Yeah I know, a controversial topic, but after 30+ years of hearing both sides and seeing how the argument has evolved over the years, I want to say my piece.
First, I want to debunk the idea of ever using the term, "Snake Oil" because it has been incorrectly appropriated and is not being applied genuinely. For a product to be "Snake Oil" it isn't a simple matter of, "it doesn't do what it claims to do." It has to contain a few more qualities. Chief among them, the materials or ingredients have to be fake, falsified, or non-existent. I have yet to encounter a single premium cable manufacturer who has claimed to use copper or silver and it was fake.
This would be an example of cable "Snake Oil" if it existed:
Company claim: "A 10 gauge speaker wire made of ten 9's pure silver, extracted from conflict-free mines, using NASA quality FEP dielectrics, braided in 24 strands of 17 gauge wire, all concealed in the newly developed element, Star-Spangled-Bannerite, that enhances and boosts all frequencies, repairing broken audio as it travels down the conductor."
Reality: Cutting open the wire you find 3 strands of 14 gauge aluminum wire, wrapped in Glad's saran-wrap, threaded through a 10 gauge rubber garden hose, covered in a fancy colored net.
My biggest problem with the nay-sayer community is the hypocrisy of their accusation that premium quality cables are "Snake Oil" when their charts, measurements and tests have the same level of skepticism they purport to debunk. Using "Snake Oil" to prove "Snake Oil?" Ask yourself the following questions when you next see some online or vlog rant about how cables don't make a difference and they have the measurements to prove it:
1) Did they actually connect the cables to speakers and listen? 2) If they made measurements, did they show you how those cables were connected when they conducted the tests? 3) If it is a vlog, did they show in the video live footage of them conducting the test or is everything after-the-fact? 4) How does the test prove quality and how does the author quantify "quality?"
99% of the time the answer is "no." You just see people posting pictures of charts that could have been made using any form of software. Heck, I could make one in Photoshop that dictates any conclusion I want. The truth is, there isn't a single form of equipment or measurement software that tests the actual perceived quality or clarity of a signal.
For example, "that guy" from Audioholics posted a video bashing a $4000 Audioquest speaker cable. He claims to have run it through tests and he posted pictures of graphs that he gave conclusions for. Not once did he show how it was connected to the machines or equipment. More over, he claimed to have broken the cable, by easily snapping off the banana plug (made of pure copper coated in silver). Well, if that were true, then how could he have possibly connected the cable correctly to test it? He also claimed the cable was on loan from Audioquest. Red flag. Audioquest does not send out one speaker cable to test; they'd have sent out a pair. He also wasn't at all concerned that he had broken a $4000 loaner cable. Therefore, I suspect someone else broke their own cable and let "this guy" borrow it for a video. Lastly, he claims to test the effectiveness of the "DBS" system by showing you a digital read out on some other machine. He claims to unplug the DBS system live...but...off screen, and the digital read out changes. That makes absolutely no sense, since the DBS system isn't tied to the actual conductors or connectors. It's a charged loop from end to end and only keeps the insulation's dielectric field charged. So unplugging it while a signal is being passed through the cable wouldn't change anything. Therefore, the nay-sayer argument, in this instance, was nothing more than "Snake Oil" trying to prove "Snake Oil."
Another time, someone was given a premium XLR cable, but had no idea what an XLR cable was. They didn't recognize the connector format; a red flag straight away! Then goes on to claim all the different measurements they took from it and how it was no better than the free cables you get from manufacturers. Well, if that is true, how was this cable connected to the equipment? If he didn't know what the XLR format was, then it stands to reason they didn't have an XLR input on the equipment they used to test. Therefore, how in the world was this an equitable or viable test of the quality if the cable's conductors weren't all being used correctly during the test? Not once did this person connect it to an audio system to say how it sounded. How do electrical measurements translate into sound quality if one refuses to listen to it?
My final argument against the nay-sayers is one they all have the most trouble with. They don't use the Scientific Method. For example, where's the control in these tests? What system or cable do they universally *ALL* agree is perfect and that they test against? The systems and cables always change and are never consistent. Why is it that they argue for an A / B test, but aren't willing to set one up for themselves? As if it's someone else's responsibility because they refuse to be responsible for their conclusions. Why is it that they only test low end or middle grade cables, but never seem to run these tests on the highest levels? Why is it that the majority of nay-sayers never purchase any of this equipment to find out for themselves?
