Teo, if you can hear in the 1mhz range, I'm calling the man in black on you, but on a serious note, you're selling snake oil. 250khz cannot travel more than a meter in air, 1mhz maybe a centimeter or two. Entirely not applicable to human hearing. You're trying to solve problems that simply don't exist. There are maybe 3 guys on audiogon young enough to be able to hear 20khz test tone.
Interconnects and non-believers
For anyone who denies there are differences in cables, I have news for you.
There are vast differences. I just switched interconnects between my CD transport (Cyrus) and DAC (Schiit Gumby), and the result was transformational. Every possible parameter was improved: better definition, better soundstaging, better bass, better depth etc.
I can’t understand how any audiophile with ears can deny the differences. Is it delusion or dogma?
There are vast differences. I just switched interconnects between my CD transport (Cyrus) and DAC (Schiit Gumby), and the result was transformational. Every possible parameter was improved: better definition, better soundstaging, better bass, better depth etc.
I can’t understand how any audiophile with ears can deny the differences. Is it delusion or dogma?
401 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Not sure what we're talking about here anymore but let's get back on topic... Like I said before, there is not boutique cabling inside your components. Also, inside your amplifier there is a cable that goes to its binding posts. In your speaker, there is a cable that goes from its binding posts to the drivers. Constructing speaker cable taken from the internal wiring of the Space Shuttle, for example, will not "get out of the way of the music" as so many of you believe. Let's pretend for a moment that the wire inside your amplifier going to its binding posts, and your speaker cable, and then the wire inside your speaker going to the drivers, is one long straight piece of wire. You cannot cut out a middle section of this wire and replace it with some esoteric wire (speaker cable), and justify that it's not doing any harm to the signal. It's obviously changing the sonic signature of the signal. It's adding its own "flavor", if you will. Wouldn't it make sense that if you really wanted to hear what your components sounded like, then your interconnects would be the same wire that's inside of your components? |
Something to ponder: No matter how good the cable is that you use, you are never hearing anything "better" than the performance of the cables used in the recording. And virtually none of the cables, especially for many of the most heralded audiophile classics, were "boutique" cables of the sort we see now. No cryogenic freezing, no cable risers, no specialized proprietary extruding techniques, no 99.99 percent oxygen free copper, no science-fiction-levels low electrical reactance...and all the other marketing. You are hearing the quality of the most basic cable the musical signals ever passed through on the way to being recorded (and mixed, and mastered, etc). So think about it: every time you hear an advance in quality when you upgrade your cables, all the way up to the very best available in the world right now, every new revelation - those finger tips on the strings, that guy coughing in the 18th row, that incredible nuance in the natural reverb of the hall - all of that is a revelation about what those old non-boutique, non-audiophile, normally-priced cables used in recordings were able to pass along. The most basic ones in the whole chain. And then ask yourself if boutique audiophile cables are necessary for passing along extremely high fidelity signals. |
A problem with accepting that cords and cables improve sound are the exorbitant costs of the major brands. The benefit/cost ratio is very suspicious for what you are holding in your hands--the cost of the materials and the construction costs are not that much compared to the components you have, yet the retail price can easily exceed your components--a bad good situation that invites a lot of pushback, and it should, but if you ignore costs and consider just the better cables, you would be impressed with the differences in clarity, etc. |
prof wrote, “Something to ponder: No matter how good the cable is that you use, you are never hearing anything "better" than the performance of the cables used in the recording. And virtually none of the cables, especially for many of the most heralded audiophile classics, were "boutique" cables of the sort we see now. No cryogenic freezing, no cable risers, no specialized proprietary extruding techniques, no 99.99 percent oxygen free copper, no science-fiction-levels low electrical reactance...and all the other marketing. You are hearing the quality of the most basic cable the musical signals ever passed through on the way to being recorded (and mixed, and mastered, etc).” >>>>>Wow! Thanks for the huge Strawman argument, professor! Nobody said you can do better than the sound of the original recording. The entire problem for the audiophile is to maximize the home playback system. Obviously nobody can go back in time (except for Marty McFly and Superman) and change something that already happened. You can’t go back in time and get better engineers, better microphones, a better venue, better cables, apply less compression during mastering, etc. But the whole point of the audio hobby is to improve what you can. Fortunately there’s lots that need improving. |
