Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

I have to agree with Mr Crump. Knowing that Bob Crump markets his own line of audio cables ( TG Audio ) and therefore has a LOT to loose by saying what he did adds further weight to his statements. The fact that he is a business partner with John Curl and Carl Thompson in making MULTI thousand dollar components ( $6500 power amps, $10,000 preamps, etc... ) via CTC Audio might lend even greater weight to his personal insights. Then again, if one does not like the products that Bob produces or is involved with, you might not agree with his other points of view either. Such is life and that is why we have SOOOO many makes / models of every type of product to choose from.

As to Thsalmon's comments, i basically agree with one MAJOR exception. I do think that cables CAN improve a system and not just change the "colouration" factor. Since cables alter the impedance that the component sees as part of the load, it can alter frequency response, transient response and other loading characteristics of the component feeding it. Since the effects of that loading would be further amplified and brought to the forefront of the presentation as it went down the chain, changing one cable early on in the system can have a multi-fold effect on the overall performance of the system.

Since i can already guess that Thsalmon's response might be that only "junky" or "poorly designed" components can be affected by changing the load that various cables present, so be it. All i can say is that there must be a LOT of "junk" out there. I haven't run across one component that was stable into every load that was presented to it. Sean
>

Let me clarify my response a bit.

Changing from Cable A to Cable B can IMPROVE the performance of a system, not necessarily take it "sideways" or "tune it" as per someone's personal preference. The cable change can achieve this by actually improving the loading conditions of the component that is feeding it. The improvement would come from increased signal transfer with lower amounts of reactance. The cable change could do this via presenting a load that was more suitable to what the source ( not necessarily the "front end" but the component actually feeding the signal into that specific cable ) wanted to see.

Just as a power amp loads into speakers, a cd player or dac loads into a preamp, a preamp loads into a power amp, etc... If you don't think that changing speaker cables will affect the load that the amplifier sees, try taking a look at the article that Nelson Pass wrote and WhoCares makes reference to. As Mr Pass demonstrates, the differences in loading characteristics that various cables present when using the same set of speakers as a point of reference is very measurable. The same thing occurs with line level components, etc.. i.e. cable changes can make measurable differences in signal transfer. Taking this to another level, i personally feel that those measurable results are also audible. So says the "subjective objectivist" in me : )

Since cables are a necessity, it only makes sense to find those that are best suited for both accurate and musical reproduction within the confines of your system. This does not mean that each cable will be the same from component to component ( digital to preamp, preamp to power amp, etc... ) or that the same cables will work in similar fashion in another system. Nor does it mean that the "best" cable in any given situation need be expensive, make use of fancy geometries and materials or be an "audiophile approved" brand name.

As far as introducing tone controls to the circuit, these will typically introduce a multitude of negatives in terms of our goal of "accurate reproduction". Having said that, it is sometimes nice to be able to "tweak" up the bottom end and turn down the top end ( or vice-versa ) on some of the less than perfect recordings that we have to deal with. As such, better components may not include tone controls but do allow the provisions for the installation of such devices by simply taking advantage of a specialty "processor loop" designed for such. What type of processing one chooses to use is obviously at the discretion of the end user. Sean
>

Thsalmon, we are probably just looking at it from different perspectives i.e. you saying that the signal only degrades after it leaves the component and me thinking that it can be "better presevered" by using more suitable cabling. In effect, i think we are both acknowledging that the cable can't improve the signal i.e. "make something that is not there", but we can work with various cables to transfer the signal as best possible with the least amount of losses or colouration. If the cable was "making something that was not there", it would simply be a distortion of the signal. As we've all come to learn, some distortions can be quite pleasant and euphonic though : ) Sean
>

Using any type of wire based cables, we will never have "perfectly preserved" transfer of signal as far as i can tell. As such, i was saying that cables should be measured in the amount of "damage" that they do i.e. some cables are "better" because they do less "damage". As such, the one that does "less damage" is actually doing more to preserve the signal than the one that does more damage and degrades the signal to a greater extent. As Bob Crump stated, all wires are bad. Some are just "less bad" than others, in effect making them "better". I hope that you can follow my explanation and understand where i'm coming from.

Bare in mind that signals have MANY various aspects to them. While one cable might offer linear frequency response, the actual transient or phase response of the source trying to load into this cable could be quite poor. You can reverse that situation and have good transient or phase response with a non-linear frequency response. Juggling these and other variables is but a part of what finding what cable works best in a specific place within a system is all about.

As to "accuracy" being "out the door", i think that one can actually measure a good portion of what is "accurate" and what isn't. I'm not saying that we can take ALL of our cues from test bench measurements, but i do think that science and nature work hand in hand when done properly. Sean
>