What I have discovered after 30+ years of arguing this topic, is that the nay-sayers just don't want to have to buy expensive cables. Instead they seek out any form of cognitive bias they can find to use as justification to not buy it. Then suddenly concern themselves with other people's purchase power and tell them not to purchase such cables, as if these people are spending their money. Or they claim that they should have spent all that money on better equipment. Touche', but if they bought better equipment, they'd still buy premium cables to push that better equipment. That's like saving your money to buy a Lamborghini, then deciding on buying 15 inch steel rims with narrow tires for it because wheels are wheels...they bought a better vehicle, so won't need premium tires...or premium gas because the engine is superior. *eye roll.* What it seems to boil down to is that they don't like the idea that just buying premium cables alone can surpass a high grade, well-engineered system. To borrow from my car analogy, buying premium tires for a 4-cylynder hatch back won't make it go any faster, but it will effect some performance, likely gas mileage and road grip. Using the same analogy, buying better cables is akin to buying a turbo kit, back-exhaust system, better suspension, better intake valves, better cold air filters, etc to make that 4-cylinder hatch back perform nearly as well as a stock
Lamborghini.
Final thoughts, "Snake Oil" salesmen back in the day weren't just interested in defrauding their customers, they wanted to do it with the least amount of effort. They didn't try to get authentic, high quality ingredients to make the oil look or taste better. They used whatever was on-hand and as free as possible. Cable companies sure seem to go out of their way to acquire the best possible conductors and materials, and have R&D teams engineer complicated wire geometries and spend years finding ways to treat the cables, or develop active tech to impact the signal, just so they can make a few bucks. If the product had absolutely no impact on sound quality, at all, it wouldn't take long for well-engineered systems to reveal their faults and the industry would tank, almost over night. Clearly, they haven't and it's because it isn't "Snake Oil" no matter how many times that old trope is trotted out.
One of the serious problems in this entire discussion is that the
perception of "quality" is 100% subjective to the listener, the state of
the equipment, the room it is being conducted in, and health of the
listener. After years of auditioning my system to people, I realized it isn't a simple matter of asking, "How did that sound to you." You have to be very specific. Ask, "Did you hear that specific sound?" 9 times out of 10, they'll say they didn't hear it. So you play it again and point it out. Then they light up and realize that no matter how many times they heard that song, they had never heard that particular sound. Then they go and compare it to the car radio or through their device's ear buds and realize they cannot hear it or couldn't hear it as clear. Then they come to respect what you're trying to achieve.
They’re not trying to save you. They’re trying to save the less knowledgeable people you may influence.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well you really should read a little closer. I encourage one thing, "to thine own self be true".
If you want to spent the money on "STUFF" that’s good for you, but don’t expect me to buy 500.00 or 5k cables anytime soon when I get happy with very high quality 200.00 cables at the most..
Influence? Impart my experience maybe.. BUT for the most part I recommend a "Type" of cable not a brand.. Same with equipment.
Though I do have a few preferences, Vintage Mac being one.. Cary being another..
A type of speaker, my vendor went out of business, I still use that type of speaker.. Very few brands though.. Strathearn maybe. Monsoon, BG, AC drivers.. I like mine...
@jerryrocks There is also a link feature that can be used instead of the massive cut & paste. Not being snarky - I just noticed you're a newer member so was pointing out the feature.
It's not too hard to understand why a lot of discussion of quality cables focuses on the materials used in cable construction. Just as with any physical product, the materials cables are made out of influence their performance characteristics, and so people want to know that the cables they're buying are made from the best possible materials.
Many high-priced cables are made with materials for which special claims of high performance are made. The most common among these are silver instead of or in addition to copper, "oxygen-free" copper, and Teflon. We'll address each of these in turn and explain what they are, what their characteristics are, and whether they make sense for particular applications.
Initially, it's perhaps helpful to point out that professional cables of the highest quality are routinely made without resort to any strange, exotic or expensive materials. If you look inside a typical audio or video production facility, you won't find it wired with silver-plated cables, oxygen-free copper cables, or (except, as we'll explain, in limited circumstances) Teflon-insulated cables. Broadcast studio engineers--people whose livelihood depends on the signal getting through with the lowest possible distortion and losses--rely on cables from companies like Belden and Canare, made with ordinary high-quality materials. People who spend millions of dollars on high-definition studio gear rely on these cables not because they're out to save a buck at the cost of quality, but because they are looking for the best possible product.
