Why Do Cables Matter?

+1 for @snilf  for pointing out that "just listen" is, when stated so simplistically, a quixotic imperative. I would point out that some people claim that only listening for longer periods is effective at discovering subtle differences. One must take notes during those longer periods of listening. The question of whether fast-switching or longer-listening is more effective at discovering enduring qualitative differences is a very interesting one to me.

+1 @audphile1  for noting the reasons people can't hear a difference with cables. And for explaining what needs to be done to make it *possible* to eventually (possibly) hear a difference.

Any deltas are specific to that system and room and unlikely to translate to an entirely different system.

Completely baseless claim that offers neither scientific nor experiential justification. This kind of claim is, however, a good argument against selling keyboards to just anyone who can type.

@yoyoyaya earnest question for you.

You said,

the point is that one is aiming to retrieve the information which is already there and not to add information which is not present in the recording.

Original recordings vary a lot (as you know). When an original recording was something made for car radios or some other mass listening application, they sometimes exhibit qualities which, on a good stereo, sound bad. When audiophiles seeks ways of dealing with that -- say with a tube DAC or EQ or certain cables, etc. -- are they trying to remove information in the original recording in order to make it sound better?

I really don’t know the answer to this, so I would appreciate anyone with experience explaining what is happening to the "information" in the original recording when we try to make it sound better.

Also, consider this analogy: when we take raw steak and cook it and add garlic salt, are we obscuring or reducing the original flavor information in the meat?

You see the analogy I’m trying to make, but perhaps it is not a good analogy? Feel free to attack it!

@yoyoyaya

Thank you for your informed reply.

Since there are some situations where adding information (harmonics) is pleasing or taking away information is pleasing (equalization), then there is nothing sacrosanct about "reproducing the original information," at least at the end of the process. Because the goal is not literal reproduction but aesthetic reproduction. This is where the analogy with cooking raw ingredients holds up.

On the other hand, I can imagine the response - "Yes, ok — we need to flavor to taste. Still, at the start of the process, we want to start with the real thing -- 100%, Grade A meat. After that, you can do as you wish, but don’t compromise it before you get a chance to start cooking."

These two responses are consistent with one another. But the notion that the "original signal" should not be adjusted (adding or subtracting information) mistakes literal reproduction for aesthetic reproduction. As you say, tastes vary, and (of course), so do ears and rooms. A lot!

At the end of the day, I don't seek "faithful" or "accurate" but good sounding. It's also the case that I probably don't own the same speakers the recording was mixed on, nor the same acoustic room. Given that I cannot hope for "faithful" I will settle for "good sounding," however I can get there.

@donavabdear @nonoise @yoyoyaya 

Great points which I failed to understand about the equipment and about a good engineer creating things which project beyond what their equipment literally reports to them. Thanks.