[Voyager]

I recently purchased my first pair of descent interconnects, a pair of Nordost flatline cables for $45 and I noticed a definant improvement over the Radio Shack gold series. Though not a huge improvement, it was very worth while.

 

[frankclone]

Is there a "sweet spot" in price range of interconnects?
When do you run into diminishing returns?
& does anyone have a short list of best deals?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by frankclone Is there a "sweet spot" in price range of interconnects? When do you run into diminishing returns? & does anyone have a short list of best deals?

I used to be the skeptic of all skeptics re interconnects. After all, electron flow @ audio freqs?? cmmon.. gimme a break. Then I finally got a decent headphone amp, rediscovered my whole CD collection, and started playing with interconnects. Guess what? I convinced myself there was an audible difference! Whoa! nOw all my nOrmal engineering friends look at me funny and won't talk much to me any more

That's ok tho, 'cause I like what I'm hearing!!

The point of diminishing returns is determined by what your ears can hear and your pocketbook can absorb.

 

[Hirsch]

There is no such thing as the "sweet spot" in interconnects, as any interconnect is a matter of personal taste (tempered by personal wealth).

Best deals? The following is purely my personal opinion: For portable use, I like the Acoustic Research Premium interconnect ($12 at Best Buy). This works beautifully with Panasonic CT470, Grado RA-1 and Senn HD-580. There is a portable CD version with 1/8" miniplug to RCA, so no other adapters needed.

The Acoustic Research Pro series is a better interconnect for a non-portable system if allowed to burn in properly (they don't sound particularly appealing right out of the blister pack). Takes a couple of days before their sound settles in. Works well with Rotel 955-ART-DIO, Creek OBH-11se, Senn HD-600 w/ Clou red. Bought online for about $15, but I'm blanking on the URL. However, in this system, I prefer MIT MI-330, which runs about $150/ one meter at audioadvisor. The AR doesn't lose much to the MIT, which is why I consider it a great buy.

The AR cables caught me off guard, as I had not really heard sound I could live with long-term in an inexpensive interconnect until I heard them. I would recommend listening to them to anyone looking for an interconnect upgrade while on a tight budget.

My short list of worst deals starts and ends with Monster cables.

YMMV! My preferences in my systems may have absolutely no relationship to what you will like in yours. Trust your ears!

 

[Vertigo-1]

I've never really believed in paying out the butt for interconns...but I just had my first interconnect revelation today, so I can definitely chime in and say they DO sound different. My revelation came between a pair of Custom House Baracudas, and then switching back to my old Radio Shack Gold Series cables. What's funny was what I was originally trying to compare...I was trying to see if my Playstation 2 actually made a better CDP than my Denon.

So I hooked up my RKV to the PS2, and played some music through my Sony MDR-V6s. The midrange noticeably sounded grainy, treble was given a nice soundstage but also had a grainy quality to it. Then I tried playing the same song in MP3 format, and noticed there was more bass at the expense of midrange. Then I glanced at those cables and started thinking just what if that's causing the grainy midrange? Swapped in the Rat Shacks and BOOM! Everything snapped back into a tight, focused clear sound, and that graininess was gone! The soundstage did get smaller, but the treble got back the sharp detailed quality I had been missing all this time. But the big point being, THE TWO CABLES SOUNDED DIFFERENT!

 

[rohorn]

Bob - neat test - and it sounded like it was fun to pull off!

What I am wondering was who had control of the volume? If each test was started at "0" volume - and the listener was allowed to control it with no visual reference as to where they set it, I wonder what the results might be. Especially if YOU had any way of seeing where they set the volume on each test. Simple changes in volume can "reveal" changes in sound that are not quite what they seem - if that's the case.

Besides, your friends need more P & B time - all in the name of research, right?

 

[Budgie]

To make the test more scientific, I would suggest also swapping out the beer and pizza for different brands and flavor. Could have a significant affect.

