To Loom or Not to Loom?

Do you use one model and brand of cable or do you mix and match?


  • Total voters
    49
It seems that some audiophiles have repurposed the word 'loom'.

+1

I don't like it when words get "repurposed." When did "spend" become a noun?
 
In he past I was a "one manufacturer" proponent. Over the past year or so I have modified my position based a bit. I am currently using Transparent Opus on my amps, speakers and pre-amp. On my digital gear I have found I like Shunyata product. Now I haven't tired Opus on the Vivaldi stack but I am very happy with the mix on product I am currently using.
 
It seems that some audiophiles have repurposed the word 'loom'.[/QUOTE

Not really. The term "loom" has been used for decades in auto and aircraft industries when referring to wiring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the sound of Tao
In he past I was a "one manufacturer" proponent. Over the past year or so I have modified my position based a bit. I am currently using Transparent Opus on my amps, speakers and pre-amp. On my digital gear I have found I like Shunyata product. Now I haven't tired Opus on the Vivaldi stack but I am very happy with the mix on product I am currently using.

Can we know what type are the clock and the AES/EBU cables?
 
Many audiophiles believe that when wiring up one’s system it is best to use the same model and brand of speaker cables and interconnects and power cables throughout the system. These folks believe that the sonic goodness in that model and brand of cable is maximized by having all of the wires the same.

Here’s an interesting perspective https://positive-feedback.com/Issue66/reader10.htm
and here's another https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/a-case-for-cable-matching.13677/
 
  • Like
Reactions: microstrip
This is an excerpt of my interview with Jim White on cables:

While Jim has heard some expensive cables produce amazing results, Jim does not believe in the philosophy of necessarily using only one brand and model of cable throughout one’s entire system. Just because a cable is expensive doesn't mean it is necessarily the best for a particular location in the system. Judicious cabling yields the best results, says Jim.

Jim said he believes that there will be an optimal cable to use to connect any two components, but that it is not possible to predict in advance, based on input impedance and output impedance, or based on cable resistance/capacitance/inductance characteristics, which cable this will be. Jim suggested trying different cables between each pair of components, and to be largely design agnostic and brand agnostic, and to judge primarily by ear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the sound of Tao
This is an excerpt of my interview with Jim White on cables:

While Jim has heard some expensive cables produce amazing results, Jim does not believe in the philosophy of necessarily using only one brand and model of cable throughout one’s entire system. Just because a cable is expensive doesn't mean it is necessarily the best for a particular location in the system. Judicious cabling yields the best results, says Jim.

Jim said he believes that there will be an optimal cable to use to connect any two components, but that it is not possible to predict in advance, based on input impedance and output impedance, or based on cable resistance/capacitance/inductance characteristics, which cable this will be. Jim suggested trying different cables between each pair of components, and to be largely design agnostic and brand agnostic, and to judge primarily by ear.


Considering that another Jim (Jim Smith - "Get a Better Sound" ) considers that we need a significant amount of time to listen to each cable and we should avoid quickly connecting and disconnecting cables, we can consider than any absence of guidance will be equivalent to an audiophile lifetime just listening to cables. :)

Fortunately, in reality most cables show well known sound characteristics and we usually have access to some advice on matching that will help and shorten our choice.

And yes, I fully agree that technical details will not help choosing cables, except for discarding some extremely high capacitance cables in some combinations.
 
Last edited:
Great article, putting great detail in explaining dynamics, tone, and space - contrast, content, and context. A great read, independently of the brand (Transparent Audio) endorsement.

Many thanks!

Disclaimer - I am a TA OPUS owner! ;)

Do you consider this an independent or a biased opinion/review?
 
In a 2012 review of the Lessloss Tunnel Bridge, I wrote: "Nowadays, after listening in-house to dozens of cables, after multiple system upgrades and cable reviews, I’m an ardent "loomer." Trying to assess the sonic performance of a single cable by inserting it into an existing system strikes me as being about as cogent as assessing Bridgestone Blizzak snow tires by mounting one on a car otherwise shod with Pirelli Sottozeroes. Sure, something will be different, but not in a usefully describable way to anyone interested in Blizzaks. I am convinced only a full loom of signal cables or power cords, or ideally both from a single manufacturer, offers a reasonable evaluation context. "

I have no problem breaking that rule, but it remains my inclination.
 
Do you consider this an independent or a biased opinion/review?

As far as I can understand there are no independent opinion/views on stereo equipment. It is intrinsic to stereo sound. At best opinions/reviews are honest, it is what we can hope. All reviewers are biased (positively or negatively) and we must understand their biases (preferences) to get anything useful from their writings.
 
This is an excerpt of my interview with Jim White on cables:

While Jim has heard some expensive cables produce amazing results, Jim does not believe in the philosophy of necessarily using only one brand and model of cable throughout one’s entire system. Just because a cable is expensive doesn't mean it is necessarily the best for a particular location in the system. Judicious cabling yields the best results, says Jim.

