Hot: audiofile quality custom made cables ON THE CHEAP!

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: sxr7171
Continued:

That is why I propose a more focused and attentive method of listening in my AES paper, I am trying to place the listener into an analytical mode for as much of the listening as possible, and then staying there to make the forced choice. Much more consistent results are then obtained.

Long term listening is critical to the more subtle ear/brain training processes, and allow us to learn to hear the more subtle aspects even once we enter the analytical listening mode. Without the casual listening practice and exposure, we would find it much more difficult to hear such things analytically, in most cases, it becomes too difficult. Training with such aids as I mention will help overcome some of this, but not all of it.

Note that this is NOT meant to be an end all ultimate way to do these kinds of tests. It is presented merely as a starting point for a more controlled method than the typical A vs. B audiophile type listening tests, and you can make it as involved, or as casual as you want, with the understanding that it will have whatever inherent limitations there are for that level of involvement.

Jon Risch

Thanks for cutting and pasting somebody else's biased article...I read most of it and I could address each and everyone of his points, but that would be insanely long. What do you think the strongest points are? I'd be happy to discuss them.

I think one point people in these debates fail to bring up is that people claim DRAMATIC AUDIBLE differences with high-end cables. If this is true, then there should be absolutely no problem coming up with positive results in even the most hastily produced double-blind listening test...absolutely no problem. Yet, all we see is consistent null results. You talk about training listeners to hear critical and subtle differences in sound, and you possibly use this to explain why people can't hear a difference among cables - because they don't have "golden ears." Well I'm saying that I shouldn't have to TRAIN my ears to hear subtle and irrelevant differences in sound. Furthermore, if the differences are so miniscule that *I* have to TRAIN myself to hear a better cable, then by definition, there ARE NO DRAMATIC AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES (as claimed by the cable companies.)

And listen...if two cables have roughly equivalent inductance, capacitance, and resistance, have the same measured frequency response and phase response, then HOW ON EARTH could there be a difference in sound production?

Valsalva

 

[whiteboy81]

I see your argument here slacker, but couldn't you also be describing all of us crazy PC people. I mean is there ever an end to what you want to do with your computer or what upgrades you want or how many fans and windows and lights you put in your PC. I mean is there a such thing as 'the best' computer? I think not.

 

[LongCoolMother]

interconnects DO make a difference. people who say otherwise either doesn't know or doesn't have the equipment to utilize high performance interconnects. that however, doesnt mean they have to be expensive. non-vendor names for $50-$100 can make 1/2 meter cables that will make a worlds difference. trust me.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: slacker2
Well,

I admit I am firmly in the "non-believer" camp, simply because high-end audio is a market that's a gold mine for charlatans and snake oil dealers of every kind. However, one of the things that made me a non-believer was reading discussions between audiophiles and engineers on various forums - in the end audiophiles would invariably run out of rational arguments.

And heck, who is happier? A guy who buys a $100 stereo at Best Buy and enjoys the latest rap CD, or an audiophile who buys...oh, right, no CDs, gotta be lamps and vinyl. And not just any vinyl, but the one that was recorded at a certain studio and manufactured by a certain company in a certain year and month and when the phases of the moon were just right. Then the turntable and the pre-pre-pre-amp and the pre-preamp and the preamp and the amp and the post-amp and the Tice Clock have to be placed on a certain rack and of course gotta have those super-duper cables and super-duper power cords and interconnects and the speakers each have to be placed on a maple platform with spiked feet with a Shakti Stone on top. And you know what? It's never enough and it's a never-ending cycle of buying new equipment and gadgets. I dunno, to me this looks like a waste...

Not every audiophile is so insane. Some really are. I bought my system to listen to, I wanted something nice enough that I won't have to tweak or go nuts upgrading and wondering if something will make a difference or not. You can't dismiss an entire group of people based on a few weirdos. I still listen to CD, but I mostly just listen $1 LPs I get at thrift stores these days - it's just my preference (I still listen to CDs somtimes). I save a heck of a lot of money doing that and quite frankly it sounds better than CD (even on my entry level turntable). The only upgrade I feel I really want to do is get a better turntable and be done with it all, and go for the next couple of years without upgrading. I might try a new cable if someone puts one in front of my face and says here try this, but my system sounds so good right now that I really can't motivate to look for new equipment anyway.

Sure you can get ripped off in this hobby, but you have to keep yourself grounded at all times. I've always bought my stuff at good discounts, and I won't pay more than a certain amount for a metal wire no matter how complex it is. However it still stands that I have heard differences between cables. I just won't pay $3000 for a small difference from a $300 cable (if there even is a difference between a $300 cable and a $3000 cable - I haven't compared those yet), common sense suggests that $2700 can yield much better results put into another part of the system.

Some people have very good simple systems, I have seen some good dealers selling very nice simple systems that are just simple to use and simple to deal with. I was shocked at how good some of these systems can sound. If you play it smart you can have a good, simple system and enjoy it very much.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: dman
Honestly, I don't doubt that there may be some differences between cables, but, imo, an audiophile isn't going to get the cheap(er) stuff and be happy with it for long. If they can afford to buy the more expensive stuff they will. It's all about the marketing and if something is cheaper then they are loosing in the marketing game.

