I'll sooner spend $7K on a white powder from South America than on a friggin piece of wire!
DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?
Yes they do. I’m not here to advocate for any particular brand but I’ve heard a lot and they do matter. High Fidelity reveal cables, Kubala Sosna Elation and Clarity Cable Natural. I’m having a listening session where all of them is doing a great job. I’ve had cables that were cheaper in my system but a nicely priced cable that matches your system is a must. I’m not here to argue what I’m not hearing because I have a pretty good ear. I’m enjoying these three brands today and each is presenting the music differently but very nicely. Those who say cables don’t matter. Get your ears checked. I have a system that’s worth about 30 to 35k retail. Now all of these brands are above 1k and up but they really are performing! What are your thoughts.
859 responses Add your response
I have cables coming from The Cable Company at many different price points so I can compare speaker cables, XLR cables and USB cables. Timber vs AQ for speaker cables. Canare, Mogami Studio Gold, AQ Mackenzie and two others the Cable Company recommended. And four different USB cables including a printer cable. This is either going to be expensive or save me money. PC -> PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell DAC -> Levinson 333 -> B&W Nautilus 801. Every step of cables can be switched out. I also have an assistant signed up to come switch cables for me. As she knows absolutely about cables or Audio it will be double blind in my case. Then I intend to have her see if she can hear a difference. She is generally content listening to music on her MacBook or iPhone so if she can hear or describe a difference or identify different cables then we will have data. I intend to do some video recording of the process and summarize what we find. I’ll share complete result here regardless of what we find. |
ron1319, That sounds like fun! Though so long as your helper knows she's switching cables (or not) the test isn't double blind. But still, the results will be interesting to hear about. (Double blind tests for various equipment can be quite hard to set up, but I've done a number of single blind tests, though with seemingly low probability of experimenter bias, that have been interesting). |
It’s been covered that due to how the human body works, hearing and mind aspects, that double blind testing for sonic comparison purposes...beyond a very few basic a-b switches... does not work. Dig around on the forum. the data on the why is right there, in fully detailed and backed science in investigating the human function. |
I recently purchased Audioquest Mocha HDMI, upgraded a vodka. Same cable but with the DBS pack. What a difference that made in the picture. The coffee (Mocha)had a sharper, more detailed, and richer color than the vodka. I noticed the same difference when I chaged to the vodka from the carbon and carbon from cinnamon . Each step up was a clearer and more defined picture, better color, and greater contrast. All the comparisons were made on a paused frame from a Dolby vision blu Ray player to a Dolby vision OLED 4K tv, with a native 4K Dolby vision movie. The differences between the cables were faint, but obvious. Except when I went from cinnamon directly to Mocha, that was very obvious. But going incrementally as the line up goes small improvements with each step of better cable. I simply changed the cable out and put the other one because I was curious if in fact HDMI cable matters or is just snake oil. Now I don’t know if I can say spending 500 dollars on an HDMI cable and it will be worth the difference, that’s for your eyes to determine, and if the difference is worth the extra cash again use your judgment. I had all the cables already so I wasn’t buying any just to see if there is a difference. A cheaper upgrade and well worth the money in my option is the Audioquest mocha, it’s limited time through select online distributors only and Only available in 1M . It’s exactly the same as a coffee 500 dollar cable but relabled as a mocha and only 200 dollars, I wish they offered more options for length. If I didn’t have a ton of money wrapped up in HDMI already I most likely would purchase enough to put one on every component. The same theory holds true for speaker wire, interconnects, and sub cables. I use Audioquest water for interconnects , and rocket88 speaker wires.i have also explored different interconnects and speaker wires and heard a very noticeable difference. A friend loaned me a pair of castle rock speaker wire and it was a HUGE improvement. The same goes for interconnect, the same guy brought over a pair of red river XLR and a pair of FIRE XLR, the water have a very