sound, but evidently he's never really developed his critical listening skills. |
I agree fully with Shardone that a good properly matched gear should not change presentation dramatically because of a different piece of cable.
In the 60's and 70's there were several very musical sounding systems (Thorens/Marantz/Quad ESL 57) around, while people were using ordinary... zip cords! Why should we replace cabling with super expensive stuff when there is balance in sound?
Chris |
My best listening on my system is usually after 11:00 P.M. Obviously because there is less garbage in the AC. |
Mothra - yeah, like here in Montgomery, AL. High here was 104 today - Alabama Power generated record amount of electricity-that prolly can affect the sound! |
Good point Mlsstl - My choice is not to purchase ANY expensive cables/power cords. |
I think that is a great response Mlsstl. Clean power, rf rejection, component matching etc., have so much to do with cables. You can't just stick an expensive cable in somewhere and say it sounds better because you want it to either. If people better understood and were open to dialogue on the issues of what the cables relate to in terms of current, rfi and the rest of the system, I think there would be less bad blood in the camps that argue over these things
After all, many things make little bit of difference, including what time of day you play your stereo. That doesn't make me tell people that they can't possible hear anything if they listened to something in the middle of the day on a hot afternoon though.
We all have to *try* to be reasonable! |
