To me, all you need is low L, C, and R. I run Mogami W3104 bi-wire from my McIntosh MAC7200 to my Martin Logan Theos. We all know that a chain is only as strong as its' weakest link - so I am honestly confused by all this cable discussion.
What kind of wiring goes from the transistor or tube to the amplifier speaker binding post inside the amplifier? It is usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper. Then we are supposed to install 5 - 10' or so of wallet-emptying, pipe-sized pure CU or AG with "special configurations" to the speaker terminals?
What kind of wiring is inside the speaker from the terminals to the crossover, and from the crossover to the drivers? Usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper.
So you have "weak links" inside the amplifier, and inside the speaker, so why bother with mega expensive cabling between the two? It doesn't make logical sense to me. It makes more sense to match the quality of your speaker wires with the existing wires in the signal path [inside the amplifier and inside the speaker].
And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables
@donavabdear: how many times do you need to be told the same thing over and over? It’s not about adding information, it’s about loosing as little information as possible. It’s like hitting the head against the wall with you. How many lines at a time can you read? Do you actually read anything other people write, or do you just enjoy yourself talking?
I’m just pointing out logical problems with the audiophile community as a whole.
Yup! Everyone already knows you despise the audiophile community as a whole. So what are trying to accomplish here? In a forum catering to audiophiles. To me, that’s the very definition of trolling
Why is it that audiophiles think that resolution (sample rate) is the same as resolution in pixel rate in vision
I don’t know what to think about this statement of yours on audiophiles. I don’t know whether to laugh, or be outraged by your offensiveness and extreme put down of an entire group of audio enthusiasts
Just like with your legion of straw men arguments and appeals to authority, meant to deflect from the actual subject (which is your wont), projection is another of your ploys, accusing others of some religious fervor when it's you trying your level best to convert with all manner of nonsense arguments.
All you do is proselytize and then end you mini rant with some lame proverb of sorts meant to make one think of oneself as placing themselves above others. You need help.
#1- I never said, "bad cables". A, "bad" cable (in my lexicon) would be a cable that doesn't convey ANY signal.
'Crappy' would include the sort that come with most equipment, or: those that utilize dielectrics such as PVC, or other cheap-out constructions*, that are detrimental to audio signals.
*Admittedly: even some cheap, after-market cables perform better than the manufacturer-provided garbage.
#2:
You are wrong about DSP not making up for problems in the signal.
What I said was your digital gyrations (whatever form that may take) can never recover information LOST along a signal pathway.
Of course: the sound of a system can be tweaked with regards to a plethora of parameters, via DSP (which my TacT RCS 2.2X pre provides in spades), BUT: if critical components of the ORIGINAL signal are lost, there isn't a device manufactured that can recreate those, at any cost.
Again, for many of us: an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performances in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.
That requires maintaining the original signal, in as unaltered a state, as possible.
The common term: transparency.
How anyone else chooses to listen to their music, or: manipulate their signals, in their own listening environs, is strictly their own affair.
Even when in the business of designing and building systems for others; I never tried to change a customer's aural palette, though many viewed listening to my demo systems an awakening.
My credo was, "The customer always thinks they're right!"
The problem I have in these threads is the number that go about trying to dissuade others, from experimenting with their own systems.
As I often aver:
No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition. There are simply too many variables.
LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc) will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.
Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.
@johnkGold should be used on connectors not because gold is a good conductor but because there is 0 residue, in 1000 years there will be no oxide on gold connectors maybe dust but no oxide.