Jim said he believes that there will be an optimal cable to use to connect any two components, but that it is not possible to predict in advance, based on input impedance and output impedance, or based on cable resistance/capacitance/inductance characteristics, which cable this will be. Jim suggested trying different cables between each pair of components, and to be largely design agnostic and brand agnostic, and to judge primarily by ear.

I agree with this, especially for speaker cables. The low-impedance amp/speaker interface varies more vs signal cables. This makes it harder to predict results of speaker cables, so they are more system dependent. That said there are some designs that work across a broad range of applications and others that work best in narrower ranges.

OTOH, with signal cables, if the cable is neutral the results will be very similar from system to system.
 
Gents, ( and ladies if there are any on this forum...:rolleyes: ), I would like to know what we consider to be 'neutral' sound. Is there really any such thing! I ask this, as my musician brain is very confused with what this term means when to comes to reproduced music. Is the sound of my Taylor guitar reproduced through your system...at levels that are never going to be the same as what I am playing 'live' -neutral? Is the same sound of my EC Strat played through your system...neutral ( to what...the sound picked up by the microphone, the sound modded by the engineers board, the sound of my particular PUP ( pick up for those less into these things) in use that day, the sound of my cables from guitar to amp...which BTW matter immensely!)
and so forth...
If we are listening to a full orchestra in a large hall ( which we have no chance of truly imitating in our considerably less than hall sized rooms) can we really state that the sound reproduced is 'neutral'?

You can determine "neutral" in relation to other gear.

I use 2 factors:

1. Resolution: This is pretty easy. Listen to strings and vocals and it'll be obvious. There are some complicating factors though, such as artifact mistaken for resolution. Sometimes noise, grain and accentuated leading edges make folks think there is more resolution, but once you identify these things as problems it'll be clear what is resolution and what is artifact. Artifact will end up causing fatigue, so that is an indication. Accentuated leading edges sound more exciting and stimulating but will lead to fatigue. This is why extended listening can be very helpful. If you don't identify these issues immediately the fatigue they cause over time will become apparent.

2. Tone: This is more subjective and correct tone/timbre will vary from system to system where with resolution it does not, even though there is some overlap between timbre and resolution. IME everyone wants some "warmth" added to produce realistic tone, but in cables this will come as a compromise... more warmth goes along with a decrease in resolution as warmth is really an artifact that smears resolution. Almost everyone with modern SS amps and speakers will sacrifice some resolution for warmth as the warmth will also smear undesirable artifacts produced by most modern drivers. As good as modern speakers are metal dome and ribbon tweeters do produce some artifacts, as do hard-coned midrange drivers. edit: These artifacts go along with genuine increases in resolution, this is why some people think there can be "too much" resolution. This is mistaken... there can't be too much genuine resolution but sometimes the trade-offs of increased artifact are not worth it to them.

You can use these criteria to judge if any piece of gear, acoustic treatment, speaker positioning change, etc. yields a positive result. These factors also directly affect the perception of soundstage. Once the soundstage gets to a point where the recording's spatial cues dominate the room acoustics and the resolution is sufficiently high enough to reproduce low-level information you get a 3-D enveloping soundstage, the "You Are There" experience. This is an indication your system is performing at a high level in many ways, and there is a range of "Thereness" from subtle to more concrete.
 
Last edited:
Considering that another Jim (Jim Smith - "Get a Better Sound" ) considers that we need a significant amount of time to listen to each cable and we should avoid quickly connecting and disconnecting cables, we can consider than any absence of guidance will be equivalent to an audiophile lifetime just listening to cables. :)

Fortunately, in reality most cables show well known sound characteristics and we usually have access to some advice on matching that will help and shorten our choice.

And yes, I fully agree that technical details will not help choosing cables, except for discarding some extremely high capacitance cables in some combinations.

It depends on experience. If you can recognize issues and not mistake resolution for artifact then you don't need to take as much time. Time allows the system to fatigue you, or not...

Many do not recognize issues and artifacts as "well known sound characteristics", which makes it harder to evaluate the cables.
 
It is a highly misleading simplification to claim that cables do not significantly change frequency response. Yes, in static measurements they probably don't, but music is not a static signal. If we can consider cables dark, bright, warm etc. sounding as you say, then they *do* act as tone control -- and they are used by audiophiles as such.

This is interesting and needs more investigation. I believe in some cases the cable may actually change the measured frequency response but the larger effect is from what the cable adds in terms of artifacts and/or warmth, which is probably not measurable in terms of frequency response but does change our perceptions.


*Sorry for not multi-quoting, I didn't know I was going to respond to as many folks! :)
 
It depends on experience. If you can recognize issues and not mistake resolution for artifact then you don't need to take as much time. Time allows the system to fatigue you, or not...

Many do not recognize issues and artifacts as "well known sound characteristics", which makes it harder to evaluate the cables.

Jim was also addressing the mechanical stability of cables.

BTW, not everyone agrees that the objective of sound reproduction is a "neutral sound". What you and some others are calling "issues and artifacts" is what many people may consider lsitening experience enhancements. Diversity is the essence of the high-end. Just look at this very interesting and somewhat challenging site just posted by Elliot G. https://www.audiosystemsoptimized.com/when-neutral-isnt-right-for-you

WBF is a great space to discuss these different views.
 
