Good, Neutral, Reasonably Priced Cables?

Boy, it sure is refreshing to see some other people taking the beating, and not me, for a change.

Maybe a good suggestion would be for everyone to get rid of their speakers altogether, and replace them with oscilloscopes, so we could all watch the happy waveforms of our favorite music dancing on the screen, and continuously analyzing the distortion products, instead of listening to music.

Now that sounds like fun.

I can just imagine the Audiogon posts then:
"How come my oscilloscope shows more distortion product when I use speaker cable B, than A?"
Or my favorite:
Should we really be using speaker cables on our oscilloscopes, or would it be better to use oscilloscope cables instead?"
Or:
"Does anybody else like to watch steady-state test tone wave patterns?"
Or, the ever-popular:
"Where can I get a cheap cable that will show good waveforms on my 'scope?"

Somehow, I manage to get enjoyable listening, even without ever hooking up a single piece of test equipment to my system. Do I need a 12-step program to release me from the errors of my ways? Or maybe I should have said a "12-step function selector switch?"
:^)

Optimistically speaking though, maybe someday our testing methods will include actually listening to the music. That would be a great day indeed. I find it rather humorous that the only testing method that "does not count" is listening with the human ears in your own listening room. And that there is "no error" in testing regimes, and all error is in the ear or perceptions of the ears, because science is god and cannot be wrong, or more accurately, wrongly applied.

Technology is a means to an end, nothing more. That "end" is listening to the music. If the technology does not improve your listening enjoyment, or even detracts from it, then it is useless. Getting a perfect scope pattern, if it doesn't translate into better enjoyment, is not the goal.

You can't "spec" or "measure" your way to audio nirvana. Audio nirvana is an emotional place which is provided by the emotional content of the music. There is no "emotional content meter" available. Good luck with your other meters.

You can "extrapolate" specs all you want, and try to "presume" that "this" measurement will mean "that" level of enjoyment, but in the end it is "in the ears" and "in the emotions", my friend. That, you cannot measure with a meter, you can only experience it, and THAT is "where it's at".

You can take 2 audio tubes that measure and spec exactly the same, but may come from a different manufacturer, and they sound noticeably different. Why? Do we want to dissect these tubes, and perform sub-atomic testing, so that ultimately we can learn that "matter" and "energy" and "space" are all actually "one", and we have no idea what is at the basis of it all? Maybe you do. But I don't. I want to hear a nice sounding audio system that stirs my soul with music.

What if you found 2 different cables that had all the same measurements exactly, and sounded different? What would you do then? I'll tell you what you'd do. You'd have to accept that your measurements are incomplete, and flawed in concept and application, and that they only tell you rudimentary things. Then, you'd be starting out on the same road that many of us started on long ago. It's in the listening.

My point is not to say that engineering doesn't count. My point is that the sonic results AT THE EARS and in IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SYSTEM BEING USED is the ultimate "test".

As I have been involved in the cable business on the sales end, I have seen many situations where very expensive cables have fared poorly and were replaced with inexpensive cables, and vice versa. In all cases, the cables had good anecdotal reputations in other systems. Nothing is perfect in every application. The fairest method is offering a trial period for the user to asess the performance in his/her system context, for his/her preferences in sound. We do this, and so do some other cable makers.

In some cases, what we thought "should have been better" was not better in the views of the user. Was the user wrong? No. The user must decide for himself what he/she likes or dislikes in conjunction with their other components.

It is impossible to say that any particular cable will be preferred in any particular system. Too many variables involved, including user preferences which cannot be predicted.

When someone calls me to try our cables, I never say that our cable will be sure to beat out whatever else they are considering. I only say that our cables are very good, and stand a good chance of being the best ones that they audition. If this doesn't turn out to be the case(with them as the sole judge), they can send them back for a full refund within 30 days. I don't know how to be any fairer than that.

DISCLAIMER: I work for a company that manufactures audio cables, vibration control devices, racks, stands, audio electronics components, and speakers. All have a 30-day money back, 100% satisfaction guarantee.

I agree with getting affordable good sounding cables too. I'm not rich, and like good sounding gear.

I think that alot of the sentiment spoken here is based on the desire to have the advantages of megabuck equipment at mass market prices. I'm all for it.

In other markets, there has been some "standardization" protocols used for connection technologies. Maybe that is what some of us would like to see here. Like all speaker loads could be required to exhibit the same impedance, current draw, phase shift, and other characteristics, before they could be approved for "standardization". Also, all amp output stages would have to have similar characteristics that are optimized for driving the "standardized" speaker loads. Cables could then be "standardized" to provide the proper criteria for connecting these "standardized" amps and speakers.

Unfortunately, this kind of standardization generally results in mediocrity of performance, but nice interconnectivity and price. When performance innovations are considered, they may not fit into the standardization pattern, and performance seeking audiophiles could then purchase non-standard audio equipment at their own risk(and pleasure).

This way, the mass market, and lower end audiphile market could have great interconnectivity and flexibility, with decent performance guaranteed by the "standards committee". Any piece of gear with the "seal of approval" could be counted-on to work well with other gear exhibiting the "seal of approval". Other gear "outside the box" and not exhibiting the "seal of approval" could be purchased by more seasoned audiophiles who wish to go beyond the norm, and experiment with high-performance products at their own financial risk.

With both types of products available to consumers, nobody is "boxed in" to any one form or the other. They are free to buy the "standardized gear" and be assured of a good level of performance. Or they could spend alot more and get what they want to have without any restrictions by the standardizations.

Perhaps this is what is needed.

But, without standardization, there are too many variables to make very realistic predictions exactly how any given product will perform with other products. We are expected to know that my little 2 watt SET amp will not work with a pair of Apogee Scintillas. But when it gets more subtle, it becomes more difficult. Maybe this is even some of the fun in assembling an audio system. And the variety is part of the game.

We all want a Ferrari for the price of a used Yugo, but that ain't gonna happen. If we boil all this down to the essence, it is that we want a particular cable because it sounds like we want it to, but we don't want to pay the guy that makes it what he wants to charge us. Unfortunately, that's life. If all we wanted was just some cable, we'd go down to Home Depot and buy the 14ga extension cords and cut them up and use them. But we really don't want that, do we? Not really. What we want is the ultimate megabuck cable for $12.95. It's just not realistic. In all markets, the better stuff costs more, and the really hot stuff costs alot. If you really want it, you'll have to pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, then you'll have to settle for what you can. Or, if you actually think that there isn't any real technology in these cables, you can try to make some yourself. If you get a good sounding cable put together, you can start up your own company and find out how much it really costs to do this on a corporate scale, with labor costs, inventory costs, taxes, plants, warehouses, insurance, marketing, advertising, dealer margins, etc, and why they cost what they do when you can only sell a couple hundred pairs a year(if you're lucky).

Just some thoughts.