noticeable presence over the red river and the fire were dramaticly better than the water, but way out of my budget. I personally have not heard any difference by changing a power cable, however I will admit a firehose for a power cable sure looks cool! In conclusion as much as people like to bash HDMI cables, speaker cables and interconnects online and other forums calling them snake oil , the fact remains, they do matter. Get the best you can with the budget that’s available to you. A better cable, better materials, better insulation will in fact give a better result. I hope this post helps helps some people, I do not have much experience with other company’s other than Audioquest, partially because a friend is a dealer and I get nice discounts plus I get to help a friend make some money at the same time. |
| Post removed |
Who needs wire? I’m going to use troughs of mercury for all signal connections! Some one tried that already. His name was Faraday. He found a complex rotation in 3 axis. It’s in a conductive fluid, but not in a solid conductor. The signal is still trying to do so when it deals with a solidus conductor, and situation is a major component of the origins of the thing called 'skin effect'. Which they don’t bother to tell you, so it is generally misunderstood. Electrical calculation formulas-- are not the underlying physics. |
Cool. There are different systems now. You got vintage audio guys then you have the newer school guys. Big on transparency and fidelity. Soundstage depth and with inner detail. There is more than one great sound. My system is really transparent. Has nice detail and depth. Nice silky extended highs, open mids. My equipment and cables got me there. |
@prof If a blind/double test can’t reveal obvious benefits of vastly more expensive cables then it’s like throwing money at the moon. It may make you feel feel reassured by quietening the audio paranoia symptoms induced by clever marketing and pseudo science but hugely cost ineffective in real world sonic terms. On the other hand if Henry Miller was selling the cables, I’m in, regardless of which tropic we were currently in or the colour of Spring. Hey, he could even call them Sexus, Nexus and Plexus. Yes, Henry Miller Cables - always merry and bright. |
The only problem I have with double blind tests is that the same ineptitude oft involved in sighted tests can potentially be found in double blind tests. Not to mention it’s the double blind test someone somewhere will do sometime in the future, not a double blind test they did or will do. Heaven forbid they lift a finger. It’s the old walkers vs talkers type situation. Not to mention negative results of double blinds tests signify nothing. You, know, because of all the things that can go awry. Not to mention the old audiophile axiom - “It’s what they choose to believe.” Case solved. |
geoffkait, Not to mention negative results of double blinds tests signify nothing. Sure geoff. That's why if you come to the FDA proposing to sell a new drug treatment, and your blinded clinical trial results were all negative for showing efficacy, the FDA won't think twice about approving your drug. Negative results of blind trials have no significance. Nope. Yeesh. |
Just one more " vote" for newbies trying to sort it out, I know I won't change any minds for the vast majority. My background : EE degree, serious acoustic musician, well versed on subtle tonal nuances, very knowledgable about testing, stats, and multiple forms of bias and outcome incentive. Audiophile with much electronic hands on experience. Open to the fun of tinkering testing tweaking etc. Have tried many cables for fun. No, cables if solid basic design and constructiion are highly unlikely to make an audible difference in any audio sysytem unless adding a filtering component. Ears like taste buds are highly influenced by expectation. At least wine snobs will do double blind tests and have a good laugh at unexpected results. And of course variations in wine chemistry really DO affect taste and smell, well in accordance with well defined laws of physics biology and chemistry. Audio cables of good basic design would necessitate violations of well established physics to make the differences discussed, which while not inconceivable, puts huge burden of proof i.e. hign degree of unbiased repeatability to be taken seriously. And THEN and only then a search for the exciting new laws of physics would begin. Scence denial is not a serious problem in enjoying a hobby. It IS a serious problem in many other aspects of life, health and ecology so it might be a shame if cable silliness is a gateway drug to "science is fake". Just my take for newbies and the "still questioning" few. I do sometimes choose to exploit tne very real Placebo effect in on health with a few dollars of a supplement with a hint of scientific underpinning, if there is very low likelihood of harm. (Immunology, psychology, microbiome etc. hugely complex systems with MUCH unresolved science, unlike 0-mhz electronic signal transmission) Obviously we all choose what amount to spend on audio placebo. But some of us will chose to challenge the science deniers in part because "I can say anything I want and shout you down to make a buck" isn't working out so well. OK off to practice mandolin. Anyone want to discuss if a $30 pick is "worth it" vs. a .35 one? ; ) |
