Cable Happy.

I am coming incresingly to wonder why I look into this thread. I think its something of a pity people can't (or don 't) make balanced statements...rather than sweeping ones which to me seem at best misguided.

May be this is a poor anology; if I was stood on top of a mountain with soemone and they said they could see soemthing on the horizon which I wasn't able to, I wouldn't swear blind the thing didn't exist.

Straaange.......

Perhapts this recent post of Rollos saves us all more trouble;


"We have conducted too many blind tests at our club meetings. The results proved that cables sound different. Actually the only guys who didn't hear a difference [ 2 out of 15 ] were the frugal type."

 

David,

Rob's post is balanced I'm afraid. In your analogy, if you stood on the top of a mountain and said you could see five pink and blue pigs flying towards you, being chased by kagaroos in stretch limos at speeds in excess of 100mph, I think I would be within my rights to question your sanity.

 

That's a ridiculous analogy. Everyone knows that Kagaroos use mopeds, it's Kangaroos that use the limos.

 

Rob,
There is nothing wrong with inexpensive cables if you like them. If ay of the cables you mentioned have a synergy with your system great. Each cable has a specific capacitance, inductance and impedance. Our components react differently to the amount of each in a cable. So there is no one cable for all. Wether its generic or exotic.
IMO its finding the cable that meets the needs of the connecting equipment. Some like high capacitance, some don't and so on. Too much cap will roll off the highs in some cases. Some will introduce an impedance mismatch.
I believe if the component manf's told us the cap, inductance and impedance req. for their component the cable game would be much easier. Then we could buy the cable that meets those parameters. Naim and Linn do. Their cables are engineered for their components. A lesson all cable manf's should consider IMO.

rollo

 

Its no secret. This is what we did. WE had two different ICs from different manf's of one meter length. One of copper wire one of silver both unshielded. We played a cut for 30 seconds with cable "A" four times then cable "B" four times. Then we randomly played each again for 30 seconds. For me the tonality was tough to dicern but the overall presentation was not. The silver cable was thin and forward. The copper had more weight and was set back in the soundstage. The silver cable was more detailed as well. Actually a bit bright. I am very sensitive to the top end presentation. With that in mind the silver IC hyped up the treble and we heard more sibilance on voice than the copper. So for me it was easy. It was the top end that gave it away. Others locked in on bass, some soudstage size, some image size. Quite interesting that all heard or concentrated on different things to make their decision.
In the end some preferred the silver presentation others the copper. What most conclude was they sounded different.
Seriously man, try it some day its fun and let us know your findings.

rollo

 

Well, in that instance, I too would be a little sceptical......

 

Science tells us pink and blue pigs can't fly.

 

I'd suggest a little levity, lightening up etc, respecting others viewpoints perhaps on ZG, but I'm sure the idea would be shot down in flames as it can't be scientifically measured.

Ah well, nice to drop by again, but sad to see nothing's changed.

 

Actually SM science in fact tells us they can-just not in this universe.
Oh and over there Elvis isn't dead and you're a nice guy;-)

 

Ah!

So that'll be where this crap about cable differences comes from...

Sorry to say I've become fairly attached to planet Earth

 

do you think the feeling is mutual?


;-)

 

;-)

 

Just joking SM;-) but it did throw up an interesting OT notion and probably a new thread.
Imagine through a freak fluctuation in the flux capacitor, being transported into a universe where everything you'd heard and hated about audio was the norm-all those 'orrible distortions and colourations and shite bands were all there was.
Now who'd be market leaders for kit?

I

 

Would it be dealers on ZG?

 

just how do some off you lot think manufacturers design and build their amps , cd players and speakers if they dont use science and measurements for buddhas sake.

get a grip.


do you think silver cable would make the internet faster and your phones clearer sounding.

have any of you wizards and voodoo boys done basic science .....

jesus h . crippin.

end of.:beat:

 

The answer to that is fairly obvious isn't it?

 

darryl, no i dont think going back to electrical exchanges would make my phone sound any better.

and the only thing that would speed up the internet would me if SM didn't waste so much bandwidth with his endless anti cable rants.

do you think your cd's sound better when you play them on a record deck?

and do you think cat 5 cable has a name forthe good of it's own health? No of course not it's built to a specification that allows accurate signal transmission..... oh what's that you say, cables making a difference to the internet.....


have you not done basic networking 101.

 

how many cable non-believers have actually took the time to set their speakers up perfectly for 3d imaging and then had a good sit down with a few different brands of ICs and speaker cables ?

 

well, I know that both myself and Stereo Mic have done both careful speaker positioning, and then gone the whole hog and used the full, complete (non-shareware!!!- important) version of 'CARA' to model the room, and ensure exactly the right speaker placement, to within milimetres of where the speaker should be.

Having done that, I know that I (and SM) have both tried quite a few brands of IC, speaker cables, and power cables.

My own system is relatively modest, with a second hand value of about £5,000, and a full new RRP of about 3 times that. It's certainly not beyond criticism, and doesn't represent state of the art in any way.

SM's system however is at least twice the value, uses much better components, and is of greater resolution.

 

For what it's worth, I remember visiting the sales manager of an audio company who'd had his listening/demo room properly sorted by a professional and the differences between speakers of different price levels was much smaller than I heard on identical equipment in "my" dem room - every speaker we heard at all price ranges sounded blooming marvellous to us. In his environment, where the fundamentals are properly sorted, I'd be very surprised to hear any huge differences in the cables, more very subtle refinements.

To go the other way, anyone here remember the whole Peter Belt "thing" from twenty years ago? - Holy water and sticky bits of foil stuck on everything - The main protagonist was Jimmy Hughes and in his lounge/listening room I heard all manner of differences. At home, I heard nothing and actually thought I had a better sound anyway.......

P.S. Early Arcam CD players worked best with some Audioquest IC's. They imported these cables at the time and I suspect used them in the final setting up of the output circuits and "voicing" of the players...