That's what you may think. Most people will say that I need at a minimum a mid-level interconnect from a good manufacturer (anywhere from $300-$600) considering the level my system is at, but I went and got a used pair of very good interconnects for $65. They did make a difference over the $29 Audioquests I had before, significant but not ground-shattering. It isn't necessary to go overboard and spend $600 on something that honestly is a wire that cost not more than $30 to make. On the other hand when you buy a cable like that you are mostly paying the salary of the guy who designed the cable for his design. You have to really think for yourself and see if a $570 premium is really warranted for a particular design, at this point I can't say that it is warranted. I think that once you have decent cables of sufficient gauge and quality then you're really set to go. I think the big dollar cable companies like to capitalize on some kind of need that people have to throw money around when they are unhappy over anything.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
interconnects DO make a difference. people who say otherwise either doesn't know or doesn't have the equipment to utilize high performance interconnects. that however, doesnt mean they have to be expensive. non-vendor names for $50-$100 can make 1/2 meter cables that will make a worlds difference. trust me.

Thank you.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Originally posted by: sxr7171
Continued:

That is why I propose a more focused and attentive method of listening in my AES paper, I am trying to place the listener into an analytical mode for as much of the listening as possible, and then staying there to make the forced choice. Much more consistent results are then obtained.

Long term listening is critical to the more subtle ear/brain training processes, and allow us to learn to hear the more subtle aspects even once we enter the analytical listening mode. Without the casual listening practice and exposure, we would find it much more difficult to hear such things analytically, in most cases, it becomes too difficult. Training with such aids as I mention will help overcome some of this, but not all of it.

Note that this is NOT meant to be an end all ultimate way to do these kinds of tests. It is presented merely as a starting point for a more controlled method than the typical A vs. B audiophile type listening tests, and you can make it as involved, or as casual as you want, with the understanding that it will have whatever inherent limitations there are for that level of involvement.

Jon Risch

Thanks for cutting and pasting somebody else's biased article...I read most of it and I could address each and everyone of his points, but that would be insanely long. What do you think the strongest points are? I'd be happy to discuss them.

I think one point people in these debates fail to bring up is that people claim DRAMATIC AUDIBLE differences with high-end cables. If this is true, then there should be absolutely no problem coming up with positive results in even the most hastily produced double-blind listening test...absolutely no problem. Yet, all we see is consistent null results. You talk about training listeners to hear critical and subtle differences in sound, and you possibly use this to explain why people can't hear a difference among cables - because they don't have "golden ears." Well I'm saying that I shouldn't have to TRAIN my ears to hear subtle and irrelevant differences in sound. Furthermore, if the differences are so miniscule that *I* have to TRAIN myself to hear a better cable, then by definition, there ARE NO DRAMATIC AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES (as claimed by the cable companies.)

And listen...if two cables have roughly equivalent inductance, capacitance, and resistance, have the same measured frequency response and phase response, then HOW ON EARTH could there be a difference in sound production?

Valsalva

Well, audiophiles and more so manufacturers like to claim dramatic differences in every they use or sell. However the differences can seem dramatic in the context of what caused those changes. For a skeptic (as I was) to hear the Analysis Plus cables make as much difference as they did was "dramatic" in a relative sense. I heard the difference and really enjoyed it for the two days before I got my new speakers. (I can't test my old cables on my new speakers as my new speakers require biwiring). If you want to hear a real dramatic difference try running your signal through a tube pre-amp, that was a dramatic difference (amazing in some ways, but it also had it's problems - mainly in the bass). In audiophilia sometimes the most subtle things can make a big difference, for example some people will say they can't hear a difference when playing SACD, while others will swear that they can. I know there is a difference, and I'll be honest and say that it is small enough that the average listener will neither care nor notice. However for me it is a difference that really improves the musicality of what I am listening. After listening to SACD and LP, and I can easily say that CD is simply not as musical of a format. It has detail, in fact it even has a sense of exaggerated detail but it does not sound like music as LP and SACD do. Most people will not notice or care, and neither this hobby nor this thread is for them. I get the feeling that you are someone that does care, but that you are letting your skepticism get you to not explore the options out there.

I see what you saying about capacitance, inductance, and resistance. One thing to remember is that not all cables of the thousands out there have similar values for these parameters. The other is to consider geometry in that some cables are designed to reject more noise or have other characteristics due to geometry (there are so may factors that go well beyond those three basic parameters - such as skin effect). Another thing to keep in mind is that these 3 basic parameters can change in a cable depending on frequency and most tests are done at 1 khz. If you have different frequencies experiencing different conditions in the wire then there can be timing errors. I realize that this differences are small considering frequency against the 3 basic parameters, but they can make a difference. Cables also provide impedence matching in some cases, in the case of a digital cable they need to be exactly 75 ohms including the connectors in order to not create minor reflective signals at the ends and create jitter (which is a big problem).

If you want to look at some information from the people that made my speaker cables look below. They claim that their cables are designed based on sound scientific principles. You can judge if their analysis is rigorous enough for you.

http://www.analysis-plus.com/Pages/thedesign.htm

 

[slacker2]

Originally posted by: sxr7171Not every audiophile is so insane. Some really are. I bought my system to listen to, I wanted something nice enough that I won't have to tweak or go nuts upgrading and wondering if something will make a difference or not. You can't dismiss an entire group of people based on a few weirdos. I still listen to CD, but I mostly just listen $1 LPs I get at thrift stores these days - it's just my preference (I still listen to CDs somtimes). I save a heck of a lot of money doing that and quite frankly it sounds better than CD (even on my entry level turntable). The only upgrade I feel I really want to do is get a better turntable and be done with it all, and go for the next couple of years without upgrading. I might try a new cable if someone puts one in front of my face and says here try this, but my system sounds so good right now that I really can't motivate to look for new equipment anyway.