teo_audio wrote: It’s been covered that due to how the human body works, hearing and mind aspects, that double blind testing for sonic comparison purposes...beyond a very few basic a-b switches... does not work. You may want to take that up with researchers like Dr. Floyd Toole and Dr. Sean Olive (not to mention a great many other companies that have used double blind testing to develop, for instance, new digital audio codecs). It’s always interesting how cable-differences-promoters like Teo don’t seem to have any problem with causal, sighted comparisons - a scenario well known scientifically to introduce human bias variables - for showing positive results. One doesn’t, for instance, see Teo objecting to the methods used to produce a favorable sighted review of his cables in a recent audiophile site. But as soon as the subject turns to blind testing, especially those that don’t show positive results, well then it’s time to nit-pick the test methodology to death, even casting doubt on the scientific enterprise of blind testing. Funny this double-standard. As always, I would ask Teo to explain how he can invalidate the results of blind testing, while not cutting off the branch he is sitting on. That is, if you are going to cast doubt on the method that takes the most rigorous attempt at reducing known variables, how in the world will you justify a less rigorous method that will be vulnerable to well known variables (e.g. human perceptual biases)? And note that when people try to nit pick blind testing for audio, they will tend to start referencing research that suggests our auditory memory becomes problematic in certain test circumstances. Most good DBTs take this in to account. But the conundrum happens because tests that indicate problematic areas for DBTs tend to revolve around the problem that more subtle the difference, the worse our audio memory is. But even given this, it should give little comfort to the cable-loving segment of audiophiles. This is because all you have to do is look at the claims routinely made for the effects of high end cables, in which the audible differences are often claimed to be far from subtle. e.g. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/has-anyone-tried-these-stunning-new-cpt-power-cord And how often is a skeptic’s hearing questioned by those advocating the sonic differences of high end cables? It’s virtually certain that at some point the skeptic’s hearing is questioned because they fail to hear differences that are SO OBVIOUS. But once it comes to asking if someone can hear those differences when they don’t know which cable they are listening to, then those differences seem to grow smaller, and smaller - blind tests not sensitive enough! - and the excuses grow longer and more numerous. Again, I’m not in the camp that just denies audio cables can sound different. But at the same time, the type of objections many audiophiles - and those selling cables ^^^^ - raise against more controlled testing scenarios are often unconvincing (and often naive). |
Hey, professor, we’re not talking about drugs here. We’re talking about audio. Hel-loo! What is it you don’t understand about things that can change the outcome of tests that are outside the control of person or persons performing the test? Don’t you know someone who is all thumbs? Besides, there is absolutely no (rpt no) similarity between the medical or pharmaceutical industries and audio, so who knows where you guys came up with placebo effect and blind testing connections to drugs, as if it proves anything, which it doesn’t. |
geoffkait, What is it you don’t understand about things that can change the outcome of tests that are outside the control of person or persons performing the test? Of course! That’s why there are test protocols to reduce the likely influence of confounding factors. Is any test foolproof? Of course not. But it’s silly not to recognize that some test protocols would be better than other test protocols.
Ha. Ok geoff, I’ll give you this: you’ve produced a novel level of bad argument against blind testing, the "some people are all thumbs, so blind testing is useless" argument. Maybe we can come up with a catchy acronym?