Last edited:
Jim was also addressing the mechanical stability of cables.

BTW, not everyone agrees that the objective of sound reproduction is a "neutral sound". What you and some others are calling "issues and artifacts" is what many people may consider lsitening experience enhancements. Diversity is the essence of the high-end. Just look at this very interesting and somewhat challenging site just posted by Elliot G. https://www.audiosystemsoptimized.com/when-neutral-isnt-right-for-you

WBF is a great space to discuss this different views.
Really enjoyed that link!
 
Jim was also addressing the mechanical stability of cables.

BTW, not everyone agrees that the objective of sound reproduction is a "neutral sound". What you and some others are calling "issues and artifacts" is what many people may consider lsitening experience enhancements. Diversity is the essence of the high-end. Just look at this very interesting and somewhat challenging site just posted by Elliot G. https://www.audiosystemsoptimized.com/when-neutral-isnt-right-for-you

WBF is a great space to discuss this different views.

Yes, I agree... this is why I have different options with different amounts of warmth added via gold as an alloying element. However... if you like brightness, grain, accentuated leading edges, or harshness I can't help... you'll need to consider other options. ;)

This statement from your link is excellent imo:

Instead of asking whether the sound of your system is accurate, I’d suggest another, far simpler question of you:

Do you MAKE TIME within your busy schedule to listen to music from your home audio system?

To take this further, it is often FATIGUE that makes you not want to listen to your system. The problem with artifacts such as brightness, grain, accentuated leading edges, or harshness is they stimulate the nervous system's fight or flight response, often unconsciously, and this is fatiguing. This isn't what we're looking for in an activity that is relaxing and meditative. :)

So, while it's true some do consider fatiguing artifacts to be enhancements, this is often seen in folks with a lot less experience and leads to them not listening to their system as much, getting rid of it, or changing it so it doesn't irritate them.
 
This is interesting and needs more investigation. I believe in some cases the cable may actually change the measured frequency response but the larger effect is from what the cable adds in terms of artifacts and/or warmth, which is probably not measurable in terms of frequency response but does change our perceptions.


*Sorry for not multi-quoting, I didn't know I was going to respond to as many folks! :)

Is it possible that some of the distortions introduced by cables are similar to those of amps in terms of adding even/uneven harmonics? Extremely small amounts of added harmonics can change the sound character, see also these experiments by Bob Katz:

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-25-adventures-distortion

Of course, harmonics are also frequency related, even though they may not show up in traditional frequency measurements.

Interesting bit from the article:

Let's cut to the chase, it was the increasing use of negative feedback that engendered ever-lowering distortion figures. Negative feedback is a perfectly good mathematical technique that works very well. But the designer has to realize that the circuit may not sound good even if its measured THD (total harmonic distortion) is very low. If the designer pays attention solely to the THD value, he may not realize that sometimes the "good-sounding, lower harmonics" get suppressed at the expense of the "bad-sounding, higher harmonics". Research by Norman Crowhurst points out that feedback mostly reduces the level of the 2nd and 3rd harmonics, leaving the upper harmonics more or less alone, or sometimes at higher level than before feedback. It doesn't take very much level of a 5th, 7th, or 9th harmonic to make the sound "bitter", "dry", "clinical", "cold" "small" "dynamically limited" or "harsh". This is all part of the psychoacoustics of distortion and masking.

This also flies in the face of claims that SS amps are a priori more neutral and transparent sounding than tube amps, and their reproduction comes 'closer to master tape'. Yes, there are colored sounding tube amps, but there are also colored sounding SS amps. even though the colorations of SS amps may have a very different character (c.f. above quote from the article). And there are quite neutral and transparent sounding tube amps just as there are quite neutral and transparent sounding SS amps (note that I use the adjective 'quite', there is no absolute neutrality or transparency).
 
Yes, I agree... this is why I have different options with different amounts of warmth added via gold as an alloying element. However... if you like brightness, grain, accentuated leading edges, or harshness I can't help... you'll need to consider other options. ;)

This statement from your link is excellent imo:



To take this further, it is often FATIGUE that makes you not want to listen to your system. The problem with artifacts such as brightness, grain, accentuated leading edges, or harshness is they stimulate the nervous system's fight or flight response, often unconsciously, and this is fatiguing. This isn't what we're looking for in an activity that is relaxing and meditative. :)

So, while it's true some do consider fatiguing artifacts to be enhancements, this is often seen in folks with a lot less experience and leads to them not listening to their system as much, getting rid of it, or changing it so it doesn't irritate them.

We can have another perspective - the strictly neutral sound reproduction process enhances brightness, grain, accentuated leading edges, or harshness. Just look at what people report when commenting on live versus sound reproduction in other threads. Good cables help suppressing them, keeping a balanced sound ...

Fatigue is surely a typical sin of systems - but uninteresting, blend sound is also usual. Anyway it is fantastic how sensitive we can be to the extremely small differences in cables.

The only loom of cables I own having gold is the Crystal Dreamline. And yes, as you refer, it adds some very welcome warmth to sound in many systems!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonzo75

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu