Question about cable strategy!

[Steve Williams]

But if a cable has sonic properties, then zero length = zero sonic properties, and a long cable = strong sonic properties. Are the cable's sonic properties ('soudstage', 'warmth', 'focus', 'timing', 'presence', 'airiness') an improvement to the sound, or a deviation from perfection? Would a zero length cable be brimming with warmth and presence, or 'neutral' 'clinical' 'cold'? If the audiophile could only arrange his equipment so that cable length was 0.25m, would that be an improvement over 0.5m? Is the audiophile looking for maximum sonic properties from his cable, or minimum? Is the ideal length 0m, or 100m or, by handy coincidence 0.5m?

your argument is so full of fallacies and non logic that honestly it isn't worth my time to engage you. What's your point

 

[Groucho]

your argument is so full of fallacies and non logic that honestly it isn't worth my time to engage you. What's your point

OK, we have a component with purported sonic properties (a cable). If we could stick the amp* back-to-back with the CD player* so that the phono sockets lined up and connected them with phono couplers giving us, effectively, zero cable length, would that sound better or worse than using a $2000 cable?

* or whichever components you have in mind

 

[Steve Williams]

If I read you correctly your point is that the best cable is no cable, something with which most would agree however the OP was related to a frugal approach to cables and has nothing to do with cable length. As Myles suggested cost of cables is whatever the market will bear. Plain and simple. There are many here who,like yourself feel that the price of cables is a big rip off whereas there are just as many here who feel the opposite. These debates about trying to save us all from purchasing expensive cables are old and boring. Invariably they can result in member discord and arguments. I think everyone here as a result has gained respect for the other side's position. As a result debates such as that which you are suggesting rarely move one side or the other

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Debates about cables pop up regularly on Internet Fora and there hasn't been many clear conclusions. Most people hold their beliefs and the conversation quickly deteriorates. A likely ending for this thread.

In the name of frugality however cables should be accorded a scant view. If however one wants to placate audiophilia nervosa by buying some audiophiles approved items then:
for Interconnect Just buy Mogami. I have seen them in Mega systems, I know people with over quarter million dollars speakers in their system who use Mogami for Interconnect and they are less than $100 for long run of balanced cables.
For speaker cables I would suggest heavy Gauge 10 AWG cable and I don't have a brand in mind

For SPDIF Digital get the best Belden based cabel with good connectors, I know Canare is one of the few companies that make a true 75 ohms RCA connection. Belden has a range of digital cable
AES/EBU same Belden or Mogami or Canare
for USB ... Any decently constructed USB cable should do ... IME

For power cord... What comes with the equipment is good enough in the name of frugality

 

[Groucho]

If I read you correctly your point is that the best cable is no cable, something with which most would agree however the OP was related to a frugal approach to cables and has nothing to do with cable length. As Myles suggested cost of cables is whatever the market will bear. Plain and simple. There are many here who,like yourself feel that the price of cables is a big rip off whereas there are just as many here who feel the opposite. These debates about trying to save us all from purchasing expensive cables are old and boring. Invariably they can result in member discord and arguments. I think everyone here as a result has gained respect for the other side's position. As a result debates such as that which you are
Suggesting rarely move one side or the other

I'm not actually making an argument at the moment, merely trying to understand the reasoning behind spending real money on real cables (in a light hearted way I should add!!! ).

You've made an important claim (if that's not too strong a word) that most audiophiles would agree that the best cable is no cable. So, (in a civil way) could we say that if people could arrange their equipment for the shortest possible cables, they would improve the sound a lot, and save money? Could we also suggest that manufacturers come up with some standard that allows equipment to be 'stacked' with couplers on the top and bottom of boxes, thus eliminating cables altogether? The results, according to the argument should be better than using the most expensive cable in the world! It would be the world's most effective tweak for people prepared to modify their equipment. Firms could specialise in doing the mods, cheap at whatever the price.

Experiences much, much better than this, could be yours for a few tens of dollars:

The woodwinds in the Sibelius were also great examples: clearly bounded, but warm, woody, and solid. And one of my favorite passages—a subtle, plaintive French horn line deep within a complex, heavily orchestrated section—was absolutely wonderful with the Valhalla's detail and clarity. The line was clear and achingly beautiful, and the interaction between the horns set up a kind of pulsing or beating that I'd not heard before, and that made them seem a bit more real.

The Valhalla was also clear and open in its handling of dynamics. Notes seemed to stop and start a bit more precisely than with my reference Nirvana or Synergistic cables, and to do so throughout the frequency spectrum. On the bottom, it was clear that the leading edges of double-bass and timpani notes were a little more distinct with the Nordost. Up top, violins, even at the very top of their range, had clean, precise transients—but without ever getting the least bit steely or edgy. And similar to what I'd heard with the French horns, the violins' would occasionally interact to set up a subtle beating, creating a pulsing cushion of air that either wasn't there, or wasn't as tangible, with my other cables.

Savings: up to $12,000.


The mains cable is an easy one. 'No cable' can be arranged by extending the twin-and-earth behind the skirting board all the way to the amp. Savings: up to $10,000.

Edit: I'm being humorous! But that's where the argument actually leads isn't it? Are you quite sure that audiophiles really think that no cable is the best cable?

Edit: have I cut and pasted the wrong product review above? I googled for a random interconnect review and maybe got the wrong end of the stick. Changed to a different random review of some cables called Nordhost Valhalla.

 

[Groucho]

Debates about cables pop up regularly on Internet Fora and there hasn't been many clear conclusions. Most people hold their beliefs and the conversation quickly deteriorates. A likely ending for this thread.

Which suggests that there are arguments that are 'taboo', even in a world as innocuous as hi fi. That's how it feels sometimes; people are only allowed to make smalltalk in the spaces between the taboo discussions. Even on the internet.

Personally, I enjoy a bit of cut and thrust where people's firmly held beliefs (including my own) can be examined, in a civil and good-humoured way.

(Waits for thread to be closed down)

 

[Gregadd]

(Waits for thread to be closed down)

You think this will close down a thread?

 

[Bill Hart]

Groucho: one of the reasons I frequent this board is a high level of knowledge (the range of contributors is pretty impressive, and includes a number of engineers, manufacturers, reviewers, including music reviewers and enthusiasts who have fairly mature views on what makes for quality reproduction). The other reason I'm here is that there is generally a level of civility and respect- not always, people can get just as frustrated or short-tempered as any place in the real or virtual world. There is certainly room for well-reasoned debate, as I'm sure you'll see if you drill down in any of the more 'philosophical' threads here.
But, I'm not sure a hardline stance is a good way to become part of this place, particularly at the beginning. I'm here to learn as well as to share, and get alot out of this forum without acrimony. I'm sure you can too.

 

[Steve Williams]

Groucho: one of the reasons I frequent this board is a high level of knowledge (the range of contributors is pretty impressive, and includes a number of engineers, manufacturers, reviewers, including music reviewers and enthusiasts who have fairly mature views on what makes for quality reproduction). The other reason I'm here is that there is generally a level of civility and respect- not always, people can get just as frustrated or short-tempered as any place in the real or virtual world. There is certainly room for well-reasoned debate, as I'm sure you'll see if you drill down in any of the more 'philosophical' threads here.
But, I'm not sure a hardline stance is a good way to become part of this place, particularly at the beginning. I'm here to learn as well as to share, and get alot out of this forum without acrimony. I'm sure you can too.

Nicely stated Bill

It was literally for all of the above reasons you made that Amir and I started WBF.

 

[NorthStar]

---Hey Groucho, Welcome to WBF! -

Bob

 

[MylesBAstor]

You think this will close down a thread?

Is this what Groucho is referring to?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7632-Could-you-live-in-a-collective

 

[DACMan]

The stated purpose of an interconnect cable is to get the signal from point A to point B WITHOUT altering it. An interconnect is not a tone control, nor a processor, nor anything else along those lines - it is an INTERCONNECT.