Except of course that both cases share the same problem that human subjects (and experimenters) introduce the variables of bias and perceptual errors. Which suggests the wisdom in both cases to control for such confounding variables. But, sure, let’s just accept that the field of high end audio, and human perception in that field, is magically excepted from these concerns.We know this suits certain business models ;-) |
| Post removed |
Prof I just want to re-enforce your comments on the profit incentive in the bolstering of unsupportable claims. This IS why the FDA steps in in medical claims requiring challenging testing to be a "player". Much is still allowed especially in the non FDA aproved areas. You can bet if someone elses money (well, your money but aggregated) was paying for cables as in medical insurance, this would be a rather different conversation with different stakeholders..But I can certainly agree with those who say "it's MY money and this is friggin' audio!". But people should understand the financial incentive by the audio industry to get us to spend all kinds of money on dubious premises. Note I do not include visual and structural aesthetics, bling factors, long durability, company location or business model etc etc etc as not perfectly valid contributors to buying choices. But SELLING specifically on fraudulant claims deserves pushback. So this is mine, among many others, including the tireless prof. Thanks. |
| Post removed |
Here's a tale from the old school/used side of the tracks. Few weeks back I bought a Wadia 170i (10 yrs old) to use with a few ipods I own. Hooked it up to an 18 yr old dac I had in the 'spares' closet. I used a set of DH Labs IC from the dac to the pre. VERY pleased with the sound but the highs were a bit 'tizzy'. I've read this can be an effect of high jitter so I'm looking into a new dac but I decided in the meanwhile to attempt to 'calm down' the highs by switching out the copper encased in silver IC with a (really) old set of Audioquest FMS Blues. Problem solved! Almost too much so, I'll be getting a new IC from Blue Jean shortly. But the cables clearly sound different from one another, I basically used the blues as a tone controll |
Elizabeth I agree that many folks have valid reasons for enjoying the sound of expensive cables more than the cheap ones. Even bling and look, construction etc seems perfectly good reasons to spend more. My main problem is extraordinary claims made by sellers and then repeated by gullible believers for many reasons. If you like what you like and can aford it, have at it. If you thought about the variables and prefer to give less import to hard physics and engineering and more to your own complex senses and psycology thats fine. But newcomers should know there really is a lot of pretend fake not- real made up physics and statistical math out there. There is a ton of fun in this hobby even involving "blurry edges" of science and perception (dacs anyone) circuit implementation, room acoustics, beautfully constructed electronics, the incredibly variability of speaker designs and builds, to have wildly divergent opinions and experiences in the audio hobby to share and not have to butt heads against the brilliant work theoretiical AND applied, that defines small signal propogation in wire transmission lines. |
I’m into audio to enjoy listening to the music at home and use gear to attain that enjoyment. I am somewhat amused by all the vigorous, albeit seemingly well-intentioned, discussions about how to achieve that object through any sort of “test.” To each his own, but at the end of the day, forget about the means and simply enjoy the end result. |
elizabeth, I am totally in the audio cables can make a difference camp, but I can also say some folks ARE bamboozled by hype and cost and size and bling. But not you? ;-) I kid...but with a serious point; in the cases you believe to hear differences between cables, how have you determined you, yourself, have not been bamboozled? Surely, such fallibility isn’t just a problem for other people. |
ganainm, I’m totally with you, and have myself reiterated many times: I’m not arguing that anyone shouldn’t buy whatever makes him/her happy, for whatever reason they want. Nor do I advocate turning every purchase we make into a scientific double-blind experiment. I have had numerous bits of gear, even some tweakier stuff, that I’d think is well on the fringe of actual audibility (or well over the cliff). But it’s stuff that makes me happy, and I’ve even been happy enough to avail myself of likely placebo effects here and there. I’d hate for anyone to demand how I spend my money and would never push my own standards on others. It’s only when people start making objective claims about reality, using their own subjectivity as the apparent standard of reality, that I think becomes problematic. So I add my own opinions and reasons for believing as I do, as a counterbalance. I’ve been very glad over the many years of inhabiting audio forums to have seen rigorous debate about these issues, as they have been quite helpful in guiding my own approach to my system. (And saving money!). The problem is many people don’t seem that acquainted with the principles of rigorous empirical inquiry, as exemplified in science. If you question their subjective experience, they react emotionally and defensively, thinking it’s an insult or that you are being dogmatic and arrogant, as in "who are YOU to tell me what I did or didn’t experience??!!" But of course all we are doing is applying the principles learned and used in science; acknowledging the obvious fact that we are fallible, including our perception and our inferences from our experience, and trying to account for that fallibility. The example I’ve used before: my son