Cable and Hobbes; a philosophical approach

In contemplating the recurring cable debates philosophically, Hobbes doesn't offer much comfort - “Hell is truth seen too lateâ€Â. And what are we to make of this passage from “Leviathanâ€Â?

“For the Schooles find in meere Appetite to go, or move, no actuall Motion at all: but because some Motion they must acknowledge, they call it Metaphoricall Motion; which is but an absurd speech; for though Words may by called metaphoricall; Bodies and Motions cannot.â€Â

So, is that pro- or anti-cable? As a cable non-believer, I would tend to read it one way and a cable believer another.

However, it then occurred to me that the way out is easy – we replace “cable†in my title with “Calvinâ€Â. Everything then becomes crystal clear. Calvin has a stuffed tiger called Hobbes. At least, to everyone else, Hobbes is a stuffed tiger. But not to Calvin. To Calvin, Hobbes is alive and (all too frequently) kicking.

Readers of the strip will notice that artist Bill Watterson never resolved (and indeed took good care never to resolve) the central dilemma of the strip – whether Hobbes comes magically alive when Calvin alone is around, or whether Hobbes's life is purely a figment of Calvin's vastly overheated and overactive imagination. The answer is simply; it depends on who's doing the observing. To each participant, his or her particular version is real.

Thus it is with cables, interconnects, tweaks and all the rest. There are those, like myself, who believe that they make no difference whatsoever – and that is based not only on my scientific background and prejudices but also on my having tried most of these things and found them wanting. On the other hand, many knowledgeable people on this forum do hear differences when they use different cables, etc., and I respect the opinions of such people. It matters not at all whether the difference is there in reality and I'm simply lacking the hearing or perception to hear it (and I appreciate that I'm not getting any younger or my hearing better), or whether it exists only in the heads of the believers. It therefore saddens me that we go to war too frequently over such a subjective issue.

Because it all comes back to Calvin and Hobbes – the central dilemma will NEVER be resolved, no matter how much single, double, triple blind testing we do. Such tests will inform, but will probably never change anyone's mind. And on the C&H principle, they perhaps shouldn't. We should remain happy and secure in our own world, and if someone wants to spend a squillion whatever on ICs, power cords and cables, why not? If it makes them happy, fine by me. (I'm merely jealous, because I don't have a squillion whatever to spend on anything!). And as Calvin's long-suffering parents will never be convinced that Hobbes is other than an inanimate object, Calvin can't believe that they can't see a live tiger. And that's how it will stay.

I hereby propose that we all accept the Calvin and Hobbes School of Cable Philosophy.

 

I quite agree Tones.
(I'm also glad to know I'm not the only reader of C&H!)

 

some cables are better than others. be it the construction or how they sound. i have heard differences in bass clarity and treble/ midrange clarity between differing leads. i make no excuses for the cost of certain leads and i don't believe that the more expensive something is, the better it will be. this deserves to be cleared up because the 'snake oil' brigade appear, at least, to be denying this simple truth on the grounds that people are making lots of money out of it.

 

Oh no, do we have to have another thread arguing about the same damned thing over again?

-- Ian

 

not falling for that one then?

any takers?

 

I for one wasn't arguing, Ian, I'm basically saying that there's nowt to argue about!

 

Amen that to that .

 

Frankly, I'd rather chew my own feet off, so I'll pass...

-- Ian

 

I think the example is tendentious, (pardon my English), but I agree with the message... :gary:

 

Only insofar as the underlying purpose is mild amusement, Antonio, a bit of levity in a subject that, in my opinion, too many folk take far too seriously. I don't believe in cable-derived improvements, some folk do, that's fine by me. I don't have to listen to their systems nor they to mine, so everyone's happy - I hope.

 

Then we'd get to the real purpose of music, attached below.

 

In my expereience the cheap freebies leads sound awful, but then they have limited bandwidth and hardly any RFI shielding.

The £10 cables (with a nicer plug, higher purity copper and better sheilding) sound much better. However after this it gets harder to tell the differences.

I could not tell any differece at all between the QNEX 1 and QNEX 2. My IXOS 1002 sounds a bit more detailed than those two but then it does have a completly different type of contruction.

I think in generaly most cables sound pretty much the same but you get the odd one that sounds differnet. Also note the different and not better.

The stuff RA sells (that £8000 per metre speaker cable) is just pathetic joke. I am sure £40pm stuff will sound just as good.

I prefer to spend my money on clubbing, socliaisng, holidays, gigs, festivals and music than keep messing about with tweaks now.

 

Interesting you should say that, AT.... A couple of weeks ago, someone loaned me a set of expensive, very high quality ICs, WBT locking plugs and all (so pretty that I was tempted to keep them just for their ornamental value). I grubbed around for a comparison - and the only thing I could find was exactly what you mentioned above, a cheap freebie. So, I took turns in swapping them between the Meridiam 588 and the EAR 834 pre-amp in No.2 system - and guess what? Correct, no difference at all, at least none that I could detect. Now, this might well comprise the ultimate proof that I need a bigger ear trumpet, or perhaps two, but if you were me, would you buy the expensive ones and dump the freebies? Needless to say, the expensive ones went back.

 

Just out of interest I wonder if people who use headphones a lot notice a bigger difference? With speakers subtle differences are much harder to tell because there is other noises and you're more engaged with the music to really care, with headphones the music is going directly into your ears so its much more noticable.

Or then maybe I just have crap speakers considering my headphones cost the same amount.

 

I use headphones a lot (because the girls can't stand listening to Bach!), but I didn't use headphones on this particular comparison, so I don't know whether it would have made a difference.

 

Ah.... Now I know those hours spend reading those comic books are not wasted time.

Wonderful.