Sure you can get ripped off in this hobby, but you have to keep yourself grounded at all times. I've always bought my stuff at good discounts, and I won't pay more than a certain amount for a metal wire no matter how complex it is. However it still stands that I have heard differences between cables. I just won't pay $3000 for a small difference from a $300 cable (if there even is a difference between a $300 cable and a $3000 cable - I haven't compared those yet), common sense suggests that $2700 can yield much better results put into another part of the system.

Some people have very good simple systems, I have seen some good dealers selling very nice simple systems that are just simple to use and simple to deal with. I was shocked at how good some of these systems can sound. If you play it smart you can have a good, simple system and enjoy it very much.

Well, for me the main problem with hi-fi/hi-end is "whom to trust". For example I asked a person who is well-respected in the audiophile circles as to what he thinks about Mark Levinson, Adcom and Parasound (which are supposedly some of the famous audiophile brands). His answer (somewhere along the lines of):
-Mark Levinson - utter garbage, in the same league as Bose and Bang and Olufsen.
-Adcom and Parasound - equipment designed to be evaluated and purchased by people who look at spec sheets. Excellent specs, sounds like junk.

At the same time you have people who swear by the above brands. When it comes to audio, everything is subjective. With video cards, computers, cars - you can benchmark them and get at least some objective data on which to base your decision.

Just curious, what are those simple systems that you mentioned?

 

[slacker2]

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
I see your argument here slacker, but couldn't you also be describing all of us crazy PC people. I mean is there ever an end to what you want to do with your computer or what upgrades you want or how many fans and windows and lights you put in your PC. I mean is there a such thing as 'the best' computer? I think not.

IMHO, it's very different with computers.

If you are a gamer, a faster CPU/video card means faster frame rates and better image quality. These are all objective criteria.
If you edit videos, a faster CPU will mean shorter encoding times for your video files.

These days I can do things with my computer that I couldn't even dream of back, say, in 1992 when I was playing with my top-of-the-line 33MHz 486 with 8 megs of RAM.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: sxr7171
Well, audiophiles and more so manufacturers like to claim dramatic differences in every they use or sell. However the differences can seem dramatic in the context of what caused those changes. For a skeptic (as I was) to hear the Analysis Plus cables make as much difference as they did was "dramatic" in a relative sense. I heard the difference and really enjoyed it for the two days before I got my new speakers. (I can't test my old cables on my new speakers as my new speakers require biwiring).

Unfortunately, the differences that you heard were NOT controlled by a blinded comparison. I do not deny that you perceived an improvement when you swapped in new cables, but this perception may or may not reflect actual differences in sound reproduction. There are NUMEROUS explanations for why you might have thought your new cables sounded better...for instance, I bet you didn't pink-noise level match the two comparisons, etc. But this is irrelevant to my central premise:

If cables indeed result in dramatic differences in sound quality, then these differences should EASILY show up in even the most hastily constructed BLIND listening test. This means that even the average audiophile who is used to listening to nice setups should be able to pick out the expensive cable, even though he doesn't know which on it is. Unfortunately, the ONLY evidence supporting major sound improvements has been with NON-BLINDED listening tests in which the listener is subject to biases, placebo effect, and preconceive notions. Anyone who is used to evaluating evidence should easily conclude that there is strong (but non-definitive) reason to believe that cables do NOT make significant differences in sound reproduction. At the very least, the available evidence does NOT (absolutely DOES NOT) support the notion that cables heavily influence sound quality.

If you want to hear a real dramatic difference try running your signal through a tube pre-amp, that was a dramatic difference (amazing in some ways, but it also had it's problems - mainly in the bass).

This is irrelevant. What does this have to do with your speaker cables? And just as an aside, tube amps have MEASURABLE increases in distortion, which can easily correlate in the DIFFERENCE in perceived sound reproduction -- that is, we can measure the differences, and we can hear them. You can't say the same about speaker cables.

In audiophilia sometimes the most subtle things can make a big difference, for example some people will say they can't hear a difference when playing SACD, while others will swear that they can. I know there is a difference, and I'll be honest and say that it is small enough that the average listener will neither care nor notice. However for me it is a difference that really improves the musicality of what I am listening. After listening to SACD and LP, and I can easily say that CD is simply not as musical of a format.

See, now that's getting ridiculous. How can you possibly make a judgement of the FORMAT?? First and foremost, the master and engineering used to create the same recording in CD vs. SACD might be different. Engineers and studios know that people who listen to CD's have crappy speakers and they tend to use lots of compression so that they can use a higher recording level - subjectively sounds better on cheap setups. However, engineers might choose to use full dynamic range on an SACD because they know people with SACD players have better systems and expect that dynamic range. There's no way of knowing whether the same master used to record an SACD vs. a CD might result in INAUDIBLE differences between the two sources. Furthermore, SACD's use completely difference DAC schemes vs. CD - you could easily be listening to a CD player with an inferior DAC or an inferior analog output stage. Saying that CD is not as "musical" as SACD sounds like you're regurgitating marketing hype.

It has detail, in fact it even has a sense of exaggerated detail but it does not sound like music as LP and SACD do. Most people will not notice or care, and neither this hobby nor this thread is for them. I get the feeling that you are someone that does care, but that you are letting your skepticism get you to not explore the options out there.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a realist. I have objectively evaluated the available data on the audibility of speaker cables and interconnects...and as an individual with experience in evaluating published literature, I can honestly say that there is no compelling data to support the claims of cable manufacturers. Like many people, I WANT to believe that cables make a difference...I would feel a lot better knowing that my signal isn't getting degraded by zipcord, and it would be nice to think that my interconnects are an integral part of my system. But there's one thing I don't do, and that's lie to myself. I'm not going to ignore the barrage of data that says "unable to find a difference" and emphasize non-blinded biased "listening tests" that describe sound improvements that don't exist. That's the reality of it. Yet, I still buy upgraded cables and wire -- again, because it looks cool. That's it, and nothing more.

