I have switched cables on every part of multiple systems. USBs, RCAs, power, 3.5s (for car audio), headphone cables. Cables make a huge difference. There are 4 main parts to any setup, the headphone/speakers, amp(s), DAC and cables. And it's easy to justify spending similar amounts on all of them. I was skeptical at first, but even changing the RCAs on my first amp/dac setup, the ifi zen stack, from the one that came with it, to a $45 audioquest evergreen, made a massive difference. I was in awe of how big of a difference it made. Everyone can hear the difference cables make. Almost all the naysayers just never listen in the first place, and come up with any excuse to deny that it was the cable that made the change. The other few naysayers are those who lie about cables so they gain a following from the circle jerkers with egos too fragile to even listen to something before making up their mind about it, and arguing over it.
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
imith314 Your post made me smile. I was going to get around to expressing the same thought, but you beat me to it! In my opinion, it is the same thing with so-called "Burn-In" whether with cables, electronics or whatever. The 'burn-in' is occuring inside the Brain! :-) I just replaced my speaker cables which really were too small (16 Awg) with a 14 foot pair of 14AWG Monster XPHP the largest that will fit the holes in my binding posts. Now that I have listened for a while, there really IS an improvement: but I am curious about my wiring of the old cables. The difference in resistance/ft between 16AWG and 14 AWG is less than 50% and we're talking milliohms here. And I don't think I had them miswired as far as relative, or "absolute" phase, but who knows? The stereo image seems to be more coherent and the channel ballance is improved. I think that my realization that 16 guage was below minimum requirement was correct, and that the 14 is more appropriate for my cable runs of 14 feet. Maybe I need to try a Killobuck cable-set but that would approach the total cost of my system! ;-) |
If the rest of the system and speakers are mediocre, better cables likely won’t make a notable difference. Probably not worth the investment. With more revealing audio systems, there can be a notable difference. Over the years I had tried various interconnects, copper, silver over copper, silver in varying lengths too. Eventually over time upgraded all of my interconnect RCA and XLR cables on the main input sources and components with varying degrees of positive improvement. Most notable between preamps-to-amplifiers and CD/DAC-to-preamp. Rewarding in some cases. Recently, I was surprised to notice a very positive difference swapping out some old mid-grade brand name RCA interconnects with much higher grade pure copper ICs for my FM-Tuner-to-tube-preamplifier. Prior, never thought it would make a difference for FM too. It sure can. All connectors and connections were clean on both cable sets, and (yes, FM tuner). I was not expecting any difference at all. Wow, a notable difference, to a surprising degree. Smoother, extended highs, more bass, fuller sounding, larger sound stage and definitely more engaging - much less irritating. In reverse to check myself and hearing, swapped many times back and forth; re-installed the former cables (and a few other mid grade cables) and it sounded like crap again, harsh, not engaging. Sometimes (not always), interconnects can be a weak link in a given audio system if everything else is up to par. |
I agree that they will make your system sound better. Cables physically will make no difference, but the more you spend on them the better your system will sound. Knowing that you spent money on good cables will make your mind believe that there is a huge difference in sound even though there is physically no difference between the conductivity and the cables. Personally I upgraded my cables, and my system sounds so much better! |
I agree that they will make your system sound better. Cables physically will make no difference, but the more you spend on them the better your system will sound. Knowing that you spent money on good cables will make your mind believe that there is a huge difference in sound even though there is physically no difference between the conductivity and the cables. Personally I upgraded my cables, and my system sounds so much better! |
| Post removed |
analoglubr I get get a chuckle out of Geoff's approach. If it was a double blind test with everything controlled but the participant didn't hear a difference, we don't accept that result. But if somebody switches their wires willy-nilly and here's a night and day improvement, by golly we'll take that answer! >>>You obviously can’t can’t read. |
@prof that is an excellent way to put it (... if you think tests in which efforts to really control and account for known variables are unreliable...what in the world make you think tests with fewer controls, which allow for all sort of known bias effects, are MORE reliable????) kind of illustrates the ridiculousness of the whole thing. I get get a chuckle out of Geoff's approach. If it was a double blind test with everything controlled but the participant didn't hear a difference, we don't accept that result. But if somebody switches their wires willy-nilly and here's a night and day improvement, by golly we'll take that answer! |
