In my experience, I have seen customers go two ways, depending on their components:
In the first case, their components are accurate and have low-impedance output drivers, particularly the source CDP. In this case, cables with lower reactance (capacitance and inductance) generally improve the system sound, particularly the image focus, soundstage and detail rendering. They get improvements that are worth the money spent on cables.
In the second case, the components/speakers are adding some coloration, usually high-frequency harshness or bass bloat. In this case, they are tempted to use inferior cables designs as "tone controls" to the get "sound" they are looking for. Unless they identify and eliminate the inferior component, usually the source, but sometimes the preamp or speakers, they will continually chase their tail, often dismissing excellent cables in fovaor of inferior ones. This is the "garden path", and unfortunately many audiophiles go down this path. Some finally discover the error in their ways. |
Bwhite wrote: "If a cable noted as "inferior" sounds better than one deemed "superior", wouldn't that make the inferior cable superior in this instance?"
Not usually. If there is a weak link an a system, "tone control" cables can often compensate, but you will never achieve the clarity and focus of a system where the cables sound like no cables at all.
The goal should be to tune your system first so that it sounds live and dynamic when the connectors are butted directly to one another (no cables at all). Only then can you determine which cables are actually superior. These superior cables that do not change the sound that was achieved when the connectors were butted together. |
Bwhite wrote:
"Heck... each module within a component has a unique sonic signature which changes as a signal propogates through the component - are these tone controls too? If so are they bad?"
No, the gain and buffering stages in components add a little noise, but they do not act as tone controls. If they did, it would sound like a boom-box.
"If the Linn CD12 CD player uses crappy wire internally but sounds awesome, is it a bad CD player?"
No, it sounds good because the wires are so short.
"Would changing the crappy wire to "superior" wire inside the player actually improve the sound...?"
Might, but the improvement would be infinitesimal.
"Similarly if a system lacks midrange presence, weight or body it is not going to be fixed necessarily with a cable that measure good."
True, the offending component must be eliminated.
"The best is simply what sounds the best, tone controls are everywhere and nothing is truly superior unless it sounds the best in the application in which its being used."
I disagree. Until you have heard a superior system where there are no "weak links", one that is wired with truly low-loss IC's and speaker cables, you will not know what I am talking about. This "tone-control" mentality is what makes it really difficult to get an even playing field to compare cable performance. |
Bwhite wrote:
"Interesting enough, the cheapest cable in this list has the closest measurement to the most expensive - which is recognized as a "reference" cable and not typically considered inferior."
The one thing that is not mentioned is the dielectric absorption. Even if the capacitance is equal, this will make a big difference. Besides, have you compared all of these cables head-to-head? I believe you will find that the lowest capacitance cables always sound the best. Also, the specs you mention are for the shielded Empirical cable which has half the capacitance of any competitor:
Empirical - Holophonic-2S ($419 1m pair)
Inductance .72µH
Capacitance 10.3pF
the unshielded version is actually much better at 3.8 pF/foot. What makes you think that the Valhalla sounds better than the Holophonic?
Just because they advertise in Stereophile does not make them superior. |
Cable-butting is obviously unrealistic, but it makes the point that whatever the sound is like with no cables, the best cables shuld approach this sound. |
"Audioengr - you are totally overlooking the fact that each module in a component DOES add a sonic signature - maybe the gain and buffering stages do not but can you honestly say that two different analog output stages on CD players or two different power supply designs will sound the same?"
No I'm not. There is some level of noise and dynamic effects in each active stage, compression can be caused by some output stages, and some really poorly designed ones may have some non-linearity as a function of signal level etc.. However, none of these phenomena qualify as "tone control". The only one that does is the bandpass, which tends to be lower in frequency for some tubed equipment. Certianly, if all stages have -3dB point at 20kHz, then there will be a cumulative effect on both bandpass and phase shift. |
Bwhite wrote:
"But.. what about the other modules?"