is involved in a long term double-blind study w. placebo control group, for a new allergy treatment. The doctors are not allowed to know who is on the real medicine or on the placebo. Why? Because we know their having such knowledge can influence/bias the outcome of the trials.Do the study doctors protest "What? Are you trying to tell me I can’t trust my own judgement to get around my bias? What insulting nonsense! I’ve used my judgement to get through life, and I’ll use my knowledge of who is on the medicine and who is not to get through this study just fine thank you" Of course the doctors don’t throw such a fit. Because they are simply acquainted with the facts of the matter about human bias, and the need to control for that variable. But when these variables are raised in threads like this you invariably raise hackles as if you’ve attacked someone’s religion, or at least some of their cherished beliefs. It’s understandable on one level because, hey, our subjectivity is essentially our main tool for getting through life and making inferences about how things work. Threaten someone’s strongly held belief based on a strong subjective experience and it seems on the surface a bit destabilizing. One can say "Oh yes, I agree we need that rigor for certain areas of science...but I don’t need it to come to firm conclusions in my audio hobby." And in that way compartmentalize things. But unfortunately, human bias doesn’t stay compartmentalized like that and it seems the honest thing to do is admit it, and take this in to account when deciding on how strong our claim is going to be about cables and other things, where objectively verifiable evidence is less forthcoming. (That said, I think many in this particular thread, including those who believe cables often make a sonic difference, seem more open to the points being made by some of us more skeptical critters). |
| Post removed |
elizabeth, Thanks for those details. In those cases, it certainly seems that you did not fall for a certain type of expectation effect (e.g. that something newer, or more expensive, will sound better). However, that's not the only way perceptual biases work. First, expectation bias doesn't work with perfect regularity only in that direction (expecting better). Perceptual errors can work the other way, hearing something as worse - even when there may be no actual audible difference. When we start looking for differences, very often we find them whether they are "there" objectively or not, and then we may decide we don't like a difference we think we perceive. It reminds me of years ago when I had several levels of power cords to test out from a big manufacturer, from their modest version to their expensive. I was of the mindset that I wasn't sure if they would make a difference or not so I would have said "I'm not biased to think these more expensive cables make a difference." When I heard the "cheapest" one on my system, which was still many hundreds of dollars more than the stock power cords I'd been using, I didn't perceive any difference. "See, I did just go and think I heard a difference just because it's a more expensive boutique power cord. I'm not biased!" Then I heard the next one. Thought...well maybe I am hearing something. Went to the most expensive. Wow! Such an obvious change! Bigger, richer sound, more organic. Loved what I thought I was hearing and "it's not because of bias, I wasn't expecting this!" But then after a while I thought part of the effect of the cable was to make my system sound tonally darker than I liked. Ok, so now it's doing something obvious I don't like. But then I decided to have a pal help be blind test it against a stock power cord. Then, when I didn't know which was playing...voila!...the differences I was sure I heard vanished. No "extra smooth, richer, more organic and darker sonic signature" was there to distinguish the very expensive power cable from the $15 stock cable! That was one of the early encounters with the power of my own perceptual biases that made quite an impression. It's hard not to do some re-orientating once you've been shown the power of your biases and how utterly sure you can be about something you perceive, yet show that inference to be entirely questionable. (BTW, I used and loved my Meridian 508.20 CD player for many years and at one point jumped "up" to the "better, newer" 508.24 player. Yet I was disheartened in perceiving the 508.24 as less engaging than my 508.20 so I sold it at a loss. I know where you are coming from on that). The most recent instance where I used blind testing was when I changed music servers, from imac/itunes to a raspberry pi/logitech server. The last thing I expected was a sonic difference, and yet the new server immediately sounded more pinched and "brighter" to my ears. After a while I had someone help be blind test against the itunes/logitech server and the difference I thought I heard was gone; they were indistinguishable to me. From then on the new server never bothered me and the "brightness" never seemed to appear again. Again, these are just examples concerning the principle that perceptual bias and mistakes are not so simple as "I expect to hear a difference so I'll hear one" or "I didn't expect to hear a difference, but I did, so it wasn't a case of expectation bias." There are various factors going on. Anyway, I won't pursue that any further, and thanks again for your input! |