@yoyoyayaAs a serious answer with the 2nd law in mind it would mean that at the smallest point of information flow in the signal path would be the limiting factor. If digital (which is usually the problem these days) the smallest sample rate is the limiting factor in analog you can just turn up the signal creating noise.This is why 48khz is still the norm, could have recorded many movies at 96khz but there would be a particular piece of equipment that couldn't deal with it so 96khz never caught on for movies. In music analog front ends (mixers) then recorded to 192khz ProTools is about as good as it gets in my opinion, yes it's a little noisier in the front end (same idea as tube amps) but the signal is digital in the mix and can be changed any way you want without losing fidelity. Many audiophiles speak of cables in such stellar ways if you don't use expensive cables not having them creates a bottleneck in both the analog and digital world. in analog bad cables are very easy to hear if you have experience with the system and microphones (tube mics are harder) usually a bad mic cable crackles very very loudly because the ground is broken and 48v phantom power rips your head off, in the digital world cables that don't pass the proper 1s and 0s don't work at all. Great engineers whom I've learned from felt a lot of responsibility to the original recording and the format in which that recording was preserved for posterity, no one considered that AI will easily put together the missing pieces in the future. AI will be the added information in the 2nd law definition in the near future.
I have never read a cable review where reviewer started out by cleaning connections. Just pulling off a cable and reconnecting removes some oxide this would effect sound. Suggest looking at what the cable and connector's are made of more than what its price tag is.
@yoyoyayaYes I've been right on set when huge productions were waiting for me to untangle cables getting screamed at by the first Assistant Director. To me cables are like plumbing they should only get noticed if there is a problem.
So many on this forum have such knee-jerk reactions to anyone not bowing down to the cable religion, I never said cables don't make a difference, I never said I haven't tried different cables (only a few I'd have to say) I've spent 10s of thousands on cables, I never said my mind is made up and I won't demo cables, I'm just pointing out logical problems with the audiophile community as a whole. It is very poor thinking to point out some friend or a studio that is an exception to a general statement about a large group.
Why doesn't the worlds most complex and exact machines use special AC Cables and interconnects?
Why don't audio test equipment makers like Audio Precision send their equipment out with boutique cables?
Why does the audiophile community constantly throw up straw man arguments by saying something like " well if you wan't to use cheep (leaky) cables then you obviously want to stay in your state of willful ignorance"
Why does the audiophile community think that cables bring out the design of the components.
Why don't engineers design components with particular cables in mind if they are such an important part of the systems fidelity?
Why doesn't the audiophile community understand that nearly every channel has DSP on it when mixed. Limiting dynamics, EQ, reverb, phasing, imaging, airiness, and all the other toys used all the time.
Why do audiophiles think the electronic signal goes down the strands of the medium (the signal moves in a field on the outside of the conductors).
Why do audiophiles think that inserting a very high quality AC cable between the romex and the Amp fuse makes the audio signal change (there is no audio until after the transformer where the power is changed to DC). (Also I've spent 100 of thousands on Power conditioning personally).
Blind tests vs. ABX tests vs. visual confirmation cable tests. As you all well know the visual test with the very expensive cable always sounds better.
Why is it that audiophiles generally can't accept the idea that an amplifier designed for a specific speaker driver is the best practice for more accurate sound. (I watch a guy on YouTube who has gone through 300 exceptionally expensive power amps).
Why is it that the "break in period" is not testable, I understand cables aren't always quantifiable but break in changes should be, and they are not.
Why is it that sample rate information has so much BS, the AES did a large study on this years ago and showed experienced listeners were not able to hear any differences between CD, SACD and 96/24 (I spent $8k on my SACD player).
Why is it that audiophiles think that resolution (sample rate) is the same as resolution in pixel rate in vision, it is not. (this myth still hasn't gone away).
-little harder question-
If boutique cables are so important to the sound than why is it that cables with similar resistance, capacitance and inductance sound the same, you immediately say "they don't" but if there is a problem one of these characteristics is damaged).
And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables (yes, some people have delt with this question but I think they were all recording engineer who understand this concept.)
Well when it comes to audio engineers and audiophiles I chose to listen to Dave McNair @ PTA Grammy Winning engineer and a fellow who will actually consider all points.
Do you accept that recovering all of the information contained in the original recording is a legitimate aim of hi fi reproduction?
I think that's an admirable aim, especially when in the context of a cable. It should let the signal come through without adding noise or distortion. Of course, nothing will ever be perfect. But I think it's possible for a real cable to be indistinguishable from a perfect cable. Once a certain threshold of accuracy is passed it won't make a difference to our hearing perception.