IMHO after a certain point the effect of the next best cable on the market may give you a 0.1% improvement in apparent sound, which may be a change in the sound perceived, or an actual improvement. There is only so much that can be done that will withstand the cost/benefit equation. Not all new wiz bang components or cable will give the improvement for the cost. I can only opine that enthusiasts may change for changes sake, components and circuitry become obsolete or die, or there is the look at me value. Once a level of equipment has been reached, it falls back to what you can do with the room up to a certain point where you are happy. I have a nice system that has served me well in between my work and family. I am in a fortunate position that, not only we are building our new (and hopefully last) home with a dedicated music room that I have had designed (within a budget) but will enable me to tune it. This has also triggered a complete new system (sanctioned by my most important person) and I have quietly been accumulating valuable knowledge on this and other forums. I have all the experience of others to use, and that makes my decisions easier in that I have a solid benchmark available. So a big thank you to all forum contributors who have spent time to write of their experiences and at times jousting of opinion. It's a very healthy community. |
Why do all these types of posts end up turning into huge ideological debates? Why just more solid perceived examples of the OP original premise? Here are my experiences. For years I was a huge non believer in spending money on cabling, used to use any old stuff I had lying around and 0.50cent a foot stuff if had to buy new. Then as I started buying better equipment, I started to think well what if? Surely all these people cannot be wrong or deluded. And so THAT merry go round started! Wish I was deaf at times as I CAN hear differences. Not all are good though. A lot still to do with system synergy and it pays to research and trial in your own system and your own ears, this is all that matters to you in the end. I fully realise towards the end I was trying to use cables as tone controls to achieve the sound I desired in my room. And it worked. Along came the Lyngdorf2170 and I decided to step off the cable merry go round... Mostly...lol. I am sure I will get the itch to go even further upmarket on cables just to see " what if" again. In my system, to my ears, cable changes made audible changes both good and bad. |
| Post removed |
@elizabeth On an earlier note. I used to drive nothing but big v8 cars, Mustang, Camaro, Challenger etc. Then I discovered the ST. Had a downpipe, full exhaust and open filter and rolling road dyno tune, 277hp. Fun every mile! Then I was ruined..... Took it to local Ford dealer for 10k service and there it was... Focus RS in Mad Max Matte black staring me in the eye, saying go on I dare you! It went home with me that day, yes I am impulsive..... 2.3 liter, 335hp, awd, I have died and gone to heaven! |
| Post removed |
jetter, prof and teo, can’t help but notice that you turn most threads into a debate style forum. Were you "debatetateers" in your prior life? Hi jetter, I’ve long been interested in philosophical subjects (especially. but definitely not limited to, the intersection of science, religion, philosophy, skepticism, non-mainstream belief systems, etc), and so yes I’ve spent a long time having to debate and defend concepts against many very smart people who know how to drill down to find inconsistencies. This has ingrained a habit of checking my own beliefs and claims for inconsistencies. It also ingrained in me the desire, in the case I want to claim something, to provide supporting argument and not merely make assertions. That is often why a lot of my posts get long winded. I want to say "here’s what I want to get across, and here are the reasons to accept it"). That said: I believe you are being selective - though likely not intentionally - in thinking I turn most threads into a debate style forum. If you surveyed my actual posts, you would find that the vast majority of them are not "debating." If you search for the threads I’ve created, you will see that not one of them is a "debate" thread. With maybe one or two exceptions (e.g. fuses), the few threads were I have engaged in extended "debate" are those essentially set up for debate - were for instance someone has posted a challenge to a viewpoint I might support, or partially support, or which invites various viewpoints on a broader subject. Look at this thread title and OP: you could hardly say that I would have been responsible for setting the stage for debate - the thread itself is an obvious, combative challenge to those with a differing viewpoint, right? Merely expressing my opinion I’m sure, though, may be seen by you as being an ornery debater? (I don’t know, you tell me). And anyway, notice I did not in fact turn this into debate; I only made a joking reply and mentioned I wasn’t looking for extended debate on cables. I might exchange with a few people here a bit more. But...that’s what we do here in these forums. |
| Post removed |