The only reason for a cable to have "sonic properties" is if it is altering the sound in some way - which is, by definition, bad. If you have a cable that "helps calm down a bright component", for example, then what you have is a flawed cable whose flaw happens to cancel out the flaw in some other component. I would much rather set "having all correct components with minimal flaws" as my goal. Assuming, in your example, that there was nothing wrong with the two components you were connecting, then obviously having no interconnect would provide the perfect solution (except it would look rather funny).

To be rational, we must concede that the ideal cable would be impossible to detect (audibly), and that, by extension, two perfect cables would sound identical - and you wouldn't be able to hear either one or hear a difference between them. That said, since nothing is perfect in real life, it is not unreasonable to suggest that at least some cables interact with some components to product audible changes. Also, to be rational, we MUST differentiate between "different" and "better". A reasonably well constructed $20 interconnect, from an engineering perspective, meets all requirements to transfer a line level audio signal between components over a short distance (say 10 feet) without causing any damage. Since every cable type and length will vary slightly in terms of resistance, capacitance, and inductance, and no component is 100% immune to those variations, it is to be expected that some minor differences will be heard.

It then becomes VERY important to differentiate between "differences" and "improvements". After all, if that $2000 super-wonder cable sounds different from the $10 one from Monoprice, but it isn't at all clear which is better, then only an idiot would spend the extra $1990 for the more expensive one.

This really requires double-blind tests and all that jazz (obviously, none of us can be trusted to NOT be swayed by what we see and expect - including me).

Personally, while I've certainly heard plenty of miniscule differences, I've never heard a wire that I could conclusively say sounded BETTER than a well-made $20 interconnect. (I have, though, occasionally heard "audiophile" interconnects that have, through high capacitance or poor shielding, managed to sound worse.)

We must also beware of situations where, with certain equipment, every cable seems to sound wildly different. In those cases, it seems very likely that the equipment involved is somewhat defective (after all, well designed equipment is designed to be insensitive to things that are outside of its control - like interconnects). So, either the designer of one or both pieces of equipment is incompetent, or he (or she) has deliberately mis-designed (de-optimized) their equipment to be sensitive to interconnects so as to give the customer something to do....

The situation with power cables is even worse. I'm pretty sure any legitimate engineer would tell you that "the purpose of a power supply is to turn AC line power into whatever voltage and form is appropriate to run a piece of equipment". In other words, the purpose of a power supply is to turn line voltage into whatever your device wants to run. (We all know that line voltage includes noise, variations in voltage, etc.) In still other words, its job is to take whatever comes in off the line and make it into pure whatever the device needs - totally eliminating or ignoring any noise or other garbage that doesn't belong.

Applying a little bit of logic here yields the following.... Since all power cords deliver "AC line power" that is "correct" within limits, if a given piece of equipment sounds different when you change power cords, the the only possible explanation is that the power supply in that piece of equipment is NOT doing its job properly. In other words, if your $2000 amplifier sounds different when you try a different power cord, the real question is NOT "which power cord sounds better"; the real question is: "Why is the power supply in my $2000 amplifier unable to do its job properly and allow the amplifier to run perfectly (and equally) on the reasonably standard line voltage coming from each power cord?" So if a given piece of equipment sounds different with different power cords, then either you're imagining it, or your equipment is defective. (Honestly, I could forgive a crummy power supply on a cheap piece of equipment, but not on an expensive one.)

Since I can't honestly say that I've ever even imagined hearing a difference between power cords,
a can't really conjecture about what such a difference might be

DACMan

OK, we have a component with purported sonic properties (a cable). If we could stick the amp* back-to-back with the CD player* so that the phono sockets lined up and connected them with phono couplers giving us, effectively, zero cable length, would that sound better or worse than using a $2000 cable?

* or whichever components you have in mind

 

[A.wayne]

Guys ,



Help me here, i must have missed where these cables were built , any info on construction , build pics , sound ..?

Regards ,

 

[microstrip]

The stated purpose of an interconnect cable is to get the signal from point A to point B WITHOUT altering it. An interconnect is not a tone control, nor a processor, nor anything else along those lines - it is an INTERCONNECT.

The only reason for a cable to have "sonic properties" is if it is altering the sound in some way - which is, by definition, bad. (...)

