Cymbal Monkey
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2010
- Posts
- 142
- Likes
- 14
And as such audiophilla will always be considered stupid.
1. we can pretty much state for a fact the new cables aren't any WORSE than stock or cheap ones, and they may possibly yield SQ that is minutely/subtly better than stock/cheap ones. no doubt millions of variables go into creating the final experience of sound quality. at the very least, my purchase decision has opened my rig up to the possibility that if there is some chance for SQ improvement via resistance/conductivity differences, i may avail myself of it, BUT even if there isn't, i'm not any worse off SQ wise, and the cables and connectors look cool as hell. Q: no one has scientifically proven that pro-cables improve sound, but has anyone scientifically prove they do not or can not?
You have to examine this question on a case by case basis. Some cables can actually be really bad in an objectively measurable way. There are all sorts of tricks you can do to deliberately alter sound amd then there is fundamentally bad design. Sterephile tested some analog cables that used an optical coupler system ($1900) these added huge amounts of distortion and noise and were apalling by any rational high fidelity criteria. The FR did not get flat until 100hz, adding audible harmonic distortion and ***reducing*** the dynamic range of the signal. The reviewer spoke about purity, transparency, natural and believable and so on. So either the reviewer is as deaf as a post or prefers really bad sound, (it was Michael Fremer a vinylist) or was biased by what he knew about the cables or perhaps we cannot easily detect these enormous degradations in hifi kit in which case why bother anyway, who knows.
2. i wonder if anti-cable people's sentiments have anything to do with their being unable to afford the nice cables? or if there is any correlation to the person's attitudes about money.
II bought some expensive cables, I tested them , listened to them, I sold them, (apart from the silver ones that nobody would buy from me) I can afford expensive cables, I choose to spend my money elsewhere. If I seriously thought expensive cables could be a positive benefit I would buy them. The evidence however is insufficient to make that case.
3. if it is truly only a placebo affect, and that my 620$ was a complete waste of money on this rig, but i believe that it sounds better, then who's to say it wasn't worth it or that it wasn't real?
Your money, your choice. But wouldn't you like to know if it was just in your mind?
wow, this is an intense debate. when i jumped in and made my first purchase, here is the extra i spent for elite cables:
recabling on the K702s ( 6ft of blackdragon w/furutech plug) = $310
blackdragon interconnects 1.5ft w/ WRT 0144 connectors = $220
wireworld starlight usb cable (for DAC) = $90
total = $620
so nearly 1/3 of my expenditure was for high end cables, cuz the whole rig (Burson HA-160, K702s recabled, HRT MS II+ DAC, and all cables) = $1925
things that come to mind:
1. we can pretty much state for a fact the new cables aren't any WORSE than stock or cheap ones, and they may possibly yield SQ that is minutely/subtly better than stock/cheap ones. no doubt millions of variables go into creating the final experience of sound quality. at the very least, my purchase decision has opened my rig up to the possibility that if there is some chance for SQ improvement via resistance/conductivity differences, i may avail myself of it, BUT even if there isn't, i'm not any worse off SQ wise, and the cables and connectors look cool as hell. Q: no one has scientifically proven that pro-cables improve sound, but has anyone scientifically prove they do not or can not?
2. i wonder if anti-cable people's sentiments have anything to do with their being unable to afford the nice cables? or if there is any correlation to the person's attitudes about money.
3. if it is truly only a placebo affect, and that my 620$ was a complete waste of money on this rig, but i believe that it sounds better, then who's to say it wasn't worth it or that it wasn't real?
hahaha. what a fun subject.
3. if it is truly only a placebo affect, and that my 620$ was a complete waste of money on this rig, but i believe that it sounds better, then who's to say it wasn't worth it or that it wasn't real?
vikingred, the "can you afford it" argument has been kicked around plenty of times. If I can pick up a $10,000 vinyl rig, let me assure you that buying a cable is not a problem. I probably have spend another $20k on various electronics and test gear, too.
I've been willing to explore all sorts of audio gear. Whatever major variation there is, I've tried it. Circuit topologies for amps are interesting, different types of transducers and I've got about eight different sources. Of course, I took an interest in cables, too. But I did not find a difference. I listened (and still do) to various cables and have also tested them. I found no difference. To be fair, I don't find much difference in digital sources, either. I wouldn't mind using a $29 DVD player with a quality amp and headphones/speakers.
I think you are sincere in your belief, but I am also sincere in not finding any difference whatsoever. You cannot place that difference on being "cheap" or "hating" cables. I've blindly bought all manner of gear - electrostats, AMTs, solid state, tubes, many things, and am offering my opinion on what I heard and measured. It's OK to buy cables for cosmetics and durability (I have), but there's no need to spend more for alleged sonic benefits. If you're not happy with the way something sounds, buy something you like. If you don't like your headphones' sound, get different headphones. Or maybe try them with a different amp - there are quantifiable and measurable differences between amps. Recabling headphones doesn't make any difference. I've tried it.
@nycbone
Your post here strikes me, a non-scientist but also a non-believer in the "magic" of cables, as the best and most levelheaded one in all of these discussions about cables.
UE, I think your arguments against cables are sound, but today at a meet I heard two cables and there was an easily audible difference between them. I actually have an anti-cable agenda so I'm really surprised and dissapointed now. I dunno what to think now ... but I will still stick with my anti-cable beliefs even though I heard a difference. The anti-cable arguments just make so much sense, I can't change my beliefs even though I heard the difference. I'd rather trust logic than myself.
Wait, stop for one second and think back. Did you control perfectly the test? Could one system with one cable have sounded louder than the other? If you don't think so, did you actually measure the difference?
Â
Were you expecting something out of them? Did anyone say how good A sounded compared to B because the latter sounded in another way?
Â
Just think how many things could have made it sound really different, as I don't believe the test was really controlled and set (for what you say)
Â
You don't need to distrust logic. It would be illogical, wouldn't it?
Â
Can anyone explain why cables might make a difference in frequency response?
Their job is to get electrons form one place to another, right?
Does the wire composition, gauge, length or any other parameter influence the flow of electrons between components?
If so, how?
I seem to recall that heavier gauge wire should be used for longer runs (e.g., for loudspeakers located a good distance from the amplifier).
And that 'electron lag' can result in certain types of circuits - e.g., series circuits with light bulbs where the bulbs are dim compared to bulbs in a parallel circuit.
I'm not sure that this would take place in a wire conductor.
If not, why should it matter (in terms of frequency response, not SQ) if an expensive, beefy cable is used or a single strand or wire?