Re: Re: The sound of cables...
Once more it seems that you don't understand the test and the purpose of the test...
Of course there are no better cable that no cable at all...but what the test do, is to show you ,between two cablest to pick the best one...
But if it mesure better...it will sound better...because it will tranfer more faithfully the voltage from the amp connectors to the speakers connectors...
This is the role of a cable...at last for me!!!
So in a nutshell:
-for you audio is note measurable... is a question of personal taste...conclusion for you audio is not engineering!!!
If the people, that believe that audio is engineerring, doesn't exist ( as the missed David Hafler...Baxandall and others)...you and the people that believe that listening is all...will be at this moment trying to improove (by listening of course) the phonograph of Edison (by the way another one that believe in mesurements...!!!!)
carlosfm said:
Once more it seems that you don't understand the test and the purpose of the test...
Of course there are no better cable that no cable at all...but what the test do, is to show you ,between two cablest to pick the best one...
But if it mesure better...it will sound better...because it will tranfer more faithfully the voltage from the amp connectors to the speakers connectors...
This is the role of a cable...at last for me!!!
Pure luck is to choose by listening without any measurement...between the (maybe ) thousands of cables that exist in the market...
So in a nutshell:
-for you audio is note measurable... is a question of personal taste...conclusion for you audio is not engineering!!!
If the people, that believe that audio is engineerring, doesn't exist ( as the missed David Hafler...Baxandall and others)...you and the people that believe that listening is all...will be at this moment trying to improove (by listening of course) the phonograph of Edison (by the way another one that believe in mesurements...!!!!)
Jorge, please...
Don´t try to turn things upside down.
I just said that cables are the worst thing to measure and get to a conclusion.
And I said several times that measurements are good initial indications, nothing more.
Those initial indications can be confirmed (or not) in the listening tests.
Some people may prefer a valve amp when comparing to a transistor amp, an it may measure worst.
I was not referring about the design when I talked about taste.
So simple as to say that the amp you like may not be for me.
Is that difficult to understand?
Isn't audio, in the end, a subjective matter?
Don´t try to turn things upside down.
I just said that cables are the worst thing to measure and get to a conclusion.
And I said several times that measurements are good initial indications, nothing more.
Those initial indications can be confirmed (or not) in the listening tests.
Some people may prefer a valve amp when comparing to a transistor amp, an it may measure worst.
I was not referring about the design when I talked about taste.
So simple as to say that the amp you like may not be for me.
Is that difficult to understand?
Isn't audio, in the end, a subjective matter?
subjective engineering?
Carlos, as I'm not yet ready to jump off the LCR thing, I'd like to ask you this. Forget about measuring the cable with a null or frequency response. If we have two different cables (speaker, interconnect, what ever), and they measure with the same LCR properties, are you saying it's possible for them differing audible effects?
Chris
Carlos, as I'm not yet ready to jump off the LCR thing, I'd like to ask you this. Forget about measuring the cable with a null or frequency response. If we have two different cables (speaker, interconnect, what ever), and they measure with the same LCR properties, are you saying it's possible for them differing audible effects?
Chris
That doesn’t exist.
But probably they would play the same.
They had to have the same plugs, same size, etc.
After all, the same LCR.
It simply doesn’t exist.
I was only trying to say that you’re measuring the cable connected to a device.
That cable can even be good with that amp or whatever and play bad with another.
But if you could have two cables with the same LCR, of course they would measure the same.
The difficulty is that there are so many different cables and with different results when partnering with equipment that the mission to have reliable conclusions seams impossibe.
But probably they would play the same.
They had to have the same plugs, same size, etc.
After all, the same LCR.
It simply doesn’t exist.
I was only trying to say that you’re measuring the cable connected to a device.
That cable can even be good with that amp or whatever and play bad with another.
But if you could have two cables with the same LCR, of course they would measure the same.
The difficulty is that there are so many different cables and with different results when partnering with equipment that the mission to have reliable conclusions seams impossibe.
Re: subjective engineering?
Yes, in simple physics terms they can. The simplest example I can think of is the length. Another is "degree of screening", and another is microphony. A cable can have many properties which aren't modelled just by an LCR circuit, and these are certainly significant in other applications (RF, mic cables, etc).
Whether or not any of these are actually significant for line or speaker-level connections, I can't say.
Cheers
IH
Christopher said:
Yes, in simple physics terms they can. The simplest example I can think of is the length. Another is "degree of screening", and another is microphony. A cable can have many properties which aren't modelled just by an LCR circuit, and these are certainly significant in other applications (RF, mic cables, etc).
Whether or not any of these are actually significant for line or speaker-level connections, I can't say.
Cheers
IH
IanHarvey said:
Let me quantify that a bit more - there are matters of degree to be sorted out. As the rest of your system gets better, the acceptable threshold for cable defects obviously goes down, but just how the numbers actually work, I don't know.
For instance, a "Hi Fi" mag I read recently came up with a suggested "budget" system where they recommended you spend £130 on (Mission) speakers, about the same on an amp and CD player, and a whole £40 on (DMN) interconnect from CD to amp. Is this actually justified, anyone?
Are they claiming that all £20 interconnects would have defects which are audible through these speakers, or is it just a "hang it, it doesn't add much to the total but looks good" thing?
Cheers
IH
Speaker cables make much more difference, even on budget systems, than interconnects.
I would prefer to buy a good but not expensive speaker cable for that system (for instance, Kimber 4PR), and stick with the cheap interconnects.