Cleeds: "That doesn't mean that everything we've heard is illusion." Couldn't pass this up! Maybe it is! We have all thought that at sometime in our life. Seriously though the role of day-to day-variation in our "internal" and "external" environments, placebo effect etc. etc. seems so profound an influence to those of us who study such things. Acknowledging the contributions of such things might go along way in bridging the gap with the "I just trust my ears" (and) "we don't really know enough science to justify the physics arguments" folks. Double Blind Studies: flawed, really hard to do right. But potential for validity in the science sense. Trusting Your Ears: Fun, self re-enforcing, sense of agency. No validity in the reproducible science sense. But that doesn't make it stupid or bad, or better or worse. For a hobby. I know it is not an original idea but sometimes the $10 glass of really good Zin is the most cost effective tweak of all. |
jssmith Thank you, prof. As a past participant in some eye-opening blind tests, when it comes to anything except speakers I always ignore subjective views and my viewpoint is "if you didn’t hear it blind, you didn’t hear it." Your last sentence is the logic I’ve always tried to express, but not as concisely. I hope you don’t mind if I steal it. (... if you think tests in which efforts to really control and account for known variables are unreliable...what in the world make you think tests with fewer controls, which allow for all sort of known bias effects, are MORE reliable????) >>>>I don’t think anyone actually made that particular argument. Which would make it a Strawman argument. The general argument against blind tests is pretty much the same as for any test - If a test results are negative no conclusions can be drawn. In other words, a test of a device or a comparison of two cables or whatever by someone in a given system is only One Data Point. As other tests are performed then other data points will appear, perhaps conclusions can be drawn then, with more data points. Cables tests are particularly prone to error due to directionality of the cables, using new cables for the test, not allowing the cables to “settle”after changing them. For example. A clever cable manufacturer - if he was aware of cable directionality and break-in - could easily rig the test by using a brand new OEM cable or whatever connected in the wrong direction for the comparison. Follow? |
A repost Here is the CANADA HI-FI reporter's take from the NORDOST cables bake-off exhibit actually performed live at TAVES.They stopped at the improving model bakeoff summit at the Valhallas (one below the Odins) with the inference that a move up the model trendline in improvement keeps going further to the ODINs http://canadahifi.com/taves-consumer-el ... rge-de-sa/ ".....I had a chance to sit in on a couple demonstrations in the Nordost room, giving my feet a well deserved break. I’m very familiar with the benefits of high quality cables and use a full Nordost Heimdall 2 loom with my reference two-channel setup. That being said, I always find the Nordost demonstrations to be an “ear-opening” experience. Michael Taylor from Nordost demonstrated the significant sonic benefits of replacing an OEM cable with a Nordost model – in particular 1) a swap of a single USB cable, from OEM to Nordost Blue Heaven ($250/2m), to Heimdall 2 ($500/2m) and; 2) a swap of a single RCA interconnect, from OEM, to Blue Heaven, to Heimdall 2, to Tyr 2 and finally Valhalla 2. Along with convincing the audience in the room that cables DO matter, I’ve now got the bug to upgrade...." PS This is not just anecdotal 3rd party opinion.... I was there too as part of the '000's of witnesses in attendance . |
Thank you, prof. As a past participant in some eye-opening blind tests, when it comes to anything except speakers I always ignore subjective views and my viewpoint is "if you didn't hear it blind, you didn't hear it." Your last sentence is the logic I've always tried to express, but not as concisely. I hope you don't mind if I steal it. (... if you think tests in which efforts to really control and account for known variables are unreliable...what in the world make you think tests with fewer controls, which allow for all sort of known bias effects, are MORE reliable????) |
No, I said that the Mastersound sounded great but was very expensive. In that case, this cable maybe worth the money. I am considering purchasing von Schweikert VR55-Aktives, or Einsteins or the Lumenlight White Light, all about the same price. These three speakers are very efficient and easy to drive. I still need to audition the first two. As to cables, the lower priced GroverHuffmans will do. |
| Post removed |
Yes, the speaker forum is much more interesting as it has posters like you who report on their direct use of the speakers, even in head to head comparisons. However, cables have a great effect on audio reproduction systems, whether expensive or inexpensive. I prefer Monster Cable 300 (originals) to any High Fidelity magnet cables or Transparent Audio cables. The latter two cable companies products sounded awful in over a dozen systems I heard with equipment I was familiar with and sounding good to great with less costly cables, including GroverHuffman cabling. One friend who has a $500,000 audio room with $850,000 in equipment (now down $75,000 to sale of cables) sold all his High Fidelity cables and replaced them with about $3,500 of GroverHuffman cables. Cables, like tubes, are system dependent. However, poorly designed cables just sound awful whereas modern equipment using new stock lesser quality tubes are voiced to sound great (i.e. VAC equipment). Despite having ample funds to buy expensive, high end cables, I found a manufacturer who provides great sounding cables for a reasonable price (like my friends). I will never purchase cabling that is more expensive than my equipment. Some of the best sounding systems at audio shows used reasonably priced cabling (although my favorite system was the von Schweikert/VAC/Kronos system using expensive Mastersound cabling owned by von Schweikert) |
