The cable conundrum

[DaveyF]

I was reading with some 'enjoyment' the earlier thread about a certain ex-member's belief that cables in our systems don't have any beneficial aspect.
Now while the jocularity was very entertaining, one thing did strike me as a very interesting point...

Someone had brought up the fact that cables ONLY make a difference in a more resolving system. IF that is true, and I am now thinking that it definitely is, it would explain
the many non-believers that are in the public. My experience is with the posters who hear a difference, in my case, since I am in the process of upgrading to a full Nordost Tyr
lash up, I can tell you there is a HUGE difference. The benefits in my system are easy to hear even to the uninitiated. BUT if I were to change the standard zip cord to a cable of Nordost like quality in a
system which would be typically employing zip cord ( the typical system bought by the non a'phile), would I hear such a difference ( or any difference at all). It's very possible/probable/certain that under those circumstances, the ancillary gear would NOT be resolving enough to allow me to hear any major perceived difference.
This theory now leads us into the realm of what is to be expected in our systems...can one reasonably be expected to hear the differences in new gear unless the ancillary pieces are up to the job...
Would a great cartridge show off its magic on a bottom of the line TT for example; or a great amp show what it can do with cheap poorly made speakers ( you name the brand).
This theory would show why many of us are non-believers in many aspects of the hobby that others take for granted. Cables being the biggest contributor to the issue, as they may well only come into play on the more resolving of systems.

Food for thought..

 

[opus111]

I was reading with some 'enjoyment' the earlier thread about a certain ex-member's belief that cables in our systems don't have any beneficial aspect.
Now while the jocularity was very entertaining, one thing did strike me as a very interesting point...

Seems to me his position wasn't quite that. I agree that cables don't have any beneficial aspect. Before I get flamed let me explain what I mean by that. The best cable is no cable at all - cables can only detract from the sound, not improve it.

That's a long way from saying cables don't matter - they clearly do as some detract much more than others. There's also at least one good technical reason why they do.

 

[DaveyF]

Seems to me his position wasn't quite that. I agree that cables don't have any beneficial aspect. Before I get flamed let me explain what I mean by that. The best cable is no cable at all - cables can only detract from the sound, not improve it.

That's a long way from saying cables don't matter - they clearly do as some detract much more than others. There's also at least one good technical reason why they do.

Sorry opus111, don't agree that cables are not beneficial.. no cables generally means no sound. ( unless we're talking wireless). I have never heard a great system that was wireless..have you? Maybe in a perfect world, BUT IME not doable today

 

[DonH50]

As opus111 notes there are technical reasons why cables might matter in some systems. However, I have heard the "your ears/speakers/components/room/phase of the moon/air/water quality/etc. are not good enough to hear the difference" argument for many, many years and personally think that is too simplistic, or perhaps condescending, or doesn't jive with my own experience and various DBTs through the years, or maybe I'm just annoyed my hearing/system/room/air/water/etc. sucks compared to everybody elses'. Whatever.

 

[opus111]

Sorry opus111, don't agree that cables are not beneficial.. no cables generally means no sound.

Yeah I take your point. I'm a designer so I'm talking in a different context generally - meaning better to design a system with fewer cables, more systems together in one box. A cable can't add any kind of goodness to the signal that it carries, it can only add noise and, more rarely, distortion.

 

[Speedskater]

As Bruno Putzeys wrote a long time ago:

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves.

On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right."

 

[audioarcher]

As opus111 notes there are technical reasons why cables might matter in some systems. However, I have heard the "your ears/speakers/components/room/phase of the moon/air/water quality/etc. are not good enough to hear the difference" argument for many, many years and personally think that is too simplistic, or perhaps condescending, or doesn't jive with my own experience and various DBTs through the years, or maybe I'm just annoyed my hearing/system/room/air/water/etc. sucks compared to everybody elses'. Whatever.