geoffkait, Wow! Thanks for the huge Strawman argument, professor! Your consistency in misidentifying arguments and fallacies is remarkable. You are batting 1000! An achievement of sorts, I guess ;-) Nobody said you can do better than the sound of the original recording. I of course didn’t claim anyone was saying that. So...what a surprise!...you are yet again indulging in your hobby of attacking strawmen. What I instead argued was to consider the implications, the conundrum, contained within the understanding one can not improve on the sound of the original.** . That’s why I concluded with: "And then ask yourself if boutique audiophile cables are necessary for passing along extremely high fidelity signals." (Note, that does not contain the strawman you re-phrased this to become). Presuming first that audiophile cables alter the sound....(and acknowledging that even the most hardened "objectivist" about cables would say you want to choose the right cable for the right job, lest it degrade the signal) IF one has the view that cables are essentially just forms of tone controls, then, just as when you play with an EQ, it’s possible one cable can sound "more revealing" of what is on the recording - e.g. if the frequency contour favours the upper frequencies, more "detail" will be heard. That concept of how cables can alter a sound system doesn’t produce the conundrum I referred to. However, most high end cables are not marketed as simply being tone controls. They tend to be directed to claims that tickle the audiophile’s desire for Higher Fidelity. So... IF one has the view that audiophile cables result in "higher fidelity" of the signal - that is they *reveal* via lower distortion/higher fidelity information that goes missing on *regular* cables...THEN the problem I pointed to arises. Because, as I said, the high end cable could only ever be revealing information that was already conveyed by the non-audiophile cables used to capture the recording. In fact, you are hearing the capabilities of the *very worst* cables the signal ever passed through. Hence it seems to be a conundrum of sorts to say the expensive high end cables have properties that make them "more revealing" for music in a hi fi system than the basic cables used for most recordings. Or, in other words, it seems rather odd for many audiophiles to think they require spending big bucks on high end cables because lower priced cables aren’t up to the job of conveying a high fidelity signal. They are using their high end cables to exalt in the signals conveyed by non-audiophile cables! So non-audiophile-grade cables *must* be capable of extremely high fidelity, which suggests the emphasis many audiophiles place on high end audio cables to achieve high fidelity *may* be based on some dubious assumptions. ** (BTW, that is on the presumption of fidelity to the original signal -we can of course alter the original signal through EQ, re-mastering etc to make it into what many would think to be "better" sound. But again, that’s not what we are talking about for the moment) |
Prof, no offense but you sound like the guy in the cave trying to make sense of shadows on the wall. Without parsing the paragraphs one by one, which I actually don’t have time for, let me just say the entire last post of yours was a very weird combination of the very obvious with wild ass guesses. It’s so obvious you’re a talker, not a walker. It’s just so much what about this?, what about that? You’ve perhaps been on the forums too long. Time to get back in the laboratory. |
@elizabeth I got the RS at 42k, yes a lot of cash but a whole lot of fun. And if I keep my lead foot out of it still get 28mpg. GK. Why cannot serve two masters or three or four? Same principles of research and application. Admittedly car upgrades do tend to be a little more universally reliable in outcome. |
Along with the high costs of cables, another big obstruction is the ego---have to get it out of the way in favor of some humility. Many attach themselves to someone else's dogma and just camp there, thinking the debate is solved: cables are just cables. "He who knows that he does not know, knows." Enough, Grasshopper........ |
| Post removed |
elizabeth, My view on cables isn’t a settled one, but I have hunches and inferences I’ve drawn from my own meagre tests and experience, and from following the cable debate for many years. In the spirit of exchanging anecdotes: I only use the regular supplied AC cables with all my gear. Yet somehow when I listen to systems in which every AC cord has been replaced with expensive upmarket cords, and there are power regenerators and all the things claimed to make revelatory differences....I come back home and hear on my system pretty much all the glorious things I heard on the super-expensive-ac-cable systems. In fact, I tend to think more highly of the sound I have at home. I guess my ears are made of cloth :-) |
prof ... I only use the regular supplied AC cables with all my gear. Yet somehow when I listen to systems in which every AC cord has been replaced with expensive upmarket cords, and there are power regenerators and all the things claimed to make revelatory differences....I come back home and hear on my system pretty much all the glorious things I heard on the super-expensive-ac-cable systems ...That's really not saying anything because there are so many variables. Why not try an "upmarket cord" in your own system? |