@fleschler Well I’m glad to see you put the effort into cross posting your castigation of me. One can perhaps admire your thoroughness! I wonder, though: What do you think about this thread that starts by calling out cable skeptics as dogmatic or delusional? Is that the kind of rhetoric you see as fitting and helpful? I don’t see you voicing any problem with it. Is it only open season on people who have doubts about high end cabling - disparage them as one wishes? Fortunately I’m not trying to be anyone’s guru. But if you find me a bore on cables, it’s possible you may still find something of interest in my babbling over on the speakers forum. Many seem to have enjoyed my recent “speaker journey” describing the many speakers I’ve auditioned and compared. It’s a pretty big list and maybe you’d find it more entertaining. |
I just posted this over at the whose an expert/guru forum: I say that prof is a noru (not a guru) and of no interest to me. He doesn't elicit any information I can use to analyze anything. Just a lot of wind. I'll stick to reading teo for information. I'm no guru, I just write about my own experiences experimenting with tweaks and my own equipment. I have heard dozens of high end systems to compare sound with. If it sounds like music, it doesn't have to be a high end system, just pleasant. If it is high end, it better sound like enjoyable music or something's wrong with the room, equipment or symbiotic relationship of the equipment. |
If memory serves AQ cables have arrows pointing from source to destination, maybe arrows on the jacket and connector. If all else fails just reverse the cables, assuming for interconnects they are connected identically, as opposed to one correct the other incorrect, sometimes interconnects are color coded for just that reason. Then see which way is better. |
The old AQ Truth are great cables, in truth. I wish they still made them. If I recall correctly even back then AQ controlled them for directionality. I had copper and silver versions of AQ Truth. Other than keeping connections nice and bright the AQ Truth should be good to go. Electrons don’t seem to get tired. There is no I had a pair of AQ GR8 speaker cables for years. Only sold them when I moved up to some Nordost cables.I can’t believe someone even remembers those Truth cable! Much less owned some. They never seemed to get in the way or cause any problems over the years, so I just left them. A couple years ago I wrote AQ to see if they could put new terminals on when I was renewing my system, but never got around to it. Geoffkait has me thinking about the directionality, since the lettering has worn/polished off over the years. I suppose if I got the new terminals they could figure that out. And now I’ll never sleep until I figure out if I have them installed backwards! lol |
prof, Your position, as I’m beginning to understand, is radically middle of the road. You are not black and white. There are no absolutes. All things are relative. To you, the fact that the majority of audiophiles regard cables as having significant differences is a call to arms on philosophical grounds. Your mission is to defend the minority. This seems to be a kind intellectual exercise, but I’m afraid one that is misguided. Have a wonderful, much needed, vacation. |
rvpiano, Well, I have to say our assessment of Teo’s post(s) are pretty much at odds. You mention three words that pretty much what come to my mind when I read it. ;-) I can see why you may like it; it’s a diss of people who claim not to hear differences in cables, so it expresses the sentiment of your original post. But I would challenge you to actually pull a good argument out of what he wrote. And one that isn’t ultimately self-defeating. It’s one thing to go of into soliloquies attributing some specious argument to other people and "knocking them down." It’s entirely another thing to specifically address what someone actually written. Teo as far as I can see spends a lot of time on the former and doesn’t seem terribly interested in the latter. Note when I pointed out his critique of my position derived from his own strawman, he didn’t acknowledge this at all. Similarly when I responded to another post of Teo’s: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/beware-the-audio-guru?page=4 He just carries on, ignoring all the problems pointed out in his string of confidently declared claims. And that his very argument about the skeptics, and those who "can’t hear" the differences seem to just as ready to undermine those who claim they can. (And this is a common problem with arguments against blind testing, or other forms of controlled testing, and skeptical challenges: the Golden Ear who can easily heard "transformational" differences when he swaps in new cables suddenly looks for every excuse of why it soooo haaard to pick up these now-micro-differences in more