 

[El Duderino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacDEF /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, a lot of those "experts" are just parrotting what they have heard elsewhere. Done properly, single-blind testing is JUST as scientifically valid as double-blind testing. If the person doing the switching does nothing that would clue the subjects in as to what switches are being done, there is absolutely no difference in validity between the two methods. I find that often people saying "but you didn't use double-blind testing" simply don't like the results of an experiment and are grasping for reasons to discredit it.

This is an incorrect statement. The reason people insist on double-blind testing is that throughout the scientific world, any researcher with any experience whatsoever knows that a single blind test will NEVER be as valid as a double blind test.

The reason for this is that there is absolutely no way that anyone can 100% guarantee that the non-blinded half of the experimental design did not in some way, whether intentional or not, bias the results. The only way you can truly say that a test is unbiased is if it is double-blind.

For example, try getting a drug approved by the FDA using a single-blinded clinical trial and you will be, literally, laughed at. Similarly, attempts to get any scientific data derived from single blind testing into a high impact journal will prove unsuccessful and rightfully so. There are countless examples, in the medical world at least, of single blind testing leading to erroneous results regardless of how insistent the investigators were regarding performing the test in a way that they believe could never possibly bias their results.

There really is no discussion for the validity of single blinded vs. double blinded in modern science. The answer is simple...double blinded is the only 100% valid testing methodology. Oh, and before I get accused of being one of these "experts" who's talking nonsense...I've designed multiple translational research studies and clinical trials.

El Duderino

 

[fdhfdy]

I would say "yes" afte tried a 2$ interconnects and a $50 one

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdhfdy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would say "yes" afte tried a 2$ interconnects and a $50 one

I am not saying anything at all. I am completely speechless. This thread is 7 years old. Ouch.

 

[fordgtlover]

[size=medium]Raised it from the dead.
[/size]

 

[vo_obgyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is an incorrect statement. The reason people insist on double-blind testing is that throughout the scientific world, any researcher with any experience whatsoever knows that a single blind test will NEVER be as valid as a double blind test. The reason for this is that there is absolutely no way that anyone can 100% guarantee that the non-blinded half of the experimental design did not in some way, whether intentional or not, bias the results. The only way you can truly say that a test is unbiased is if it is double-blind. For example, try getting a drug approved by the FDA using a single-blinded clinical trial and you will be, literally, laughed at. Similarly, attempts to get any scientific data derived from single blind testing into a high impact journal will prove unsuccessful and rightfully so. There are countless examples, in the medical world at least, of single blind testing leading to erroneous results regardless of how insistent the investigators were regarding performing the test in a way that they believe could never possibly bias their results. There really is no discussion for the validity of single blinded vs. double blinded in modern science. The answer is simple...double blinded is the only 100% valid testing methodology. Oh, and before I get accused of being one of these "experts" who's talking nonsense...I've designed multiple translational research studies and clinical trials. El Duderino

This is what I was thinking when I first read the original post in this thread. El Duderino, your words on double blinded testing are 'spot-on." I'll back you up on this. Statistics and materials and as you noted, methods, all play important roles in testing.

 

[Know Talent]

wouldn't giving the subjects a brief listen to each cable bias the outcome? I'm no statistician but that seems odd

 

[myinitialsaredac]

I <3 you Bob,

Truly an impressive piece of writing, you had me going "what is this man doing!" Then all of a sudden wallah =D.

The experiment has its fault of not being double blind, but with a 100% rate, its impressive nonetheless.

Dave

 

[Orcin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is an incorrect statement. The reason people insist on double-blind testing is that throughout the scientific world, any researcher with any experience whatsoever knows that a single blind test will NEVER be as valid as a double blind test.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!

Not only did you bump a SEVEN-year old argument err... thread, a new forum record as far as I know, but you also defied the first stickied commandment: "Thou shalt not discuss DBT of cables on this forum."

Great job, well done!!