Let's take a look at some of these materials and consider how they bear on quality cable construction.
Silver or Silver-Plated Cables
Broadcast-quality cables are generally made with copper conductors; but it's not uncommon, in the consumer a/v market, to run into cables made with silver, or silver-plated copper, conductors. Why is this?
There is one respect in which silver is a better material for cable construction than copper: it is slightly (about 5%) less resistive (that is, more conductive) than annealed copper. "Resistance" is the property of any material which causes some of the electricity that flows through it to be converted into heat, and it's fair to say that resistance, in cables, is a bad thing--the less the better. All else being equal, lower resistance ought to be a good thing, and therefore one might think that silver would make for a better cable than copper.
That would indeed be so, but there are some other factors to take into account. First, the resistive loss in high-quality copper cables is already extremely small, because copper, though marginally less conductive than silver, is an extremely conductive metal. For example, Belden 1694A's center conductor resistance is 6.4 ohms per thousand feet. In a very long home theater run of 50 feet, then, the resistance of the conductor is 0.32 ohms, representing a minuscule cause of signal loss in a 75 ohm impedance video circuit; a solid silver conductor would drop this resistance by about five percent, resulting in a truly infinitesimal improvement.
This infinitesimal improvement might be worth something under extreme circumstances, all else being equal--but all else is rarely equal. First, silver is a more brittle material than copper, compromising the cable's flex-life. To solve this problem, silver is often plated over a copper wire--diminishing the conductivity benefit. Second, the conductivity benefit, as often as not, is offset by a reduction in wire gauge. Going from an 18 AWG conductor to a 20 AWG conductor, for example, results in an increase in resistance of over 50%; this swamps the conductivity benefit of silver, so that an 18 AWG copper conductor is more conductive, not less, than a 20 AWG silver or silver-plated conductor. When the comparison is between full-sized copper cables and silver-plated mini-coax of tiny gauge, like those one sees in many popular silver cable products, there's no contest; full-sized copper cables are dramatically more conductive, silver or no silver.
Oxygen-Free Copper
Many cables today are advertised as using "oxygen-free copper." OFC is popular in audio cables, and has begun to make inroads into the video cable market as well.
We all know, of course, that oxygen is bad for things made from copper. Copper oxidizes and turns green and flaky; in so doing, it loses its high conductivity and begins to fall apart. But the amount of oxygen present in conventionally annealed, non-OFC copper is so tiny that it simply isn't a factor in cable quality. We have cut into pieces of Belden coaxial cable twenty-five years old that have been used in radio transmission applications--and found them clean and bright, completely lacking any sign of oxidation. Modern coax is better still, with nitrogen-injected foam dielectrics that keep oxygen entirely away from the center conductor.
As it is with silver, there's nothing wrong with OFC; but electrically speaking, OFC wire is indistinguishable in audio and video applications from ordinary annealed copper wire.
Teflon Dielectrics and Insulation
Teflon is a special case, in one interesting sense: while audio and video cables made with silver or OFC are seldom used by professionals, there are plenty of professional-quality cables made with Teflon, for reasons we'll get to in a moment.
Teflon, of course, is familiar to us all as a coating on cookware; but it has certain interesting electrical properties as well which account for its use in cables. Insulating materials like Teflon vary in their ability to isolate conductors electrically from one another, and this property is characterized mathematically as the "dielectric constant." The best dielectric, from a purely electrical standpoint, is a vacuum; air is very nearly as good. But of course, when we're making coaxial cable, it's hard to use pure air as a dielectric because we need something relatively solid to keep the center conductor from coming into contact with, and shorting out to, the shield. A good dielectric for cable manufacture needs to be physically stable as well as having a good dielectric constant. Two materials that meet these criteria are polyethylene, used in the vast majority of precision video cables, and Teflon.
If we look at the characteristics of Teflon and polyethylene side-by-side, what becomes apparent is that Teflon has a lower dielectric constant; it is, in that sense, simply a "better" dielectric than polyethylene. If we were to make two coaxial cables, otherwise identical to one another, but produce one with polyethylene foam dielectric and the other with Teflon foam dielectric, the Teflon cable would have lower capacitance. Low capacitance being good, that'd be a good thing--right?