cleeds, That's obviously why I wrote: "In the spirit of exchanging anecdotes." I have tried upmarket AC cords in my system (e.g. various Shunyata) and a couple didn't seem to make any noticeable difference, but one (the most expensive!) did seem to alter the sound of my system. But then I blind tested it against a $15 AC cable and it turned out I could not distinguish between them. It was a nice lesson on the strength of sighted bias and saved me some money ;-) As to the anecdotes I mentioned: I agree nothing can be reliably demonstrated that way. But that doesn't mean they can't be suggestive. Like many here I've heard innumerable set ups with super high end cabling. And in my extensive recent speaker auditioning, inevitably the speakers are using expensive cabling of all sorts. Yet I find the sound of my system easily competitive. Similarly, I've heard speakers I have owned, that I've sold to audiophile friends, used with the standard-grade cables I tend to use, and then hooked up to cables even up to the highest end Nordost, Crystal cables, etc. And I did not detect any revelation, anything elevated about the performance of the speakers whose sound I knew very well having owned the very pairs. Again, that of course is not all variables controlled. But it is suggestive, in a personal experience way, that the high end cables are not acting as a significant variable. Whatever they are doing seems dominated by other concerns, e.g. acoustics, speakers etc. And it suggests one doesn't *need* to spend a lot on cables in order to have sound competitive with high end systems in which many thousands of dollars were dedicated to the cabling. |
analogluvr @prof you are making way too much sense for this thread. They can argue that your ears are made of cloth and you can argue that their brains are made of cotton balls. And yes GEoff is the master at manipulative misdirection and TEO just spouts nonsense 95% of the time. Over and out. >>>>Yes, it’s true I’m the master at manipulative misdirection. I’m also the master of manipulative direction. But prof is the master debater. He’s sooo logical. He can be very convincing if you don’t watch closely. He will win by simply wearing you out. Even if he can’t hear vibration isolation or expensive power cords. You know what they say, never up, never in. |
I’m pretty sure it’s a golfer’s expression but I like to use it in certain contexts including discussions in which folks sit on the sidelines and pontificate or make odd observations to boost their post count, one assumes. Never up, never in - If you never try you’ll never succeed at whatever it is. No offense to you personally. 😀 |
A question to all...... If u had to put a percentage on it, and please be honest, while you're listening to music, what percentage of your listening session do you critique the music (pointing out flaws: there's too much of this, there's not enough of that, etc), and what percentage do you spend enjoying the music? Your answer may be your wake-up call. |
| Post removed |
Devilboy After any change to equipment or cabling I will spend the next few hours of listening being highly alert and critical of any changes in sq both good and bad and try to decide then which is the best direction to proceed. But after that I am not tearing around changing it all out again. Unless it was a large negative impact that I cannot take any longer! Its time for some serious music time after all that. And may stay that way for days and weeks. |
@devilboy @rvpiano and All, the OP set out the challenge to the general forum followers to deny that a change to upmarket (or more technically advanced) cable will provide a significant improvement in audible parameters. let me reiterate his post: "For anyone who denies there are differences in cables, I have news for you. There are contributors to this thread who take the agree side or the disagree side, or may be, but I cannot confirm what the OP heard view. We are all entitled to provide opinion based on personal experience, but that does not mean that there is a right or wrong in what one has experienced. I believe that we are all entitled to provide opinion on our systems and what we have heard of other experiences. I for one, will not participate in the purchasing of cables that are more expensive than some of my good components. i have tried (on shop loan) power cables, interconnects and speaker cables in various configurations and also all together. I did not appreciate an evangelical change in the performance of my system. certainly not for the thousands it may have cost. I do have significant power protection to all my components, but that is it. I would be challenged to spend the same on my wife or support my grandkids. |
I would like to restate and elaborate on something I pointed out in the early part of the thread, which appears to have been overlooked in the ensuing discussion. What the OP replaced was not simply a cable. It was a cable that included a "network." Which its description makes clear includes an inductor, and presumably also other passive circuit elements since the cable’s description states that it has a "more complex network" than the manufacturer’s lesser cable. And a stated goal of that network, among others, is to increase the efficiency with which low to mid frequencies are conducted, relative to the efficiency with which treble frequencies are conducted. (See the third paragraph on the first of the two linked pages, and also the link contained within that paragraph). Is it any wonder that dramatic consequences would result from changing to a cable that is simply a cable from a cable which includes passive electronic circuit elements and whose expressly stated purposes include intentional introduction of effects on tonal balance? Which is not to deny that the OP, whom I know from discussions in other threads here to be an accomplished classical musician as well as an astute listener and a sincere poster, would have perceived significant changes if what he had replaced had been simply a cable. But I would certainly expect that whatever differences he may have perceived in making such a substitution would have been significantly less dramatic. On another note, to elaborate on one of Analogluvr’s comments I too find that the invariably cogent, thoughtful, well written, and IMO reasonably and appropriately open-minded nature of Prof’s posts makes them a pleasure to read. Regards, -- Al |