Changing cables undoubtedly causes perceptual changes for some listeners. Why that is could be a number of things beyond just expectation bias. For now we don't have much in the way of convincing explanations for what actual changes in the signal are occurring. We just have perceptual descriptions. It's quite possible that the cables are deviating away from technically correct performance, but that perceptually comes across better for some listeners.
You’ve made yourself very clear. You’d be embarrassed if you knew how clearly you communicate.
Ouch!!!
_ _ _ _ _
- He lumps all audiophiles together - like the Borg in Star Trek. Not as independent thinkers with successful careers - who, as music-lovers, have arrived at similar observations and experiences over their decade’s-long audio journey.
- He doesn’t respect cable swapping. But, he definitely favors mic swapping. It’s okay to address the needs of different performing artists with different voice boxes and chest cavities during the recording phase. But, it’s not okay to address the various needs of source components and speakers during the playback phase. Such as synergy.
- Location sound is always tweaked in Post Production. EQ, room tone, re-recording, etc. Matching the SQ of different mic’s on different actors in different takes. Altering the voice perspective as to whether the shot is a wide Master or a Close-up.
- He still doesn’t get that the cables’ metallurgy and architecture affect the electricity - the fuel for the entire playback system. High octane = High performance. Getting the various components to integrate well is the goal.
- After insulting everybody, he wonders why people are attacking him.
@rodman99999Yes I read that post, and that is perfect exactly what I'm saying but that is the exception, you understand. I'm asking honest questions so smart audiophiles will give me their view. You mentioned being obtuse, that is what you did when you mention using bad cables, again, again, again no one on either side of the discussion advocates using bad cables (strawman). You are wrong about DSP not making up for problems in the signal. Have you ever used ProTools and the amazing plugins that are available in it? If you are good with audio tools you can make recording sound much better. I have a friend who mixed the Sinatra Duets album, Frank said no efx, the original recording was so unmixable they did it anyway, something you don't do when Frank say no, the album was great and no one ever knew.
BTW I'm not stating normal anti cable argument like saying they aren't testable or they don't sound better, I never said anything like that. I've spent millions on sound equipment over the years believe me I know sound equipment on the professional level I'm just trying to understand it at the audiophile level. Honestly.
@donavabdearI’ve been trying to understand why so many people are willing to spend so much money on cables, when no studio does, easy question really,...
Easy question and easy answer, which has been answered for you, multiple times.
Either you fail to read carefully and try to comprehend, or simply don’t want to.
When someone has not tested something first-hand, no point trying to debate it.
A friend owns a recording/mastering studio - and does not short-change on cables.
"Ok, I didn’t communicate my point. I’ll try one more time and you don’t have to read my notes."
"Listening- to what?"
APPARENTLY: you don't even bother to read the very first sentences of posts previous to yours.
ie:
AND (incidentally): I DO have a number of recordings, of my own creation (using a John Oram board and complimentary cabling, FYI), that I've used to critique my system and it's accuracy in instrumental/vocal tonality, etc.
But: a more scientific way, at least with which to determine if a system will/can recover room ambiance, describe the air between the above voices and image well, which (to me) are what is most greatly affected by cable choices, is the LEDR test, so easily found online and CD.
From the next post: The adherents of the Naysayer Church will never accept that there exist a multitude of variables, when an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performance in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.
IOW: The majority of us that are experimenting with better cables, do so that we might enjoy a more realistic presentation, in ALL aspects.
Many of us have found that improving our interconnects, PC and fuses, has resulted in more accurate information retrieval, and/or less loss of information, throughout the system, NOT with the intent to, "...change the signal" or, "boost the bass or whatever frequency to exactly match the way you like the sound?"
Nothing lost through the use of crappy cabling, can ever be recovered by you beloved digital EQ and dynamic tools.
Are you really that obtuse, or just choosing to be argumentative*?