Valsalva

I see what you saying about capacitance, inductance, and resistance. One thing to remember is that not all cables of the thousands out there have similar values for these parameters. The other is to consider geometry in that some cables are designed to reject more noise or have other characteristics due to geometry (there are so may factors that go well beyond those three basic parameters - such as skin effect).

Unless you have an abnormally noisy environment, the inducted noise into a properly shielded cheapo cable should be well below the noise floor of your electronics. ...and cables that are expensive and well-respected have LCR characteristics that are equivalent or no better than cheap cable - that's what i'm saying.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these 3 basic parameters can change in a cable depending on frequency and most tests are done at 1 khz.

I don't know who's feeding you this misinformation, but I don't know any half-brained engineer who would test a cable at a SINGLE frequency then draw conclusions from it. It's farcical to believe that.

If you have different frequencies experiencing different conditions in the wire then there can be timing errors. I realize that this differences are small considering frequency against the 3 basic parameters, but they can make a difference.

TIMING ERRORS? Do you realize that the phase aberration introduced by the crossover network is FAR GREATER than the absolute worst cable design you can imagine (and I'm talking coils and loops). The amount of timing error found in a worst-case scenario cable is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than that expected by the crossover + drive + cabinet/reflections + listening room. Phase is absolutely irrelevant here.

Cables also provide impedence matching in some cases, in the case of a digital cable they need to be exactly 75 ohms including the connectors in order to not create minor reflective signals at the ends and create jitter (which is a big problem).

Oh boy. Yes, and 75.001 ohms can cause the entire timing circuit to disintegrate. Who is telling you this crap?

Valsalva

 

[mikeford]

I've heard a LOT of systems, a few really good one, many mediocrre, and a bunch bad, and each category included all price points. Some of the worst sounding systems have been expensive. Typical of a high dollar system is that it has some kind of sonic quirk, since its very hard to power sell high dollar items that don't make some change to the sound. That IMHO is ALWAYS bad. What I pay for is low distortion, and high fidelity, ie my stereo doesn't change the sound.

Bottom Line, I won't pay for what I can't or don't hear, and since I know sighted tests are meaningless, I have to be able to hear improvement under blind conditions. If something sounds wonderfully better to you, but if I walk around behind the equipment, flip a coin, and make or not make a change based on the coin that you can't see, and that makes all the differences go away. Doesn't that tell you something? The difference was in your imagination, not the item or the testing procedure.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: slacker2

Originally posted by: sxr7171Not every audiophile is so insane. Some really are. I bought my system to listen to, I wanted something nice enough that I won't have to tweak or go nuts upgrading and wondering if something will make a difference or not. You can't dismiss an entire group of people based on a few weirdos. I still listen to CD, but I mostly just listen $1 LPs I get at thrift stores these days - it's just my preference (I still listen to CDs somtimes). I save a heck of a lot of money doing that and quite frankly it sounds better than CD (even on my entry level turntable). The only upgrade I feel I really want to do is get a better turntable and be done with it all, and go for the next couple of years without upgrading. I might try a new cable if someone puts one in front of my face and says here try this, but my system sounds so good right now that I really can't motivate to look for new equipment anyway.

Sure you can get ripped off in this hobby, but you have to keep yourself grounded at all times. I've always bought my stuff at good discounts, and I won't pay more than a certain amount for a metal wire no matter how complex it is. However it still stands that I have heard differences between cables. I just won't pay $3000 for a small difference from a $300 cable (if there even is a difference between a $300 cable and a $3000 cable - I haven't compared those yet), common sense suggests that $2700 can yield much better results put into another part of the system.

Some people have very good simple systems, I have seen some good dealers selling very nice simple systems that are just simple to use and simple to deal with. I was shocked at how good some of these systems can sound. If you play it smart you can have a good, simple system and enjoy it very much.

Well, for me the main problem with hi-fi/hi-end is "whom to trust". For example I asked a person who is well-respected in the audiophile circles as to what he thinks about Mark Levinson, Adcom and Parasound (which are supposedly some of the famous audiophile brands). His answer (somewhere along the lines of):
-Mark Levinson - utter garbage, in the same league as Bose and Bang and Olufsen.
-Adcom and Parasound - equipment designed to be evaluated and purchased by people who look at spec sheets. Excellent specs, sounds like junk.

At the same time you have people who swear by the above brands. When it comes to audio, everything is subjective. With video cards, computers, cars - you can benchmark them and get at least some objective data on which to base your decision.

Just curious, what are those simple systems that you mentioned?

That's not true about Levinson. They are overpriced no doubt and I wouldn't buy their stuff, but they do make quality equipment. Levinson is kind of for people who want the looks, prestige and sound in one package and are willing to pay through their nose for it. Personally, I'll buy an ugly component if it sounds good.

As for Adcom, I consider them an alright company with a few really good products. They make a good $1400 CD player that is very good. But their claim to fame in high end circles is their GFP-750 pre-amp. This preamp can be run in either active or passive mode and for the $1400 it retails at it is said to be as neutral as preamps costing several times as much. You can find one used for as little as $650. I wouldn't buy the cheaper Adcom stuff or their amps, overall I don't consider them a good choice except for those two pieces.