carefully designed tests. The problem remains: if you think tests in which efforts to really control and account for known variables are unreliable...what in the world make you think tests with fewer controls, which allow for all sort of known bias effects, are MORE reliable????) Teo continually poses as if he is tearing down the foundations of the type of skepticism people like me bring to some high end audio claims, but he has yet to accurately interpret or critique anything I’ve been writing. But maybe that’s because my posts are too dangerously "Machiavellian" to touch ;-) As I keep saying: we need to move out of black and white thinking - that someone either has to be a Believer or a Disbeliever - and that any nuance or caveats are just sneaky and Machiavellian. It really is possible to consider two points of view; to represent a case for skepticism without committing to that case, or to have come to a negative conclusion. (Anyway, bye thread for now as I’m off on vacation...cheers everyone!) |
PROF - On speaker break-in... It's difficult to hear in 'real life', as your new spkrs. are going to break in gradually, over a long period of time. Like the frog in hot water, you may not notice the gradual improvement. Most people notice it when they replay something they had listened to early after the spkrs. have had a month or two of use. If you can audition duplicate spkrs. - broken in vs. brand-new - it's much easier to discern. RE pricey cables... I didn't say they weren't too expensive. While some cables are much more expensive to produce than some people here understand, the mark-ups are also quite high. The question is not how the price relates to the costs, so much as how it relates to the resulting improvement in sonics. In my case, I've found that cabling can make huge differences in sound - at least, they're huge to me because they get me closer to reality. In fact, I think of interconnects & A/C cords more as 'components' than 'accessories' due to their impact on sonics. As always, not asking you to take my word for it, so much as honestly sharing what I've heard. I did not believe cables could make such profound differences until I'd heard it myself... repeatedly. Example: My Sunfire amp has a dedicated A/C cord, because 20 yrs. ago Bob Carver did not believe it could make a difference. His new tubed amps have removable A/C cords, because since then he's HEARD that he was wrong. I don't intend to change anyone's mind, but if I can OPEN one or two, they might change themselves... |
Seems like this discussion has taken better turn (from 'cable wars'). Did I do that? If so, I'm proud. PROF, GEOFF & ELIZABETH, thank you for your good posts. PROF - I was kidding. I know you're not angry. In fact, you seem quite sensible... even though we disagree on some things. And btw, I think Elizabeth was referring to others, not you or Geoff. For example, TEO made a good point, but in a rather insulting manner. But you know who then real trolls (Clearthink?) and snark-monsters (unreceivedogma?) are. I agree that skepticism is healthy... IF it is healthy skepticism, and not just ignorant nay-saying. As J. Gordon Holt said, "If you haven't heard it, you have no opinion." I also believe that you should always trust your ears, but never expect anyone else to trust YOUR ears. Each to their own! |
| Post removed |
The old AQ Truth are great cables, in truth. I wish they still made them. If I recall correctly even back then AQ controlled them for directionality. I had copper and silver versions of AQ Truth. Other than keeping connections nice and bright the AQ Truth should be good to go. Electrons don’t seem to get tired. There is no Geritol for electrons even if they did. |
Well after 20 years with the same cables, this thread just had to get me considering purchases! Would one be able to say that cables wear out with time? I have some old Audiotruth, if anyone remembers them, which are better than lamp cord, but definitely not “high end". Does anyone know if the age affects them? (Speaker cables are 20 years old too, some weird AQ GR8, if anyone knows that too) |
teo_audio, I really like your post in the quoted thread Especially: “Those who don’t understand or value those differences either can’t hear it, can’t grok it, or are indulging in their inbuilt capacity to fill in, or can’t separate the mechanism out (like some can) and actually hear the new sound, the new accent, the new micro differences. Ie, they literally are not listening. Literally.” As you say, ”Filling in” is most definitely a phenomenon, especially as you get into the music. I wholeheartedly concur with the entire post. Really well thought out and presented, without didactic or overblown verbiage! |
@
unreceivedogma
Somebody - was it Prof? - mentioned speaker break in. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-difficulties-in-component-shootouts I have a few posts in there that lay out the fundamentals in the logic of this whole mess about ears and hearing, and why science and measurement are still catching up to it. It's a complex story, not a simple one. That it requires some wide ranging complex data sets to grok the true shape of the question, never mind unraveling the answer from such. Otherwise these discussions would never take place nor remain unresolved. Another way of saying that: the longer the complex and unresolved question has been around..... the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question. |