Ok, I didn’t communicate my point. I’ll try one more time and you don’t have to read my notes.
-Listening- to what? I mention Anthony Hopkins because everyone knows his voice but few have heard it in person, I’m not name dropping, If you have had season tickets to the London Philharmonic for 40 years you buy a record of the latest season, you still don’t know where the microphones were placed to record the performance, you don’t know what effects were put on each microphone, you probably aren’t even familiar with those microphones nor all the components and mic cables that were used in the recording nor the components in the mixing. You nor I or anyone other than the mixer has any idea what to -listen- for because you didn’t do the recording.
People with -golden ears- who evaluate sound systems who don’t do the recording and the mixing (which is very rare) have no right to say there is to much of this and not enough of that, the entire "listening" based on accuracy is silly. Sure some people are good at picking adjectives to describe what many people like but the idea that a cable is accurate is impossible. -More- is not always proper I used to use an old EV mic cable to record tubby sounding women in the studio it worked like gold we would go to a mic like the Sennheiser 421 dynamic first then if that didn’t smooth out her voice we’d use the special mic cable because it was screwed up which made it perfect to record big powerful women’s voices.
Cables are not a consideration in a recording unless there is a problem, you obviously always use good quality cables and if you do use cables you have to run them in ways they don’t get interference from the lighting/power guys who are set up right next to you in concert situations, this is why Dante and digital networking are used in concerts today because 1s and 0s stay 1s and 0s all the way to the decoder or else it doesn’t work at all.
What are you listening for? Answer, simply to enjoy the music.
Also with todays digital EQ and dynamic tools its easy to change the signal, for some reason audiophiles don’t want to manipulate the signal in the digital realm with no phase or harmonic coloration problems you used to have with analog manipulation. Why not save $80k on cables and boost the bass or whatever frequency to exactly match the way you like the sound?
AND (incidentally): I DO have a number of recordings, of my own creation (using a John Oram board and complimentary cabling, FYI), that I've used to critique my system and it's accuracy in instrumental/vocal tonality, etc.
But: a more scientific way, at least with which to determine if a system will/can recover room ambiance, describe the air between the above voices and image well, which (to me) are what is most greatly affected by cable choices, is the LEDR test, so easily found online and CD.
The adherents of the Naysayer Church will never accept that there exist a multitude of variables, when an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performance in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.
If their result differs from that of others, the aspects that they can't discern CERTAINLY MUST BE the product of the others' imagination.
Of this they are certain: it CAN'T be THEIR system or ears!
Perish the thought!
A much more apropos view of the local, imaginary intelligence operative (et al):
No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition. There are simply too many variables.
LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc) will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.
Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.
Anyone that knows anything about the sciences, realizes that something like 96% of what makes up this universe, remains a mystery.
For centuries; humanity’s seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it.
The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!").
Theories have never proven or disproven anything. It’s INVARIABLY testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories/hypotheses.
IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF.
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I'm that old).
He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!"
For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs. The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
ie: “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”
Tesla is probably my favorite innovator, who (despite the incessant, projectile vomit, from his day's naysayers), took the World, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, with his inventions.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872)
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)
"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project)
When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."
Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft.
Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe).
I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY." He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday)
PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it?
I will venture at least one guess as to the cause of your intense resistance to listening seriously to and evaluating premium audio cables, and soldering on to come up with all manner of irrelevant excuses for why it can’t make a difference. With 73 speakers at your home, even using only mid-level audiophile products from reputable makers like Kimber, Audioquest, Nordost, etc. would cost you an investment approaching that for all of your electronics combined. Especially if you are trying to drive all speakers in a home theater system with hard wires versus wirelessly. I can understand this hesitation on your part, and your valiant attempts to convince yourself it won’t make a difference. But trying to enlist and seek support from the entire Audiogon community in your self deception is a fools errand. I promise.
And bro, seriously, what does Anthony Hopkins have to do with the performance of audiophile cables?