As for Parasound, they have some really good good pieces and some pretty alright stuff. They made a 2 piece CD player with a belt driven transport and a DAC designed by someone famous. It is considered by many to be an excellent CD player at its price point. On the other hand I wouldn't really buy any of their other stuff.

I don't believe in spec sheets as anything but a little background on the product, the only way to judge a product is to listen to it yourself. Some really crappy manufacturers come up with a good product once in while and a renowned manufacturer makes a dud once in a while too. You have to consider the actual piece more than the brand. Sometimes a mediocre manufacturer (I think Parasound and Adcom are overall in this category) hires a good engineer to design a product and they really have a an awesome product. You really have to listen for yourself.

I don't know what price range you're looking at but I really think what this guy has put together will sound excellent: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078269/

If you have any other questions let me know, I don't claim to know it all but I can help direct to you to some good resources.

 

[DigDug]

Here's an example of the insanity:
A "Reference Audio" Knob. Price? $480.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Originally posted by: sxr7171
Well, audiophiles and more so manufacturers like to claim dramatic differences in every they use or sell. However the differences can seem dramatic in the context of what caused those changes. For a skeptic (as I was) to hear the Analysis Plus cables make as much difference as they did was "dramatic" in a relative sense. I heard the difference and really enjoyed it for the two days before I got my new speakers. (I can't test my old cables on my new speakers as my new speakers require biwiring).

Unfortunately, the differences that you heard were NOT controlled by a blinded comparison. I do not deny that you perceived an improvement when you swapped in new cables, but this perception may or may not reflect actual differences in sound reproduction. There are NUMEROUS explanations for why you might have thought your new cables sounded better...for instance, I bet you didn't pink-noise level match the two comparisons, etc. But this is irrelevant to my central premise:

If cables indeed result in dramatic differences in sound quality, then these differences should EASILY show up in even the most hastily constructed BLIND listening test. This means that even the average audiophile who is used to listening to nice setups should be able to pick out the expensive cable, even though he doesn't know which on it is. Unfortunately, the ONLY evidence supporting major sound improvements has been with NON-BLINDED listening tests in which the listener is subject to biases, placebo effect, and preconceive notions. Anyone who is used to evaluating evidence should easily conclude that there is strong (but non-definitive) reason to believe that cables do NOT make significant differences in sound reproduction. At the very least, the available evidence does NOT (absolutely DOES NOT) support the notion that cables heavily influence sound quality.

If you want to hear a real dramatic difference try running your signal through a tube pre-amp, that was a dramatic difference (amazing in some ways, but it also had it's problems - mainly in the bass).

This is irrelevant. What does this have to do with your speaker cables? And just as an aside, tube amps have MEASURABLE increases in distortion, which can easily correlate in the DIFFERENCE in perceived sound reproduction -- that is, we can measure the differences, and we can hear them. You can't say the same about speaker cables.

In audiophilia sometimes the most subtle things can make a big difference, for example some people will say they can't hear a difference when playing SACD, while others will swear that they can. I know there is a difference, and I'll be honest and say that it is small enough that the average listener will neither care nor notice. However for me it is a difference that really improves the musicality of what I am listening. After listening to SACD and LP, and I can easily say that CD is simply not as musical of a format.

See, now that's getting ridiculous. How can you possibly make a judgement of the FORMAT?? First and foremost, the master and engineering used to create the same recording in CD vs. SACD might be different. Engineers and studios know that people who listen to CD's have crappy speakers and they tend to use lots of compression so that they can use a higher recording level - subjectively sounds better on cheap setups. However, engineers might choose to use full dynamic range on an SACD because they know people with SACD players have better systems and expect that dynamic range. There's no way of knowing whether the same master used to record an SACD vs. a CD might result in INAUDIBLE differences between the two sources. Furthermore, SACD's use completely difference DAC schemes vs. CD - you could easily be listening to a CD player with an inferior DAC or an inferior analog output stage. Saying that CD is not as "musical" as SACD sounds like you're regurgitating marketing hype.

It has detail, in fact it even has a sense of exaggerated detail but it does not sound like music as LP and SACD do. Most people will not notice or care, and neither this hobby nor this thread is for them. I get the feeling that you are someone that does care, but that you are letting your skepticism get you to not explore the options out there.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a realist. I have objectively evaluated the available data on the audibility of speaker cables and interconnects...and as an individual with experience in evaluating published literature, I can honestly say that there is no compelling data to support the claims of cable manufacturers. Like many people, I WANT to believe that cables make a difference...I would feel a lot better knowing that my signal isn't getting degraded by zipcord, and it would be nice to think that my interconnects are an integral part of my system. But there's one thing I don't do, and that's lie to myself. I'm not going to ignore the barrage of data that says "unable to find a difference" and emphasize non-blinded biased "listening tests" that describe sound improvements that don't exist. That's the reality of it. Yet, I still buy upgraded cables and wire -- again, because it looks cool. That's it, and nothing more.

Valsalva

I see what you saying about capacitance, inductance, and resistance. One thing to remember is that not all cables of the thousands out there have similar values for these parameters. The other is to consider geometry in that some cables are designed to reject more noise or have other characteristics due to geometry (there are so may factors that go well beyond those three basic parameters - such as skin effect).

Unless you have an abnormally noisy environment, the inducted noise into a properly shielded cheapo cable should be well below the noise floor of your electronics. ...and cables that are expensive and well-respected have LCR characteristics that are equivalent or no better than cheap cable - that's what i'm saying.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these 3 basic parameters can change in a cable depending on frequency and most tests are done at 1 khz.