@amg56, I never, ever said in any of my many posts about this subject, that a change in cabling does not affect sound. In fact, that was the basis of every single post I’ve written about this subject. A change in cable DOES affect sound. My argument is that cables do not get out of the way of the music as many audiophiles claim. In fact, they’re doing just the opposite. Cables add their own flavor to the Sonic signature of your system. They are in fact, tone controls. When one hears more air or more soundstage or whatever, it is because the cables whether it’s between your components or between your amplifier and speaker, are doing something to the sound to manipulate it to give you the perception of more this or more that. I just can’t stand to hear people say that cables do not make a difference. Of course they make a difference. No one however, has made an argument to support the idea that if you really want to hear what your components sound like, theoretically, your interconnects will be the same wire that’s inside of your components. Why hasn’t anyone giving me an explanation for this? Please, please enlighten me. Also, no one has answered my question regarding percentage of critiquing versus percentage of enjoying. |
devilboy, You seem to make some sweeping claims that cables always change the sound and act as tone controls. What do you base that upon? I’m no engineer, but having watched electric engineers hash this cable debate stuff out for many years, many will tell you - (that is, ones who aren’t trying to sell you a cable) that for the most part, cable performance has been a well understood phenomenon for a long time and if you select a well engineered cable with the proper characteristics for the job (e.g. insulation, capacitance values, etc) all the signal will get through. There isn’t therefore any particular reason to expect a sonic difference if you are using two well engineered cables both suited for the same job. Sure, some cables can be engineered to sound different by altering certain parameters, but they can also work essentially identically. In controlled listening tests, (blinded for sighted bias), sometimes cables seemed to be distinguishable, other times not. Many times people who have sworn that they could easily distinguish between a high end cable and cheap cable have not been able to do so once they didn’t know which was playing. (I’ve experienced this myself). Apropos of the subject of interconnects, here’s one example testing a variety of interconnects (french site translated): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=... Note the measurements of the cables; they are so similar it should have helped predict the results of the blind tests: that the panel could not reliably distinguish between the cables when they didn't know which was playing. So....do cables sometimes change the sound of a system? Seems plausible it can be the case for a variety of reasons. But do they always change the sound and are high end cables always distinguishable from lower priced cables? Apparently not. |
@devilboy No one however, has made an argument to support the idea that if you really want to hear what your components sound like, theoretically, your interconnects will be the same wire that’s inside of your components. Why hasn’t anyone giving me an explanation for this? Please, please enlighten me.I believe that has been discussed before, and it's been pointed out by a quote from some engineer who makes amps that wires under 6" or so don't make much of a difference so long as it's of a high purity. It's also borne out by the use of traces on circuit boards: they're so short that they negate the need for wire. Which takes that argument one silly step further: why not just use traces between components? The same argument has been made for speaker wire and I've tried it and found that using the same type of wire is not the way to go. I've heard much better using different cabling. What helps to make up the component of the speaker doesn't translate to what connects the speaker. Also, yes all cables are tone controls but some, in some areas, do the least amount of damage to the signal, in effect, getting out of the way of the signal. Your argument is just semantics run amok. Lighten up. With all due respect, what the hell are you doing on audiogon? This site is for people who care more about evaluation then pleasure.Where the hell do you get off saying that? This site is all about both. Just look at any of the thousands of threads. All the best, Nonoise |
@prof, I never said cables always CHANGE the sound. I'm not saying that if you have 100 different cables you will have 100 different sounds. I'm saying that a cable will always AFFECT the sound, and unless it's the same cable that's inside the components it will add its own sonic signature to those components. Just for an example, if the wire inside of your components is X and the wire connecting those components is Y, then wouldn't be logical to assume that you are adding something different to the signal? @nonoise, you've got to be kidding me. Seriously you have to be joking. EVERYTHING about Audiogon is centered around the idea that entry level or mediocre equipment is not sufficient for enjoying music. Otherwise everyone would have a Boombox and that's all they would ever need. Why the hell do we have preamplifiers selling for $10,000? If you need a $10,000 preamplifier to ENJOY music then you're an a**hole. Come on man. You've been in the game for a long time like the rest of us. You know this. |