...listening is futile if you don’t know how the instrument sounded originally it’s futile if you don’t know what mic was used to record it, it’s futile if you don’t know the room and the circumstances it was recorded under.
It obviously disturbs you that so many here are listening, and also enjoying it, in open defiance of your proclamations.
I’ve done $200,000,000 dollar movies ...
So what?
Hope you can understand my poor way of communicating, I know Im not very good at it.
You’ve made yourself very clear. You’d be embarrassed if you knew how clearly you communicate.
listening is generally always stupid because you have no idea what your listening to, liking the sound means nothing, arbitrary
Wow!
The entire foundation of "golden ears" on the audiophile side is ridiculous
Wow! Wow!
Demos are BS
Just Wow!
I've done $200,000,000 dollar movies
Then what are you doing here in a forum with "lowly" stupid audiophiles who don't get it? By the way, if you put the $ (dollar sign) before a number, you don't have to write "dollar" after that number.
I’ve said it before when you’re working with Anthony Hopkins in a movie then have lunch with him
@donavabdear"I've been trying to understand why so many people are willing to spend so much money on cables, when no studio does, easy question really, 0 answers but plenty of attacking me and not the arguments."
To provide at least part of the answer to your question. There are two overriding reasons why specialist hi fi cables are not more widely used in recording studios: cost and logistics.
Recording studios are businesses - usually businesses struggling to make money these days. When they publish a gear list they want product that will attract customers and generate a return for them. So to make a comparison, if the studio spends six grand on microphone cable versus the same amount on a Neumann U67 microphone, it's a slam dunk as to which will generate the better return.
Secondly logistics - and I'm using the term widely. A lot of hi fi cables are too unwieldy to use in long runs. In addition, studio mic cables are effectively consumables. And, back to cost, consumables need to be cheap.
Finally, it is not to say that hi fi cables are not used in the recording industry. Van den Hull makes quite a range of microphone cables. For example, Channel Classics' Jared Sacks uses them. Bob Ludwig's Gateway mastering is cabled with Transparent Audio cables.
PS Could you clarify your various references to the second law of thermodynamics as I'm unclear as to what you are driving at there?
@tjagHere is something I bet you don't understand, listening is futile if you don't know how the instrument sounded originally it's futile if you don't know what mic was used to record it, it's futile if you don't know the room and the circumstances it was recorded under. I've done $200,000,000 dollar movies in which the carpenters had to keep working over the Oscar winners dialogue because it was the next shot up and they weren't ready. listening is generally always stupid because you have no idea what your listening to, liking the sound means nothing, arbitrary. I've said it before when you're working with Anthony Hopkins in a movie then have lunch with him and hear his voice when your sitting next to him you have an idea of how his voice really sounds, (even so, many actors and musicians don't speak nor play the same as when they are practicing or simply talking) but still listening to changes in the system means nothing unless you know how it should sound originally. The way music recording are made today that is practically impossible also, all you have to go buy is if the producer and artist like what you are doing and then hire you again. The entire foundation of "golden ears" on the audiophile side is ridiculous. Demos are BS, if you know how a particular microphone sounds because you have used it everyday for years you can go out and record a voice or an effect of someone or something you know exactly how it sounds to your ears and the temperature isn't abnormal or the subject isn't feeling a bit under the weather, then you have a chance of making a proper judgement on if a system sounds accurate during playback. How do you know the component or cable isn't just adding frosting to the signal or double frosting and you enjoy it more? Demos will let you evaluate if you like the new component more or less but will practically never tell you if it is making the signal more accurate. Hope you can understand my poor way of communicating, I know Im not very good at it.
@donavabdearyou can discuss and argue here till the end of time about your expertise and how cables don't matter, or you can just go to a hifi store and ask them for a demo on a system of their choice and get converted.
