Why Do Cables Matter?


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].

 

 

kinarow1

i hear with greater acuity when i am having a small serving of warm brain with a glass of chianti

@kinarow1 

If you are seriously asking this question, then you should just stick to cheap cables and lamp wire.

                          Once again, hitting the REPLAY button:

      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.

rodman99999

5,746 posts

 

 

       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):

                                           (SNORT of derision)

 

rodman99999

5,760 posts

 

 

     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.         

                      The Naysayer Church HATES it, when THAT happens!  

     

      

rodman99999

5,760 posts

 

     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.

                                                  His thoughts: 

     “Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists.”

     “All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combatted, suppressed, only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”

 

rodman99999

5,760 posts

 

                 Quotes from past Dunning-Kruger sufferers, here:   

"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?