Let me give some examples, since I have some technical knowledge in this area:
1) Film resistors - these are lower inductance and lower noise. They reduce the thermal noise that causes the hiss at low levels that you hear. Does not affect tone.
2) Poly caps (polypropylene, polystyrene) in the signal path - these reduce dielectric absorption. DA causes time smearing of the signal. also does not affect tone. This is a dynamic effect.
3) Power supply cap increase - this provides more capacity to respond to high-power events, so dynamics can be improved. prevents voltage sags when high-power events occur. does not affect tone. This is a dynamic effect.
4) high-frequency, low internal resistance caps in the power supply (decoupling caps) - Improves response to high-frequency transients. Prevents truncation of transients because the power system can react faster. This is a dynamic effect.
Changes in tone are changes in amplitude as a function of frequency. It is a steady-state effect.
As for my system, I have 3, so I will describe my reference:
Source: Sony DVP-S7700 transport
Pre: Proceed AVP
Amp: Coda 10.5
Spkrs: KEF reference 104/2
Cables: Empirical Audio
This shows that old components, particularly speakers can still be reference quality. Also, you can get 95% of the performance of the most expensive reference components at a fraction of the price. |
Audioengr is there a difference in sound between Auricaps and Black Gate?
Do not know. Probably dependent on the application. If there is, it is a difference in internal resistance or dielectric absorption. Neither affects "tone".
Do Caddocks sound the same as Vishays?
Do not know. Probably dependent on the application. If they do not, it is because they differ in thermal noise or inductance. |
Bwhite wrote:
"So... then please explain how inserting a good cable into a system reveals the problems of the system as you have stated repeatedly. Its the chicken and the egg isn't it?"
Answer: Hshapiro is 100% on the mark and I agree with him. It is not chicken and egg. Cables can only color the sound and thereby conceal weakness in the components of a system. This is how good cables can highlight weaknesses in a given system.
This is why you have to have a known good set of reference components in order to judge cable performance. |
Bwhite wrote: If a cable conceals a weakness that is a good thing. The system will sound better... if a cable highlights a weakness whos to say that the real weakness didn't come from the cable? Usually, when a cable conceals a weakness in a system it does this by corrupting the sound in some way or adding coloration. I dont see how this is an improvement. |
I guess I would have to lower my standards in order to not care. This is analogous to owning a Mercedes for 20 years and then replacing it with a Yugo when it wears out. A hard pill to swallow at best.....
I recently did a project with focus groups that involved digital audio playback. I found that I could not stomach what MP3 did to the music. I had to use .wav files ultimately. |
Nrchy - I am surprised that you find SACD dissappointing. I have had reviewers say that "SACD is superfluous" when using my cables. CD's are good enough. With my system, I would have to agree. CD's are spectacular, particularly with my latest cable incarnations.
Also an interesting write-up from Marty of Bound for Sound in the last issue about SACD. He considers SACD "Better" than the original recording, because of "added effects", when compared to the same recording on tape, vinyl and CD. I am in no particular hurry to get SACD. |
Nrchy - I believe your experience with CD's has everything to do with the DAC's that are doing the converting and the cables that connect everything together. Given the cables that you are using, I can understand why you are having this experience. If you could hear my system, I believe you would come away thinking just the opposite. I have never heard the coherency, detail, dynamics, finesse and "liveness" that I get in any other system with other cabling playing CD's.
I am also a EE with 26 years experience, who has heard a lot of systems. I agree that vinyl can be very good, but it just does not capture the dynamics of a modern well-mixed CD recording. |
Albertporter/Nrchy -
If you will allow me to wipe egg off face, I will admit that I was a bit overly enthusiastic. I do not expect anyone to be swayed by my opinion, after all I build cables as a passion and a business.
On the other hand, CD's do not "throw away" information intentionally, as MP3 and other lossy algorithms do. They just suffer from a slightly lower sampling rate than desirable. This is fixed incidently by DVD-A, which is completely lossless and very high sampling rate. The only problem with DVD-A is the absence of content, but that will hopefully improve over time. |