@knownothingThanks for your understanding you get what I’ve been saying. Yes I have been a recording engineer for many decades, I retired about 4 years ago and now have a studio in my listening room as well as a regular system just for fun. I have always been at the front end of making music doing live sound and recording dialog/sound for movies I haven’t been in the audiophile world long, I started in acoustics and putting in sound systems into churches and performing arts rooms mainly. I have tried a few speaker cables before my system wasn’t tuned in as well as it is now so my tests were meaningless. I just spoke with my dealer last week about upgrading cables because now my system is sounding as it should (it took so much longer than it should have). My mixing setup makes a lot more sense to me as far as accuracy all the speakers are internally powered and put together with Canare star quad cable. My professional system still needs work and I’m starting a movie tomorrow luckily it’s only 5.1 so it won’t matter that the rest of the speakers are not where they should be. In the professional world no one ever talks about cables, just speakers, preamps, microphones, room acoustics are the main details. When your making the product you don’t test it to see if it’s good the fact is you won’t get hired if your product isn’t worth the huge budgets of the movies and TV shows there is no room for error or poor quality. I know in the audiophile world cables are considered a component, I was a physics / engineering major in college and understood how cables could make a difference, audiophiles don’t understand that in the professional world making a difference only degrades the sound because you are making the original first recording everyday. Professional sound guys that I know don’t have good sound system in their homes the entertainment industry is incredibly grulling and generally takes 14 hours of the day then driving to the studio or location everyday leaves no time to listen to music. Here are my credits (some, just in the movie/TV industry)
Have you ever been involved in a blind test comparing an array of, say, digital cables of different price points and quality rotated in a decent (not even SOTA) home sound system in a purpose built listening room and comparing across the same music tracks? Or with headphones and a decent headphone amplifier and source gear? Because, if you have done this, and you maintain that there is little to be gained in the sound quality coming out of your speakers (or should I more accurately say, much less being lost) by listening random through the price scale for offerings from reputable brands like say Nordost or Chord, then I can only surmise that you actually have tin ears. Seriously, the differences between at least some cables can be quite astonishing, and will make you laugh out loud at what lesser cables are masking or leaving out of what’s actually in your recordings and present to be unlocked by the inherent capabilities of your powered equipment.
Frankly, the fact that you are stating you have a background in the recording industry and you cling this flat earth perspective on premium cables as a blanket accusation based on fundamentally misapplied principles and inept analogies without providing any evidence that you have actually done some serious blind testing with your own ears is really hard to understand or take seriously. Sure, some expensive cables probably are lousy, overpriced or at least a bad match in some systems. But when you get it right, it is really, really right and you will know it immediately. And you wont want to go back again.
Good luck,
kn
PS - Kimber is generally good stuff. And they publish their cable specs, which I respect.
@knownothingI hear you and understand what you are saying but no one who doesn't believe in very expensive cables advocates using poor or "leaky" cables. I use Kimber cables for speakers, AC and Canare star quad for interconnects definitely better than the average recording studio. I was the first person to ever be fully digital in my location recording system one of the reasons why it was so effective was because I bypassed cables all together being digital and wireless gave me exact signal continuity and I didn't have to worry about cables always causing a crackle or a hum at exactly the wrong time. I've thought a lot about cables in my career. I've been trying to understand why so many people are willing to spend so much money on cables, when no studio does, easy question really, 0 answers but plenty of attacking me and not the arguments. Best
You say: ”Super turbo mega cables inserted between a skinny fuse and the crossover wire a speaker can't make a difference just like inserting a firehose between two garden hoses can't make a difference. In physics in called Kickoffs law.”
Terrible analogy. Let me give you a better one.
“Super turbo mega cables inserted between a skinny fuse and the crossover wire inside a speaker can make a real difference in what you hear, just like inserting a leakproof section of hose with great leakproof fittings between two garden hoses can make a difference in conserving pressure and flow compared to an equal length section of drip irrigation hose with leaky connectors.”
You either refuse to listen, or you are completely incapable of understanding even the most simple concepts.
@knownothingSorry I didn’t answer your well thought out response. Here is where we were talking past each other.
you said:
I also maybe misinterpreted your point to mean it is hopeless to use way more expensive cables than the recording studio, because you might be trying to score a 12 out of 7 in replaying the recording, and that is just such a ridiculous concept, right? Nobody would claim that. Right? At least I haven’t read a single post in this thread where anyone claimed that.