I was not trying to be condescending when I suggested that cable artifacts are more audible on more resolving systems in that other thread. It is just what I have experienced after 10 years of evolving my system. It could be that my current eq is more sensitive to cable differences because of reasons other than being more resolving than my past eq. I have no way to prove it one way or another and don't really care to.

I have tried several different cables in my system and sometimes the cheaper cable has won out. I don't think price is always a good indicator of how good a cable may be.

 

[Gregadd]

Given the option to mate a ten thousand dollar speaker with a ten thousand dollar cable. I would chose a twenty thousand dollar speaker. That's just me. Doesn't help the debate much.

 

[GaryProtein]

Given the option to mate a ten thousand dollar speaker with a ten thousand dollar cable. I would chose a twenty thousand dollar speaker. That's just me. Doesn't help the debate much.

No question about that! I totally agree.

I'd use that $20,000 speaker with zip cord and it will sound MUCH better than the $10,000 speaker with $10,000 cables.

 

[audioarcher]

+1 I have my limits to what I will spend on a cable and 10k is way over my limit. Each to their own though.

 

[TJE]

I'll make an automotive analogy: the role cables play is comparable to that of the tubing that carries fuel from the gas tank to the engine. If it's not there, you get no performance. If it's too small you may get limited performance. If there's something wrong with the tubing it may leech some chemicals that cause problems. At best it works perfectly, and the tubing is a non-issue. You have no reason to be aware of it when it works perfectly. It would be silly to say, "wow this car has great acceleration, it must have special fuel lines." After all the tubing is not what determines performance, that depends on the quality of fuel and all the characteristics of the engine and so on.

If this is a reasonable analogy then maybe all you need from cables is that they conduct electricity without interference.

 

[Gregadd]

And you could buy something better than zip cord by skipping Starbucks and eating lunch at your desk.

 

[GaryProtein]

And you could buy something better than zip cord by skipping Starbucks and eating lunch at your desk.

BX cable? That would give heavy wire and a solid steel case that would protect the conductors and be a shield from spurious sources.

 

[TJE]

Oops, another cable thread got closed today! This topic doesn't lead to agreement or resulution. Here's a thread that goes on for 1,490 pages.

 

[opus111]

Here's a thread that goes on for 1,490 pages.

I think I probably contributed to that one. But it was set up to fail because its posed in religious, rather than scientific terms. That is 'I don't believe...'. As such it began as a trolling thread, what hope could there have been for it?

 

[TJE]

Yes, there's no hope to reconcile religious perspectives. The big question is: how do you know what you know? And, don't believe everything that you think.

 

[opus111]

In fact believe nothing that you think!

Mark Twain puts it superbly - 'Its not what you don't know that kills you, its what you know for sure that just ain't so'.

 

[amirm]

Maybe a fruitful path here is to see if we can rule in, or rule out "huge" differences. What is the theory behind a huge difference not showing up in measurements? Surely our measurements are not that dumb, are they?

 

[opus111]

I'm not sure if differences really can be 'huge' but how about 'significant' ?

The reason measurements of cables miss the differences is they don't replicate actual usage conditions. In a real set-up, cables carry both common-mode and differential (normal) mode currents. I've yet to hear of a measurement set-up which tested a cable with common-mode excitation in addition to the traditional differential mode ones.

<edit> Forgot to add - common-mode doesn't apply to speaker cables except in the sense they're often fairly effective antennas. The effect this has on the sound depends on the particular amp the cable's connected to.

Here's a longish piece from an engineering perspective that goes into the CM currents issue : http://www.sstage.com/articles/pete01.htm

 

[audioarcher]

Maybe a fruitful path here is to see if we can rule in, or rule out "huge" differences. What is the theory behind a huge difference not showing up in measurements? Surely our measurements are not that dumb, are they?

I guess we would have to agree on what a huge difference is. Typically cable differences are not huge IME. They can make an important difference though.

Instead of measuring the cable itself wouldn't it be more logical to measure the output of the speakers? That would at least tell us if the frequency response is effected between different cables. I may try that one day. Although I'm not sure if my measurement equipment is resolving enough to be useful.