I don't know who's feeding you this misinformation, but I don't know any half-brained engineer who would test a cable at a SINGLE frequency then draw conclusions from it. It's farcical to believe that.

If you have different frequencies experiencing different conditions in the wire then there can be timing errors. I realize that this differences are small considering frequency against the 3 basic parameters, but they can make a difference.

TIMING ERRORS? Do you realize that the phase aberration introduced by the crossover network is FAR GREATER than the absolute worst cable design you can imagine (and I'm talking coils and loops). The amount of timing error found in a worst-case scenario cable is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than that expected by the crossover + drive + cabinet/reflections + listening room. Phase is absolutely irrelevant here.

Cables also provide impedence matching in some cases, in the case of a digital cable they need to be exactly 75 ohms including the connectors in order to not create minor reflective signals at the ends and create jitter (which is a big problem).

Oh boy. Yes, and 75.001 ohms can cause the entire timing circuit to disintegrate. Who is telling you this crap?

Valsalva

I don't have time to type much right now as I am getting ready for a trip I need to take tomorrow, but for you to say that I am regurgitating marketing hype when I say SACD is capable of being more musical than CD is ridiculous. If you knew anything about SACD, you'd know that the same master is recorded onto a cd layer and an SACD on the same disc. So you can compare the exact same material on the CD layer and on the SACD layer. I know what I heard. I don't repeat what others have heard (such as your quoting what others have heard in ABX testing). I only talk about what I have heard. (BTW, you still haven't said anything about the fact that some of those ABX tests you linked to had only one subject). Also, not all those ABX tests came to the same result. Another thing to keep in mind is that some people have a much better sense of hearing than others - in fact it is a trained faculty. If you take a bunch of people who can't hear straight into an ABX testing session and run them into fatigue before trying to get them to recognize a subtle but important change, you really have chance of getting to recognize anything unless it is quite blatant as these are people who couldn't care less. The only way I would be convinced of the presumption that all cables sound the same is if I failed an ABX test on this issue. If you really read the comments that I linked (they weren't perfect but they raised a lot of good points) you would know that less than half a dozen such ABX studies have ever been conducted, they were usually done with small sample sizes and most were done in a different era, and they all didn't have the same results. In other words the results were inconclusive at best.

Tell me what you have heard, if anything at all. Because you can sit around and profess to know everything about audio engineering, but I doubt you have made a serious attempt to find out for yourself. Anyone can sit and quote any number of so called studies (they were all unscientific - the only ones that were scientific were codec studies) to "prove" your point. There are some things that vary depending on the person's ability to hear and if you have invesitigated for yourself and found that you are right then I won't argue with you. To sit here quote others in a subjective field is pointless.



You are not going to convince anyone that has heard a difference in cables that they are wrong. You can talk all you want but you haven't heard anything for yourself.

Also you do know that there are phase correct crossover networks out there right? There most digital cables are off 75 ohms by quite a lot more than 0.01 ohms. Go read up and listen more instead of pretending that you know everything based on what little you have read. I don't claim to know anything about audio engineering, I can just talk about what I have heard. Why don't you ask the people who designed the equipment that you listen to what they think of these matters. There are equipment manufacturers that don't make cables at all who will tell you that a particular parameter needs to be met in the cables sometimes. The people who make digital transp don't charge for the cable either). orts and DACs will tell you this, and some of them even have their own proprietary interface (cable) to reduce jitter (and they do this to make the interface less dependant on the cable so you can their cheap to get good results).


I don't know how long you've been doing this but I really wonder what you hear in your system, and if you've actually heard a demostration of a good system or of SACD vs. CD or of anything at all. All you seem to know is your system, and some partial knowledge of electronics that doesn't tell the whole story.

BTW, do you have nothing to say about the manufacturer I linked to with their technical interpretation of why their cable is better?

 

[LongCoolMother]

i already said interconnects DO make a difference. significant, but its not like black and white, im saying its noticable. whether you decide its worth it or not, is up to you, but the fact remains that interconnects do vary in quality. if you have never actually tried different interconnects, then dont guess. a thing about high end interconnects is that once you enter the extreme performance range there is really no way you can call an interconnect "better" than another. what i mean is, they are all of equal caliber, but they sound different and have different personalities. some people prefer a very transparent tone, whereas some may like darker sound. some might like more colored, thus making the audio seem more detailed. as far as interconnects are concerned, i can say that yes, they do matter. i think what people mean to say is that they make a difference, but the price doesn't justfy the difference. maybe they should say that, instead of straight out denying there is no improvement made.

often times audio quality is subjective. yes, some parts are subtle. its not like PCs, where a higher framerate=better. there's no real way to benchmark an audio system. some people might measure the flatness and extension of the frequency response of audio equipment, but even then its subjective.

 

[LegendKiller]

What I dont get is why people give a flying crap about what people spend their money on?


Why DO YOU CARE? If there is something you dont like that others buy THEN SHUT UP. I am sure THEY dont care about your opinion and you aren't likely to change theirs.


Seriously people, the only reason why you even care about whether people spend a lot of money on this stuff is because you feel somehow inferior to them. Get over yourself and let them buy what they want.


LK

 

[LegendKiller]

What I dont get is why people give a flying crap about what people spend their money on?


Why DO YOU CARE? If there is something you dont like that others buy THEN SHUT UP. I am sure THEY dont care about your opinion and you aren't likely to change theirs.


Seriously people, the only reason why you even care about whether people spend a lot of money on this stuff is because you feel somehow inferior to them. Get over yourself and let them buy what they want.