I can not agree with your view. Any cable will change the signal. IMHO, some of them will improve the sound quality of a system, which is by definition good.

If some one could create a top high-end system that could not be improved by the choice of cables your position could become much stronger. But until some one creates such a system all cables must be considered as good or bad processors. If the cables can improve our systems why should we deny it just in the name of the measured electrical signal integrity?

Sound reproduction is an imperfect process. Any thing that can really improve it should be considered as good. Surely we can debate if the improvement was real.

 

[DACMan]

I simply must disagree with your basic presumption.

As you say, any cable (or anything else) will make some measurable change - which may or may not be audible.
In the case of an interconnect cable, the most likely change is that it will slightly alter the frequency response (probably by rolling off the high end a tiny bit).
Less likely, it may introduce some type of distortion, either by it's own failure to do its job, or because it influences some other component.
The amount in which a cable affects the signal is inversely proportional to the quality of the cable itself, and the other components involved.
(Audio components should not be sensitive to slight increases in capacitance or resistance of the interconnects,
and good interconnects shouldn't change those parameters enough to influence a good component to an audible degree.
NO cable is going to magically REMOVE distortion that's already there.)

As for whether this is a positive change.... let's take a visual analogy.

Let's pick a brand of glass to put in front of our favorite paintings....
Personally, I prefer the clearest glass possible, so I can see the paintings as they are.
Choosing an interconnect that makes some change is like choosing blue-tinted glass....
even though it may make a certain painting look better (to you), I don't think it's the job of the glass to modify the painting.
If you like blue paintings, then BUY blue paintings!
Don't buy pink paintings and "balance them out" with blue glass.
For that matter, don't paint your walls red, then put blue glass over the paintings to try and cancel out the reflections from the walls.
Gray walls, clear glass, and paintings you actually LIKE is your best combination.

Likewise, buy components you like rather than relying on a cable to (hopefully) fix what's wrong with them.

I agree with your statement "all cables must be considered as good or bad processors" however,
as far as I'm concerned, in this case, the best one is the one that you can hear making the least audible difference....
and, with even decent equipment, I have no problem finding $50 cables that make no difference <I> can hear.
[Of course, I am also considering the possibility that, when an expensive cable sounds different, it has actually
been designed to deliberately sound different so it has "a product differentiator" - in which case it may well simply
be coloring the sound - and so is a *worse* quality interconnect than the cheap one.]

Considering how good human hearing is (OK), and the fact that audio frequencies are actually a very simple signal to get
from point A to point B without alteration (as long as your equipment and cables are at least somewhat well designed),
it really shouldn't be that big a deal. Many (most) cable vendors are selling "technology" that, if it's legitimate at all,
only matters at microwave frequencies or under other ridiculous conditions.

As if that isn't crazy enough, the studio where they recorded the stuff you're listening to is almost certainly
using $0.50 a foot Canare Starquad for THEIR interconnects... they are quite pleased with it and your audio probably survived
hundreds of feet of it before getting to the record or CD you're listening to..

As far as I'm concerned.... if you can hear the difference between two cables, then one or both of them MUST be wrong.
If they sound the same, at least it's possible that they're both arbitrarily good enough to be right.

Balancing components by matching their flaws to try and have them cancel each other out will lead to
spending lots of money, probably won't work out very well anyway, and means that every time you
change any bit of the puzzle you have to start over again.
Much better (and easier, and, in the end, cheaper) to carefully select each component to be right to begin with.

I can not agree with your view. Any cable will change the signal. IMHO, some of them will improve the sound quality of a system, which is by definition good.

If some one could create a top high-end system that could not be improved by the choice of cables your position could become much stronger. But until some one creates such a system all cables must be considered as good or bad processors. If the cables can improve our systems why should we deny it just in the name of the measured electrical signal integrity?

Sound reproduction is an imperfect process. Any thing that can really improve it should be considered as good. Surely we can debate if the improvement was real.

 

[LL21]

1. In terms of glass in front of artwork, most of it actually has loads of filters in it...UV, radiation, anti-glare, etc. In an audiophile way, one could argue it does make a difference (and it does)...as you dont get as much a sense of the tacticle nature of the paint as when you are standing right in front of the oil paint itself...it is different, but often the anti-glare coatings, etc make it easier to see given the fluorescent lighting, etc of certain museums. That is a tone control of sorts that is 'improving' the visual aspects.

2. I thought that [some] studioes like Gateway Mastering (bob ludwig), Skywalker, and Bernie Grundman use Transparent Ref or Cardas in their studios?

 

[garylkoh]

I agree with your statement "all cables must be considered as good or bad processors" however,
as far as I'm concerned, in this case, the best one is the one that you can hear making the least audible difference....
and, with even decent equipment, I have no problem finding $50 cables that make no difference <I> can hear.

Would you let us know what $50 cable makes no audible difference? I heartily recommend good, reasonably price cables, and have recommended Mogami XLR cables many times on this forum, but even I can hear the Mogami. So, if there is one that make less of a difference than the Mogami, I'm all ears.

 

[treitz3]

Good evening, gentlemen. This thread has been cleaned up with all unrelated posts on this page removed. If you do happen to notice anybody in violation of one or more of the WBF terms of service, please report your concerns to the management team and do not post your concerns on the public front. We will deal with them if any action is warranted. Thank you for your cooperation.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Tom

 

[LL21]

This is a slightly different thread from the very interesting one Lee started a few days ago, as I want to get opinion on what some of you consider to be an effective cable strategy for us Frugal Audiophiles. It is generally agreed that one should spend approximately 10-15% (maybe as high as 20%) of the audio budget on various cabling requirements. For the frugal audiophile this means that a lot of cables, if using the 10-15-20% rule, are not up for consideration. We could get lucky on the used market from time to time, but this means buying blind and not having the security of a money-back guarentee. But I digress as this is not my actual question.

Should the frugal audiophile consider spending more than the generally accepted 10-15-20 rule as a means to improve the quality of their playback? Or does this make for a futile or money-wasted consideration/strategy? Secondly, and this I pose only as its something I've often wondered about....do cables have more of an impact on lesser systems or does one need the have SOTA gear to get the most from them?

Hi John, coming back to your original question, i will say i have always employed a strategy of buying something to replace a component ONLY if i felt it was truly a big, evolutionary step that was not only several steps/generations ahead of the component it was replacing...but quite possibly in a class ahead of other components in the system...so that i would not feel like i made an 'interim step' purchase which could end up costing me money because i wanted to upgrade again. This is a financial strategy that also has done well in terms of audio quality.

In terms of pure audio quality, i once nearly bought an Audioquest Diamond cable for a boom box...because it so transformed the sound from my boombox cd player direct out to my first growing sound system out of college. And i knew that it was a cable that i could keep for many, many years to come and it was steeply discounted. i ended up deciding to just save my money instead. But it was, for the money, more bang for my buck than trying to get my speakers to the next big level which would have cost way more, and a new cd player, etc would equally have cost way more.

So even on a boombox going from freebie cable/monster cable to an Audioquest diamond made an enormous difference...crazy as it seemed. The %s would have been absurdly off...but i also could argue...i would probably still be using that cable today which means a good 'investment' as far as i am concerned...20+ years later. For example, I still have my 20-year old Audioquest Emerald interconnects i bought later that year after college...i now use them going from the cable box to my system and from my Oppo to my system for movies. (i have a 2nd hand pair of Transparent Ref from the DAC to the system for music).

 

[NorthStar]

--Ok, I will give my OWN personal take on the few recent posts by DACMan. :b

They are superb! Why? Because they explain in his own detailed words what is the true reality.
How can it be more direct than that!

Sometimes come people into your life, and they said just the right things. You don't truly have anything to add, but to say how much you appreciate, and that is your token of encouragement to them.

Now, how can we object (argue) with simplicity, encouragement, and total acceptance/agreement of one's words.

It is one thing to write a book, another to read it well. :b ...And congratulate the writer, with a simple token of appreciation, without going to the four corners of the globe.
...That too I can do, but sometimes just a simple TY is more than any world's encyclopedia.

* This one's for you Tom. :b ...And bravo and thank you DACMan.