It would indeed; but there's a problem. The dielectric constant, capacitance, and the cable's characteristic impedance are all tied up together. If, in our example, the polyethylene cable had a 75 ohm characteristic impedance, for use in video, the Teflon cable would have a higher impedance, and would present an impedance mismatch if used in a video circuit. In order to correct the problem, we need to make the dielectric and shield smaller. When we get to 75 ohms impedance, we wind up with the same capacitance we had in the polyethylene cable. In other words, just because the Teflon is a "better" dielectric doesn't mean we get a "better" cable; it just means we don't need quite as much Teflon to achieve the same cable characteristics that we get using polyethylene.
Teflon's much more expensive, but a video cable with Teflon offers no performance enhancement over one made with polyethylene--so why the heck does anybody buy Teflon cables, anyhow? The answer has nothing at all to do with electrical performance, and everything to do with fire safety. Polyethylene, when exposed to fire, burns and gives off toxic fumes. This becomes an enormous hazard in a modern office building, where huge bundles of telephone and data cables are run through spaces which are also used for ventilation, because a fire in one part of a building can rapidly spread toxic fumes to the whole building. Teflon, by contrast, is highly fire-resistant and does not give off toxic fumes as easily. Because of this fire safety issue, cables which are routed through a plenum--that is, a dropped-ceiling area used as a ventilation return--are required to have a "plenum" rating, and Teflon, being both highly fire resistant and an excellent dielectric, is used in most plenum-rated cables.
Perhaps partly because of the higher cost of Teflon cables, some people believe that plenum versions of precision video cables perform better than their non-plenum counterparts. For example, one will sometimes see Belden 1695A, the plenum version of 1694A, recommended as a performance upgrade from 1694A. In fact, however, the performance specs on these two cables are virtually identical (and when they're different, 1694A is the better of the two!), and there is no reason to favor 1695A--unless, of course, you need that plenum fire rating.
We sell Teflon-dielectric cables, like Belden 1695A, alongside our polyethylene-dielectric offerings. If we thought that there were performance advantages to, say, Belden 1695A over Belden 1694A, we'd be the first to recommend it--but our experience has been that the two are, as the specs would suggest, completely indistinguishable. Teflon-based cables can be superb, but no more so than their less expensive, polyethylene equivalents; our recommendation is to use them if you need a plenum fire rating, but to save your money if you don't.
So if Materials don't Make the Difference, What Does?
All right--if fancy and expensive materials aren't what distinguish bad cable from good cable, what does make the difference? The answer is that cable manufacture is all about consistency and tolerances. Is that surprising? Consider that all automobiles are made out of basically the same raw materials--mostly steel and plastics. The difference between a Yugo and a Ferrari has a lot more to do with what one does with the steel and plastic than with how good the raw steel and plastic were before anyone made them into engines, components, and body panels. With cable, it's all about controlling dimensions and consistencies. How consistent is the size of a wire from point to point? Are the nitrogen bubbles in the foamed dielectric of even size and distribution? Is the outer dimension of the dielectric different from point to point? Is the tightness of the foil and braid the same from point to point? The electrical characteristics of cable are intimately bound up with these fiddly little questions of controlling manufacturing tolerances. Somewhere, someone is scratching his head right now over just how to center a wire inside an extruded dielectric just a little bit better--perhaps by a ten-thousandth of an inch--than is currently possible. Questions like that, for those who don't need to deal with them for a living, are exquisitely boring. But attention to these questions is what makes the difference between American broadcast-quality cable and the cheap Chinese stuff which is so very common on the consumer audio/video market.
In Conclusion...
Fine materials and quality manufacturing practices make the best cables; but the best materials for cable manufacture aren't always the most exotic or fancy-sounding. Not only are quality copper wire and nitrogen-injected PE foam dielectric great materials for building a precision video cable, but manufacturers like Belden make the best use of these excellent materials by employing them in well-engineered manufacturing processes, with tight tolerances. The result: cables of the highest quality, relied upon worldwide by professional broadcast engineers when the quality of the signal is of the utmost importance.
Ask, "Did you hear that specific sound?" 9 times out of 10, they'll say
they didn't hear it. So you play it again and point it out. Then they
light up and realize that no matter how many times they heard that
song, they had never heard that particular sound.
This is called a 'suggestive question' and 5 mins in Psych 101 would tell you why any assumptions made based upon it are useless.
Gaukas, both VH Audio and Duelund sell bulk wire manufactured specifically designed and manufactured for audio use. I use both in making diy Helix power cords, pretty complex cords, long thread here in reference to these cable. Also recipes for IC and speaker. Best pc's I've tried, and believe me I've tried many up to and including multiples of $1k.
Thing is, there isn't really a company out there that I know of that specializes in selling bulk raw wire that is designed and manufactured with audio applications in mind. They are all built for general electrical and mechanical applications. All the DIY videos and blogs out there are buying bulk Belden or other engineering industry supply companies. Then they are applying the same geometries that they've seen these "Snake Oil" merchants use like "Star-Quad" and "Hyperlitz" etc. Then they go and purchase aftermarket connectors sold by companies that also make "Snake Oil" and then consider themselves heroes that rose above "Snake Oil." *eye roll* Or, they're buying PREMADE electric cable that is meant to be used for mechanical purposes and adding after-market connectors and calling it a day. Those might sound great, but I won't know because I would know that they were never designed or meant to be used for audio. I would rather buy something I knew was meant to be used in an audio system.
I don't have the nimble fingers needed to thread solid copper, or silver for that matter. I know because I tried. You need tools and in some cases, a special machine that I have seen these "Snake Oil" merchants use to ensure an exact and precise twist from end to end. That's the sort of "Peace of Mind" I am willing to pay for. It's why I would rather go to and pay extra for a certified mechanic, rather than save money hiring a guy that knows a guy whose cousin worked on a few cars over the Summer break because he bought a Dealership Repair manual on eBay, has a few tools, and is "handy".
The truth is, these "Snake Oil" merchants seek out electrical supply companies and contract them to make wire that fits their very specific direction. A direction that they had their own in-house designer come up with. Right down to how the metal is treated. Then they contract a company to build a connector, that also meets their expectations. Then they hire and train staff to assemble these cables by hand using specialized tools. All this costs THEM money. So yeah, economics, they are going to pass that cost on to the customer. Am I going to cry foul because they decided to go with a trendy nylon, lattice-work design as a jacket cover which adds to the price tag? Or used some type of plastic net? No. That's silly. That is not to mention the fluctuating price of precious and semi-precious metals like copper and silver.
LOL, I mean, I would tip my hat to someone who can buy all that bulk electrical wire, braid up a complex layered copper ring of concentric circles where each layer is counter direction to the previous, adding a non-intrusive dielectric between each layer, then precisely running a core cable of silver, dead center in the cable so that it doesn't get anywhere near touching the copper braid surrounding it. Then feed that through a form of insulation that can withstand the heat and electric charge without deteriorating and without compromising the quality of signal. Oh right, then they'd have to create a mold and strike a solid copper connector that they would then solder or cold weld all that copper and silver to. Yeah, hats off to that guy! I wonder how much they'd charge to make me that cable...probably a lot. ;)
Plenty of speaker wire manufacturers pretending their products confirm to standards of definitions that they do not. It ranges from Canare star quad OFC bulk cable not actually being used in 95% of sales of terminated star quad cables sold singly or in sets, to many false claims of the use of silver in manufacturing and everything in between. Often, the MSRP of terminated cables is far below the wholesale cost of the raw materials. If you’ve ever wasted money on these snake oil cables, paying for peace of mind by also paying what it costs for companies like Audioquest to advertise like crazy and yet still makes tons of money, is something that’s easy to defend when it comes to satisfying the only person worth convincing you’re doing the right thing (you).
I'm with you OP, I do what ever I want to do. I tailor the sound with cables all the time.. I've yet to really find a neutral cable. I'm not sure I know what neutral or transparent really means. I think the terms attached to the description is what throws me. I've read 5 page reviews that boil down to. THEY SOUND OK, or GOOD, or worse yet THEY sound bad and it took 5 pages to say it..:-)
I disagree. bass, treble, mid range, etc is nothing but frequency transmitted via electricity. Electricity relies solely on conductivity. Frequency, as well as conductivity can be controlled through metallurgy and geometry. As mentioned in my post to
oldhvymec, you can make a cable that filters certain frequencies or accentuate specific frequencies. Therefore, you can certainly develop a cable that produces a particular "sound." IN fact, you might say they "color" the sound with that manufacturer's "house sound." Obviously, the most ideal setup would be one that is neutral, so that your hardware (amps/preamps/phonograph/other transport) can do the bulk of the work in producing the frequencies.
OP.. I'm forever the nosy sort.. Thanks for the input.. Bass and heavy copper go together. I've used pure silver stinger (SC) for single ended stuff. It's funny it's as good if not better. Where clad has always had a roll off of bass and mids for me.. High frequency boil wasn't uncommon either. Mill spec stopped most of my issues.. The thinner the clad the worse it was for HF boil, or the lack of luster and thunder..
I've ran copper to the positive and silver clad to the negative direct coupled to the amps.. I came up with some interesting results doing that on the speaker IC.
I quit using shielding all together. Digital IC I pay attention to, that's it.
BUT Analog, simple multiconductor weaves seem to be sent from the audiophile gods to this humble listener.. Multiconductor ribbons are another fine construct.. In combination, the best so far for me.. for about 2-300.00 for the best I can find. One pair of ribbons one pair of weaves. 150-250.00 for 3 meter runs..
Not gonna lie, I left them in for about 5 minutes. Enough to know those Component video cables were *NOT* meant for audio. I researched the issue and it boiled down to cable geometry and not metallurgy in this case.
The geometry for those Component cables were designed to push high frequency and to filter out low frequency signals. This is why the bass response vanished. It was designed to make them vanish.
Additionally, the difference in the number of conductors makes a difference. The Component cable had one conductor. The Ruby X3 has three conductors.
When I later replaced the Ruby X3s for Synergistic Research Foundation RCA Interconnects (which are all silver), I was disappointed in the loss of thunderous "bass wave" the Ruby's provided, but the bass was clearly more defined and sounded more like an instrument and less like some uncategorized "thump." There was also more punch during the initial attack of the bass, such as when the hammer of kick drum hits. It took about 3 days of 24-hr burn in before the thunderous bass wave returned. After about a solid week of 24-hr burn in, the bass volume had increased to the point where I had to reduce the subwoofer's volume level. Even today, playing Edie Brickell's "Circle" from their re-mastered Ultimate Collection, the thumbing of the acoustic guitar carries so much bass that the floor shakes. O_O
OP when you were using copper with silver clad RCA for the subs, how long did they stay before you swapped them back out? Were the silver clad RCAs brand new? Were the copper RCAs old?
I've had "things" happen with silver clad and tinned copper too..
It took 10 years to break in some pure silver # 12 with teflon covers.. I covered the speakers and let them play for 2 weeks straight after owning them for 15 years.. MAGIC.. I couldn't believe my ears.. I just though I spent 100.00 on surplus silver cable that was JUNK.. It's what I use for a reference now.. As good as I've ever heard..
The last "personal rhetoric" that I will impart, is that I used to be a heavy skeptic of power cables, even though I was able to discern differences in speaker cables and interconnects. The changes between speaker cables and interconnects were slight, but they were there. When I finally had the opportunity to start upgrading power and power cables, the changes were drastic and easily noticeable. It was as if power were 50% of the quality chain.
My bit of advice, take it or leave it, is to change out your primary power socket for at least a Hospital Grade socket. 99% of houses/apartments have a standard, cheap socket that gets-the-job-done. Hospitals require a bit more than just "get-the-job-done." They need stability, and constant reliable current. The sockets have tighter grips with more copper behind it to boost conductivity. It also means connections won't accidentally slip out over time as well as make better contact. In both my systems, that was the upgrade that made the most impact.
One last reply & I’m signing off. I have 7 interconnects in my bi-amped system. I have only one analogue source, a turntable. The interconnects are all made in Germany , sourced from tubesforhifi. They were chosen because they make a tight, adjustable grip on the RCA jacks and because the shielding is more than adequate. The guage is more than sufficient for line level transmission. I tried the “experiment,” and substituted the main cable from preamp to electronic crossover to a cheap cable, brand Seismic, from Amazon. There was no difference in SQ. However, this was not a valid experiment because it was not blind. It seems that most of you really value and enjoy your expensive boutique cables. I place no judgement on how you spend your money or what you do to enjoy yourselves. Use of the term bamboozle may have been perceived as disrespectful of audiophiles and, if so, I apologize. I have shrugged off being labeled a Denon owner. I remain ever suspicious of manufacturer’s claims however. Thank you for the interesting and informative discussion.
i was being a bit snarky, my apologies. We need unconventional for sure. I fixed a coworkers Timeframe X ? don’t remember the model, w Audax tweeter after consulting w Madisound.
one for one swaps ( value ) in the crossover should improve them, i doubt there was hand tuning, guessing w large baffle there was step compensation.