LK

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: dr150

Originally posted by: sxr7171
^^^ Yeah, I'm going to do power cords next (if my next upgrade isn't a new turntable). I had a dealer try to sell me the Transparent Plus Powerlink for around $230, but I decided to wait until I read about it being the best in that price range. He told me to take it home and try it, and if it didn't make a difference to send it back. I wish that I did buy them there just to try out over the weekend (of course I would have kept them if they made a significant difference), but I'd have to ship it back if I didn't like it (the dealer was about in town about 2 hours away and I was just visiting town).

Which power cables have worked well for you?

Signal Cables offer the best bang for buck in audiophile power cords. Really great stuff!

Thanks a lot I'll give them a try!

EDIT: they have some really prices too! I'll bet that they don't make more than 30% on their cables, cause the stuff they have is very substantial - this is really what I call bang for buck.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: sxr7171I don't have time to type much right now as I am getting ready for a trip I need to take tomorrow, but for you to say that I am regurgitating marketing hype when I say SACD is capable of being more musical than CD is ridiculous. If you knew anything about SACD, you'd know that the same master is recorded onto a cd layer and an SACD on the same disc. So you can compare the exact same material on the CD layer and on the SACD layer. I know what I heard.

I stand by what I wrote. a) you are not guaranteed that the same master was used to record the CD and the SACD sessions, but even if they are, you certainly are not guaranteed that the engineering was identical for both. b) your listening test was NOT blinded and you are subject to the influence of your own positive expectations.

I don't repeat what others have heard (such as your quoting what others have heard in ABX testing).

Quoting the conclusions of published data is different from regurgitating manufacturer brochure data and the stuff the 25-year-old saleguy at your local hifi store tells you.

I only talk about what I have heard. (BTW, you still haven't said anything about the fact that some of those ABX tests you linked to had only one subject).

BTW, you still haven't said anything about how "timing errors" can make a difference when the delays instituted by the crossover, driver, and room are several of orders of magnitude more dominant. You also fail to really address how cheap cables can have similar inductance, capacitance, and resistance as the high-end stuff and the same measured frequency vs. amplitude, yet somehow sound different. There are NUMEROUS double-blind tests out there, and you seem knowledgeable enough to find them on your own. It's not like the ABX data is the only study out there.

Also, not all those ABX tests came to the same result. Another thing to keep in mind is that some people have a much better sense of hearing than others - in fact it is a trained faculty. If you take a bunch of people who can't hear straight into an ABX testing session and run them into fatigue before trying to get them to recognize a subtle but important change, you really have chance of getting to recognize anything unless it is quite blatant as these are people who couldn't care less.

See, you keep bringing up this same retarded point. For the billionth time, the cable companies do not claim "remarkable differences only if you're not fatigued and you've been trained for years"...they claim phenomenal improvements REGARDLESS. These claims are CLEARLY FALSE because if they existed, it should have been EASY for these differences to pop up in even the crappiest blinded experiment.

The only way I would be convinced of the presumption that all cables sound the same is if I failed an ABX test on this issue. If you really read the comments that I linked (they weren't perfect but they raised a lot of good points) you would know that less than half a dozen such ABX studies have ever been conducted, they were usually done with small sample sizes and most were done in a different era, and they all didn't have the same results. In other words the results were inconclusive at best.

You don't need a large sample size...you need a few listeners who SHOULD be able to tell the difference (if any existed) AND enough trials to reach statistical power...anyone with experience in statistics and experimental design could tell you this. I would also argue that if there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES, such as those claimed by the manufacturers, you should be absolutely no problem differentiating between cables all or almost all of the time. For instance, there is a dramatic difference in sound quality between a Bose system and say the Focal Utopia's...you could take ANYONE, sit him down, and he could identify the superior system every single time.

Tell me what you have heard, if anything at all. Because you can sit around and profess to know everything about audio engineering, but I doubt you have made a serious attempt to find out for yourself. Anyone can sit and quote any number of so called studies (they were all unscientific - the only ones that were scientific were codec studies) to "prove" your point.

Thanks for barfing back the opinion of that other author. The studies are sufficiently rigorous for any reasonable person to draw a conclusion. Like I said...if dramatic differences existed, these experiments are more than sufficiently powered and well-designed to detect a difference. If only tiny and subtle differences exist, then you MIGHT have an argument...

There are some things that vary depending on the person's ability to hear and if you have invesitigated for yourself and found that you are right then I won't argue with you. To sit here quote others in a subjective field is pointless.

Let me reiterate my points...there's nothing subjective about it:
1) every single published BLINDED listening tests demonstrates that nobody tested could tell the difference between expensive and cheap cables
2) there is NOT A SINGLE blinded listening test that demonstrates a difference
3) NOT EVEN MANUFACTURERS dare to publish BLINDED listening tests because a) there are no differences and b) if they did find difference, it would be falsifying data. ever wonder why Monster Cable or Audioquest (with huge profts and capital) doesn't publish BLINDED experiments???
4) there is no electromechanical reason why speaker cables should sound difference - there is equivalent measured LCR
5) ALL of the parameters known to affect sound quality are EQUIVALENT or NEGLIGBLY different among speaker cables.
6) The ONLY evidence, and I mean the ONLY evidence that says there's a difference is NON-BLINDED BIASED listening tests...the absolute worst kind, and the most useless.

Based on 1-6, there really is no reason to believe that there truly is a DRAMATIC difference among speaker cables. This is not an opinion...this is a conclusion based on careful consideration of the available evidence. Sorry, chief.

You are not going to convince anyone that has heard a difference in cables that they are wrong. You can talk all you want but you haven't heard anything for yourself.