The problem with reviewer-based, double-blind audio gear testing is that there are still significant variables that remain largely uncontrolled, rendering illusory the apparent objective being sought for the purposes of recommending a purchasing decision to another. Some of those variables include differences in human perception and differences in the acoustical environment of sound reproduction. Pharma drug trial double-blind testing really has no parallel in the audio gear double-blind testing realm. First, unlike pharma drug studies, there is no “placebo” control in audio. Second, in pharmacy drug testing, the component of human perception (no change in health vs a change in health for better or worse (adverse side effects)) is more varied, yet often more quantifiable, than a binary decision of preference between two audio products based upon one's hearing perception. |
Prof. Sadly I gotta tell you many docs DID and sometimes still do put up just such objections as you mentioned although now studies and their interpretation are taught early and often to the profession. Ironically I am one who does sometimes object to the way Evidence Based Medicine is used when the systems (people and their pharmacophysiology) are so incredibly complex and variable and even really good studies are hard to reproduce. The "evidence" in Evidence Based Medicine is highly subject to the finances involved. And many docs still do cry out "how dare you" when you suggest, and show them good studies, that their practice is influenced by that industry sponsered golf trip. By contrast the measurements and mind set of the engineering world which I stay in touch with is generally pretty straight in part because the outcomes are much more closely tied to first principals. You know, the math works, the bridge stays up. Two pieces of copper are much more alike than 2 people. Fortunately the medical profession is generally improving fast. The good double blind study is now coupled with advanced molecular biology and genetic understanding to make the science stronger. Good luck with your son's study! Audio content: good music especially live at the bedside definetely helps people relax and feel less pain. And probably helps them heal faster. Studies evolving. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
elizabeth, I think you have a general misunderstanding of the implications of what I’ve written. I simply acknowledge my fallibility, and have no problem doing so. It causes me little concern. Blind testing is just an occasional tool in the toolbox, I’m far from turning everything in to a science experiment and as I said I happily let my criteria loosen whenever I want. So take cables, the subject of this thread and forum. I can’t remember the last time I gave much thought at all about cables, in terms of being concerned about replacing my cables. The particular AC cable blind test I referenced was probably in the early 2000s, and I haven’t been bothered about AC cables since. Yet, if I had NOT done that blind test (as well as looked in to the controversies about AC cables) I may well be among all those who fret about AC cables for practically every piece of gear they buy. I’ve got two monoblock amps, an integrated tube amp, two preamps, phono stage, DAC, etc. That right there is a lot of AC cables that I may have thought I had to replace in order to realize the heights of my system. Not to mention my home theater gear as well. But I’m spared all that money and research because I have reasons not to think it’s a priority. The same goes for all my cabling, speaker wire, interconnects etc. Can’t remember the last time I fretted about the sonic qualities of any of my cables. I’m spared all the extra money and time many here spend on cable swapping. If I get a new piece of gear, I don’t burn mental energy worrying about burn in - "is it sounding right yet? Is it finished burning in?" - like many on this site. When it came to that recent music server change and I thought I heard an issue, turning to a blind test actually *stopped* me fretting about the sound. If I’d been like many audiophiles I would more likely have presumed my perception was right, that there was something "wrong" with the sound of my new server. And that mindset could easily have sent me in to the den of computer audiophiles who think everything makes a sonic difference, replacing every bit of the chain they can. God knows how much chasing of "solutions" I may have gone through to "fix" the sonic problem my ears "told me" was the case. But I knew that the first variable I could check out easily enough was my own perception. So, a pal drops over and in a little over 1/2 hour we’ve done some blind testing that completely relieved me of the impression anything was wrong. Done. No more thought at all about it. So I think you’ve actually got it the wrong way around: it’s often folks who utterly trust their hearing over any objective evidence to the contrary, who seem to fret far more about their system, with every little thing making a sonic difference, constant upgrading of cables, chasing all sorts of tweaks, etc. Believe me, I can be an obsessive audiophile, but it tends to be when I’m in speaker shopping mode. Much of the other stuff that audiophiles sweat; I don’t. (BTW, as I have other audiophile pals including a friend who reviews, I still get to hear and play with occasionally various boutique audiophile cables - sometimes when I need some cables I’ll get some spare or cast off audiophile-company cables, or we will check out new cables at their place. But for my system, even though I have some audiophile cables still sprinkled here and there as they were given to me, I don’t fret much about it, so long as I have cables with the basic specs to do the job I need). On the other hand, you seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of just admitting your own fallibility (in terms of your perception and inferences form what you believe you hear). I wonder why that is? I think it’s pretty liberating to be able to acknowledge "I could be wrong...." |
