Opening a can of worms


Here is the can filled with opinions. It's been hashed and rehashed to infinity and beyond with no clear result. Since I am a seeker of truth I'll post my thoughts here for the yea and naysayers to debate over. Question is: Are expensive speaker or any other cable in a system worth the exorbitant cost over a reasonably priced cable loom? I thought I'd  experiment myself to find out. My comparison is between Transparent Ultra cable loom and Blue Jeans cable loom on a pure stereo system comprised of Proceed PAV,  Proceed PDSD,  Krell Kav 250, Musical Fidelity A3cd, Sony Ps4300 TT and B&W 803D2 speakers. All sources were used by this experiment using identical playback material. Cables had in excess of 200 hrs burn time and all were identical in lenght. The only variation were the connector manufacturers.
One change that occurred during this 4 week long endeavor was that I'm firmly seated on the sharpest picket on the fence.
My result is that I'm now a believer that there are audible differences in cables. I also believe that these differences are minute and one has to really listen carefully and for a long time to discern these differences.
Now to the crutch of the matter, $$$$$, As we all know Transparent Cables would reside in the upper tier of Audio Cable expense.  Blue Jeans Cable on the other hand falls into the lowest tier of expense (well maybe not lowest but low nontheless )
One would think then that the Transparent would be far superior to the BJs. Not really! Yes the highs were a little cleaner, mids a little tighter and lows a tad more pronounced but not by as much as one would expect. Soundstage was somewhat more open and airy and depth was somewhat more defined with the higher priced cable but again less than one would expect. 

Now for my personal opinion regarding the cable debate: expensive cable looms are slightly better than reasonable priced looms, if a dollar equals a penny to you then by all means opt for the higher priced loom, if a penny equals a penny don't be ashamed for opting for the best you can do. The differences are so minute that it's not worth going into debt over. BOTH looms sounded superb on my test system and I would be happy with either loom.

Now let the debate begin, just know I'm a fence sitter and not in one camp or the other
gillatgh

Showing 4 responses by whitestix

I do believe that cables make a difference to some degree, but the law of diminish returns is an immutable law. I think I perceived some improvement in the low frequency response of my main system cabling it with Supra Ply 3.4 speaker cable and a more open sound using vintage WE 16 ga. cloth-covered tin-clad copper wire in my bedroom system.  Neither set of cables cost over $150.  Purchasing a run of speaker cable that cost more than a new car is unfathomable, yet many do it.  And then there are the astral travelers like GK that tapes rocks to his cables and puts crystals the top of his gear in a feeble attempt to improve the sound quality.  It would only be laughable, but I suspect he does a fair trade peddling these foolish tweaks to an undiscerning public.  In the same vein are the "fuse-heads" who tie themselves in knots over the directionality outrageously expensive fuses.  This is purely "confirmation bias".    The level of self-deception that audiophiles will indulge in is shocking.  High anxiety runs rampantly through our ranks.  Frankly, Blue Jeans cable is more than good enough, but there is better wire if you have the dough.  Just give it a listen and decide for yourself.   And make sure you can get your money back if you don't fancy its performance.    
Jafant, 
I can't be convinced that any conductor could take 300-500 hours to burn-in.  Other than confirmation bias, there is no reason based on physics that supports the conclusion that the wire "improves" from a SQ perspective after this period of time. Lengthy run-in with speakers, that clearly is a mechanical process.  But 500 hours of burn-in for wire defies logic.  It seem the pricier the cable that is being sold, the longer the required run-in time.   Count me as a denier.  
Greg,
You miss my point, but  do live vintage gear so thanks for the suggestions.  I have heard lots of SQ differences with speakers, components and tubes, and to a lesser extent, with IC's, power cords, and speaker wire.  That is why I recently upgraded to a Pass Labs amp.  My point was that a 300-500 hour of break-in for wire is absurd.   I often hear folks espouse these run-in beneficial claims, but I never hear about anyone that says after X number of hours that the "components", particularly wire, sounds worst than it did in the beginning.  Statistically, it is an even chance that that the is the outcome.  I still say that the most of the "love" for a set of wires after 500 hours  of burn-in is merely confirmation bias.  
Kosst is my audio muse and tells it like it is.  GK espouses nothing but nonsense as usual. I certainly get the notion of run-in of gear -- speakers for darn sure, and tubes and electronics to a lesser degree, as well as wire.  At the end of the day, if you believe that your cables sound demonstrably better after 500 hours of run-in than they did after a few hours, then I must admit that you are the better judge of that than me.  I can't think of an objective way in which to affirm that conclusion other that than confirm bias.