I'm not here to convince people who CHOOSE TO BELIEVE cables make a difference that they don't. I could care less, actually. If you want to believe in the tooth fairy, that's fine with me too. I can provide evidence as to why the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but if you choose to believe anyway, that's your prerogative.

Also you do know that there are phase correct crossover networks out there right?

see, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Look at ANY set of phase vs. amplitude chart on ANY speaker measured (stereophile.com is a good source), and you will see that the magnitude of phase aberrations is astronomical compared to the worst case scenario of your speaker cable.

There most digital cables are off 75 ohms by quite a lot more than 0.01 ohms. Go read up and listen more instead of pretending that you know everything based on what little you have read.

That's exactly what I'm saying...there's no way in hell 75.01 ohms can introduce jitter into your system..it's preposterous...and that's what you were trying to have people believe.

I don't claim to know anything about audio engineering, I can just talk about what I have heard. Why don't you ask the people who designed the equipment that you listen to what they think of these matters. There are equipment manufacturers that don't make cables at all who will tell you that a particular parameter needs to be met in the cables sometimes. The people who make digital transp don't charge for the cable either). orts and DACs will tell you this, and some of them even have their own proprietary interface (cable) to reduce jitter (and they do this to make the interface less dependant on the cable so you can their cheap to get good results).

OBVIOUSLY...but even the cheapo cables are well-within the parameters required buy the manufacturers.

I don't know how long you've been doing this but I really wonder what you hear in your system, and if you've actually heard a demostration of a good system or of SACD vs. CD or of anything at all. All you seem to know is your system, and some partial knowledge of electronics that doesn't tell the whole story.

I don't hear "made up sound improvements" in my system...I don't put tennis balls under my cd player and preted to hear dramatic reductions in jitter-introduced distortion. Gimme a break. And my knowledge of electronics is more than sufficient for me to determine that the electrical parameters known to correlate with sound quality are virtually identical in expesnive vs. crappy cables.

BTW, do you have nothing to say about the manufacturer I linked to with their technical interpretation of why their cable is better?

I skimmed it...and it was insultingly stupid. Not only that, but even IF what they described is true, they fail to demonstrate that any of those differences are audible. Taht's the bottom line.

Valsalva

 

[deepinya]

Originally posted by: slacker2

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
I see your argument here slacker, but couldn't you also be describing all of us crazy PC people. I mean is there ever an end to what you want to do with your computer or what upgrades you want or how many fans and windows and lights you put in your PC. I mean is there a such thing as 'the best' computer? I think not.

IMHO, it's very different with computers.

If you are a gamer, a faster CPU/video card means faster frame rates and better image quality. These are all objective criteria.
If you edit videos, a faster CPU will mean shorter encoding times for your video files.

These days I can do things with my computer that I couldn't even dream of back, say, in 1992 when I was playing with my top-of-the-line 33MHz 486 with 8 megs of RAM.

exactly! Benchmarks also tell you how your system is performing.

Its cut and dry....not "what you can hear"

 

[deepinya]

Im sure there is a difference between $5 cable and a $40 cable.....but I dont think there is a difference between a $40 cable and $300 cable. Other than the "awe factor" and bragging to your nerd friends who will huddle around in awe with you!!

 

[mbackof]

This thread is pretty heated. Here is my view on audio improvements to systems from biggest difference to least:
1. Speaker Placement/Room Size and Shape - a low end system can sound really good if the speakers are properly placed in the right room.
2. Quality of Speakers - you need good speakers with a well designed crossover to get great sound.
3. Receiver/Amp, DACs - processing on the receiver or a separate AMP unit can increase sound quality, particularly at high volumes.
4. Source Material - if whatever you are listening to was poorly mastered, or the sound was highly compressed, it will sound crappy on your system. A receiver and good speakers can improve this somewhat, through Dolby or DTS processing modes, but if the original material is crap, it won't sound great on your high-end system. I've actually heard CDs that sounded better in the car than on my Denon stereo because on my Denon stereo I can hear the problems with the master. Hiss, noise, etc.
5. Cables - there is a noticable difference between the cables that come with a component and $15-$20 Parts Express or Radio Shack interconnects. The video looks clearer, and the sound is a little better. I believe that this is because of the manufacturing quality of the cable and interconnects more than the composition of the cable and the interconnects. Some brands of cable have poorer quality control and I believe this causes a lot of the "I swapped out my cables for a $200 cable and things are now wonderful." If the person swapped out the cable for another $20 cable from a manufacturer who better tests their product before shipping, they would just state that they replaced a bad cable and the picture quality or sound is better. Can I prove this and end this argument? Unfortunately the answer is no.
6. Power - if the power to your system is crappy it may effect the sound quality.

So my point is that you get a lot more bang for your buck upgrading to better speakers or moving your existing speaker's position around and get a noticable sound quality improvement this way. Try this before you go out and spend a bunch of money on cables. I think high-end cables can help sound quality in that many of those manufacturers are going to take the time to hire quality help and better test their cables. The cable material might be similar to the $20 cable, but you are less likely to get a cable with a poor connection and damaged shield.

Mike

 

[mikeford]

The reason to care about how other people spend their money is that every time mediocre is successfully sold as "New and Wonderfull" the really good stuff has less of a chance of making it to market and being sold.

 

[SweetSweetLeroyBrown]

does this mean that nobody wants to know how to get Monster Cable on 80% discount?

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: SweetSweetLeroyBrown
does this mean that nobody wants to know how to get Monster Cable on 80% discount?

80% off Monster Cable?? WHERE?

Valsalva