Do you realize that inside every beloved High End component, there is an enormous mass of wires, sorry, electrical conductors of all kinds and purposes, functions, etc., carrying signals through and through every tiny little piece of a PCB board. And you accept to pay outrageous amounts of money for them. Ok, and then how you hook them all, these beautiful and expensive boxes, milled from aluminum, with expensive, isolating feet, with spikes of certain steel alloy or another rare metallic material. And you put them in special isolating bases, and you buy ultra expensive loudspeakers some of them made in aluminum, or MDF, or very special kind of woods, some of them used to build musical instruments. And… and how do you hook them? Some times they come, the components, in separate enclosures: where the juice is received, and going left and going right and then the beautiful component is driven not by Ac current, but by Dc power… And do you realize, that everything in High End, what it really is about, is about the permanent and relentless epic battle to suppress noise, electrical noise in every single measure or interpretation you can think of; and strange acronyms start to flow… THD, IMD, DB, jitter, impedance, you can add and arrange a list, endless list of names, and all referred to measuring noise. Noise is the enemy! It stays unabated between us and the music or better, recorded music in different media, physical, virtual, streamed, wireless, and submitted to that monster killer of the pure reproduction of sound, musical sound. Noise… Cardas and Nelson Pass used to love to explain some of this babbling of mine through the analogy of water, like Class A amplification, and balanced vs unbalanced outputs, and the conduction of the signal through a cable as trying to enter through a narrow causeway with an ultra high speed and powerful boat and do it not disturbing the water… or you can end crashing your expensive speedboat and destroying it against the edges… or running out of water to reproduce either the highest, lowest, loudest, finest, fastest frequencies of sound and stalling, because there is no more water, the tank is empty, you have to wait and wait and wait, time and time again to regain strength, stamina, volume transient speed, resolution, etc, you can add as many adjectives as you like to that salad of the High End Audio. Sounds that make you tremble, and vibrate through your fragile human condition, and make you cry, or make you dance, and you start singing and one hour of serious listening becomes 4, 6, 8 hours of a sonic extravaganza that many times you have to eat it by yourself alone, because no one else can keep on in this manic and permanent battle and conquering of the dreadful Noise… Zero distortion, that is the goal,bellow the threshold of our ears, or so far beyond, that no one, I mean no one can hear, but anyone can feel and that is how we distinguish one voice from another, one instrument from another. A piano that reproduces sound smashing strings with little hammers in a fascinating, violent and vertiginous way; that if it is a Bossendorfer played by Grimaud or Uchida, a Steinway, music comes through a recording and we are one with Ravel and Schubert, at their finest and sometimes even feeling like them, they were prophets in their own. Or distinguishing between Montserrat Figueras and Polly Jean Harvey and going to their worlds, and accepting that both are great, an one can takes us to the world of Monteverdi and the lamenti and the other to the realms of the raw and ominous rage of the rock, punk music with an utter and unflinching sense of humor. Well, and how all this little and big boxes are hooked together… with cables. Our love for music is what makes us fall into this expensive folly of High End. And it doesn't matter if they are ultra expensive or not, they just have to be good and we have to try and experiment and atone our ears to them. Many times I've felt that when I am comparing or testing a component, I can hear my cables doing their job, if they are reasonable good they keep their timbre no matter what. One day, listening to a nice rig with TAD speakers and Viola amp and pre and a EMMS DAC, I remember I could distinguish the age of Mick Jagger and Robert Plant throats, just unbelievable. I bought the Violas, used… Other times, with the help of my beloved cables, I just listened how this heinous sense of time disappears and it becomes kind of endless, Like listening to the laments of Mr de Saint Colombe in a seven strings viola with Jordy Savall, you just forget your common and provincial sense of time, and then you start to find similarities between Savall and Keith Richards and realize that Jeff Beck is distorting the guitar on overdriven amps, all the time… and that experience comes with the help of a set of good cables. So CABLES DO REALLY MATTER, enough said and by the way people that are devoted fans of live music enjoy all this without spending a dime in expensive cables and rigs, just the ticket price, maybe the parking, and they enjoy music sometimes better than someone with the most expensive state of the art High End rig you can imagine. |
Whew! A few paragraphs might have helped. Yes, cables matter, but in a low end system there isn't a great discernible difference in equivalent cables, so why spent a lot? What is not very well explained is the equivalence matching of cable to system. My humble view, to go along with my shallow pockets, is that few general users use their systems to discern the difference between a Bösendorfer, a Steinway or a Yamaha, and although I have listened and loved to classical music for decades, I would be hard pressed to hear the difference between one brand instrument and another, regardless of the HiFi system or cable I had. Their are audiophiles and Audiophiles. Just how far do you want to take it? |