"...Clearly, many of you are bamboozled by the placebo effect,.."
If I can spend say 300-1000 dollars and bamboozle myself for years that my system sounds better than before, that's good enough for me. The "placebo effect" is not permanent and wont stand the test of time.
@avitacom There is a very certain way you can make this test.
For poops and giggles, I decided to change out the RCA interconnects on my subwoofer from the Audioquest Ruby X3s to Audioquest YIQ 2 Component Video Cables. The Component cables have a solid copper conductor with silver plating. If Audioquest's "skin effect" theory is true, that the actual transmission of audio signal travels on the skin of the conductor, then I should get the benefits of silver, right? After all, Audioquest's Boxer cable is practically the same sort of conductor. A solid copper conductor with silver plating. That should mean that the YIQ 2 is a super cheap, awesome subwoofer cable, right?
Guess what? There was a massive decrease in bass; so incredibly noticeable that you couldn't hear much if any bass at all. You couldn't even reach the same volume of bass if you turned the sub all they way to max volume. Replacing the Ruby X3s, the loud bass returned and I had to turn the volume back down to a reasonable level.
Why? RCA interconnects shouldn't be any better or worse than any other RCA, right? Why would there be such a drastic difference? Psychosomatic? I was so used to the Ruby X3s that I suddenly went deaf when connecting the YIQ 2s?
Why not try it yourself. Just find any simple RCA video cable laying around and replace any one of your component's RCA audio interconnects with that simple video cable. Then report back if you hear any difference whatsoever in sound quality. All it takes is maybe 10 total minutes out of your day.
Your question is missing context. You must have all pertinent cables attached for your sound system and source in order to produce the music you want to play.
For example, if you changed the cables on your CD player, but are playing music through your record player (phonograph), then you aren't able to perceive how much difference the new CD cable is providing because music isn't being played through it.
Uh huh, and a complete back-cat exhaust system, stage 6 turbo, inter cooler with external cold air filter, quick-change gear shift, ground kit, sport cams and maybe a NOS system.
May not be pretty or brag-worthy, but very much a street sleeper. An unconventional system for an unconventional guy. :D
I used to work for the now long since defunct Incredible Universe in the Home Theater department. I loved the DCM Timeframe 600s and practically obsessed over them. When DCM told us about the 50% employee discount, I was quick to get mine. :)
Then, some years later, I was working for a company called Alliance Systems and the Vice President was Rusty, who apparently was one of the co-owners of DCM. Small world.
These DCMs have only had one co-axially mounted tweeter fail, which had replaced. Even though the crossover looks like a five-year old with a hot glue gun took a whack at it, they still perform beautifully.
I have often wondered if it is worth trying to upgrade the capacitors, but I would fear ruining whatever calibration was made to their "Time delay" crossover tech.
If by data you mean measurements, there are some things in audio measurements don't explain, for instance capacitors can measure the same but different brands made of different materials can sound different.
I’m tempted to explain what I mean by “data,” but when one is tempted to “explain,” it’s time to shut up & listen. Perhaps, if anything, I’ve stimulated some interesting discussion.
@guakas Why on earth would you assert I took anything you said personally? Just pointing out the flaws in your narrative. You have not offended me in the least. Trust me, you're also no expert in how I feel. lol
The one I am currently running and still building is this:
Hardware: Acer Helios 300 Predator
Software: Foobar2000, Winamp, and TIDAL
Speaker system: Audioengine A2+ along
with the Audioengine S8 subwoofer.
Other components: Audioquest Dragonly Cobalt and Audioquest FMJ Jitterbug in
series.
Power system:
Audioquest NRG Edison 15amp power socket.
Shunyata Reference Delta v2 XC
Shunyata Venom V16 Power Distributor
PS Audio Noise Harvester (In parallel, not in series.)
Connections:
Kimber Kable Summit Palladian (A2+)
Kimber Kable Ascent (S8)
Shunyata Venom V14 Digital (Acer)
Synergistic Research Foundation (A2+, S8 and soon will connect the A2+ passive
speaker.)
2nd SYSTEM:
Hardware:
Yamaha TSR-7810
XBOX-ONE S
NHT SA-1
NHT MA-1
Speakers:
DCM Timeframe 600 (Main)
Polk Audio CS10 (Center)
Infinity Primus 160 (Rear)
NHT SW2P (Left Sub)
Polk Audio PSW10 (which I modified to be a passive sub) (Right Sub)
Power system:
Audioquest NRG Edison 15amp power socket
Audioquest Powerquest 3
PS Audio Noise Harvester
About the cat, again post deleted because subtle discernment was required to connect up Schrodinger, the cat and Geoff teleportation tweak. Discernment is a cable listening skill
The paraphrase of Jefferson Airplane and The Rolling Stones was deleted. Somebody has super thin skin, no sense of humor and poor musical taste in Rock n Roll but apparently IS a cable expert. I am guessing they rail against cancel culture while practicing it…
BTW, never once in my ENTIRE OP, or this thread, have I stated *I* was better than anyone, or my system was better than anyone's. I invite you to prove it, copy paste the precise words
Ummmm....ok
But hey, kudos for recognizing that I did provide supporting arguments for my superior position.
@three_easy_payments Really? Because I chose the side that supports "cable theory" I am automatically taking a superior position? Wow, that is a massively wide brush you use to paint there!
But hey, kudos for recognizing that I did provide supporting arguments for my superior position.
"I worked many countless hours between El Segundo and Seal beach…. my fave old world Italian place is in Long Beach. I ride 100-150 miles a week, but i cheat with a Quantum enabled ebike."
tomic-Things have been changing around here, like everywhere else. Most, if not all "old world" places are gone. What place is it?
“Get a good resolving system that allows you to hear the better components.
Buying a pioneer or denon system will not get you there
Spend some $$$ to get a better system. Spending $300 on an audio system won’t
get you there either.
You should have 2 ears, try using them”
Amount of money doesn’t always mean better. The amount of money a company charges
for their product can be based on a ton of factors…mostly being, making a
profit. So, if a $1000 Yamaha receiver goes on sale for $350, I magically don’t
have a good enough system to resolve good audio because I didn’t spend enough
money? Hogwash.
I bought the Audioengine A2+ because it was the best small audio system that
would fit on my work desk. I later added the Audioengine S8 subwoofer because I
liked having deep bass. My other work computer has an old Altec Lansig powered
sub/satellite speaker system that always sounded great, but couldn’t be
upgraded because the power and audio cables were permanently attached. Audioengine
allowed their components to be upgraded by allowing you to choose what power
cable you want, what interconnects you want and what speaker cable to join
them. They left the option open.
Now, because folks are hung up on, “the speakers were too inexpensive for me to
upgrade” they’ll never, ever know how amazing they actually are, because they’ll
never find out due the trappings of a convenient ideology. Thankfully, I had
the money and time to invest in it and discovered that these speakers are thirsty
for better power and when they have it, they sing and sing more than well. It’s
no skin off my back if no one wants to found out for themselves. :)
Yeah I know, a controversial topic, but after 30+ years of hearing both sides and seeing how the argument has evolved over the years, I want to say my piece.
This is the first sentence of your OP.
The whole point is that there aren't just two sides - apparently you have chosen one and have crafted an argument to support your "side" (your word, not mine). My "side" is that there is definitely snake oil products out there while other tweaks likely have some benefit. The world doesn't have to be as polarizing as you'd like it to be. I choose not to focus on the tweaks only because they just don't move the needle much from my own personal experience. I wear no label.
"
This is total assertion of a superior position!
"
I disagree. It's your assertion that it is by making assumptions that fit your narrative. You're assuming I am calling you a nay-sayer, when I have in fact never accused you of it. It sounds as though you took my OP personally, which is interesting as only a nay-sayer would.
BTW, never once in my ENTIRE OP, or this thread, have I stated *I* was better than anyone, or my system was better than anyone's. I invite you to prove it, copy paste the precise words where I said, "I am better than the nay-sayer because my opinion is the best." I'll wait. :)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