I assumed that smart audiophiles wouldn’t waste money by spending such large amounts of money percentage on particular components like boutique cables. This is what I mean by creating information because of the money audiophiles spend on cables. Have you ever hear of anyone using the proper terminology saying this cable is closing the deficiency in my signal by adding such and such frequency, easy to say nope they say as well as every manufacture say these cable add air, space, musicality, depth, soundstage to the presentation...... It’s not a matter of semantics it’s a matter of fraud.
Nobody will answer the question - if you put a firehose in-between two garden hoses everyone knows it will do no good why is it that so many people think inserting an expensive cable between regular conductors is going to make a difference? That is exactly the question I asked all the cable manufactures I saw at AXPONA none of them had an answer. Thanks for being thoughtful.
You arrogantly put me down and won’t deal with anything I’ve said. You call me a name dropper I simply used Al Schmitt because he is a known commodity and spoke of the principle we are talking about, maybe you would listen to what he said. Try to be nice.
WTF are you talking about? I never called you a name dropper.
As for the part about Audio Precision analyzers, they're taking measurements and looking at graphs, not listening. They're missing the forests for the trees, conflating what they hear in their system with a graph. Again, the signal still gets through and better cables will reveal that in your system .
Paul of PS Audio, I've met him he seem like a great guy, what could make him pick another companies very expensive cables over PS Audio's own (I've bought them myself)? The answer is Paul needs to make money and he can make much more money selling Dragon cables than his own cables (especially at $34,100). Simple.
This is just an assumption. That's not good enough as anyone could make any claim. The imagination is the limit.
If the Dragon pc and PS pcs are just snake oils and no better than each other, then logically Paul could have earned even more money making his own superdooper Dragon killer snake oil pc and sell it for 45K. Who is to stop him?
Instead he confessed that the Dragon pc is superior and that's unusual in business.
I don't think there is any relation between a recording setup and playback. There is a relationship between recording monitoring and playback. In both cases, you want a room that doesn't colour the sound and accurate monitors.
Regarding recording itself, recording engineering is like all engineering - it's trying to find the least bad compromise within the limitations of the available technology. There's a place for simple one or two mic recording techniques, just as there is for multi mic'd and multitracked recording and all points in between. But, at the risk of stating the obvious, there are massive differences in the quality of recordings made with all those techniques.
As far as high fidelity playback is concerned, the system is indifferent to the kind of recording it's fed. I want the playback system to recover as much information as possible regardless of how that information came to be on the recording in the first place.
The first Cowboy Junkies album, Trinity Sessions is a great example of a stereo mic set up. The original record has some faults but this album is a work of art from the music (I appreciate this music) to how it was recorded and the location. The re-released record which came out a few years ago fixes a lot of the audio issues. I appreciate the original but I listen to the new version now, also because it has two extra songs. The new version does better at catching the ambience of the church they are in. I feel that I am sitting inside that church while they play their songs.
This style of recording is much appreciated on a good rig. Close mic'd multi mix down brings lots of things to hear in a high resolution rig, but these stereo mic recordings feel much more natural. Both types are fun listening for me.
@yoyoyayaThat is an interesting way to look at at recording. That statement has a lot to do with how you set up your playback system at home also. Todays recordings rarely sound like live performances being multitracked and remixed as standard. I have over the years set up 1 stereo mic over a performing group and loved it but if I did that today the sound would have to much depth, the producer must have close sounding instruments and singers. If you set up your playback system to be simply an extension of the original recording then you are really doing the old fashioned way of reproducing the live show. Today generally everything in music is not natural I've set up hundreds of microphones on orchestras that sounded fine but it definitely wasn't natural it sounded better than natural. So perhaps there are no rules and even in playback there are no rules concerning fidelity to the original recording because recordings today don't have fidelity to original concerts anyway. As a recording engineer how do you feel about that?
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.