You will notice a change in sound when you pass around the 150 Euros barrier, and that's too much for that system.
Even on a good system, below 150 € for an interconnect you will only have very subtle changes, you may even have difficulty in understanding why did you spend the money on that interconnect.
But if you change your 4 PR speaker cable, which is good, for 4TC, oh yes, I assure you'll notice another world of sound.
You'll feel the need to listen to all your cd's again.
Enjoy the music.
I would prefer to buy a good but not expensive speaker cable for that system (for instance, Kimber 4PR), and stick with the cheap interconnects.
You will notice a change in sound when you pass around the 150 Euros barrier, and that's too much for that system.
Even on a good system, below 150 € for an interconnect you will only have very subtle changes, you may even have difficulty in understanding why did you spend the money on that interconnect.
But if you change your 4 PR speaker cable, which is good, for 4TC, oh yes, I assure you'll notice another world of sound.
You'll feel the need to listen to all your cd's again.
Enjoy the music.
fdegrove said:Hi,
Hmmmm, strange...most people would put it the other way around.
Cheers,
Well, this is my personal experience and other people I know.
I tested several interconnects (without buying them) and was never convinced about their sound.
Only then a friend of mine lended me a pair of Qed Silver Spiral interconnects, I liked them, and I bought them.
They costed me around 150 Euros.
It's the only ones that convinced me.
After that I heard some more expensive, and yes, they're good too.
But I wouldn't spend my money and time on Kimber PBJ or cables of that price range (I tried several).
I heard them and didn't notice any change from my diy cables with cheap wire.
With speaker cables, you see the results in every cent you spend.
From Supra 2.5 to Kimber 4PR to Kimber 4TC you hear big improvements.
Some 8 years ago I tried 4TC, I bought it, and that's more than enough for me.
I completely forget speaker cables since then.
I'm satisfied for the next 100 years.
Note: my diy interconnects with Cat.5 cable give many commercial products a run for their money.
Poor Kimper PBJ...
Time do some actual listening...
Here's some recent listening experience, for information:
About a year ago I'd upgraded one of my systems with a few tweaks - replacing a naff carbon-track volume pot with a nice conductive-plastic one, fiddling with the grounding in the amp, fitting Speakons on the amp output, and replacing the speaker cable (from 10A twin mains lead to some chunky 4-core OFC bi-wire cable).
Together, these made a hell of a difference (to the subjective experience, at least); particularly the top end was a lot cleaner & more focused. I didn't do any "proper" listening tests, but I'd had the setup for many years and was very familiar with the sound. I certainly noticed lots of things for the first time in the weeks afterwards.
(The speakers were from a Wilmslow Audio kit with a Volt bass unit & Scanspeak soft-dome tweeter. The amp is based on the now sadly discontinued Maplin 150W MOSFET amp module, with a few mods, in a dual-monobloc configuration).
At the time, I didn't investigate what made the biggest difference. I mostly suspected the volume pot, which was fairly old & decrepit by this stage, with the cables in second place.
Anyway, I've just gone back & listened to the old & replacement cables in isolation, and also some new (QED Silver Anniversary) bi-wire. Overall, the difference between the two biwiring cables and the mains lead was pretty marked - it confirmed my first impression of the top end being much cleaner; I also thought the bass end had better definition and stuff in general was more 3-dimensional.
The difference between the OFC and QED cables was less definite; I wasn't convinced that the sound was precisely the same, the QED was maybe a little bit brighter. On the other hand, I wouldn't promise I could tell them apart blind, and the difference wasn't as much as, say, removing the speaker grilles. I can't say this would be a change I'd notice day-to-day, unlike the original upgrade.
Maybe, therefore, any further improvements in cable will be smaller and smaller (and only therefore significant if I worry about minutiae, which I don't...)
Cheers
IH
Here's some recent listening experience, for information:
About a year ago I'd upgraded one of my systems with a few tweaks - replacing a naff carbon-track volume pot with a nice conductive-plastic one, fiddling with the grounding in the amp, fitting Speakons on the amp output, and replacing the speaker cable (from 10A twin mains lead to some chunky 4-core OFC bi-wire cable).
Together, these made a hell of a difference (to the subjective experience, at least); particularly the top end was a lot cleaner & more focused. I didn't do any "proper" listening tests, but I'd had the setup for many years and was very familiar with the sound. I certainly noticed lots of things for the first time in the weeks afterwards.
(The speakers were from a Wilmslow Audio kit with a Volt bass unit & Scanspeak soft-dome tweeter. The amp is based on the now sadly discontinued Maplin 150W MOSFET amp module, with a few mods, in a dual-monobloc configuration).
At the time, I didn't investigate what made the biggest difference. I mostly suspected the volume pot, which was fairly old & decrepit by this stage, with the cables in second place.
Anyway, I've just gone back & listened to the old & replacement cables in isolation, and also some new (QED Silver Anniversary) bi-wire. Overall, the difference between the two biwiring cables and the mains lead was pretty marked - it confirmed my first impression of the top end being much cleaner; I also thought the bass end had better definition and stuff in general was more 3-dimensional.
The difference between the OFC and QED cables was less definite; I wasn't convinced that the sound was precisely the same, the QED was maybe a little bit brighter. On the other hand, I wouldn't promise I could tell them apart blind, and the difference wasn't as much as, say, removing the speaker grilles. I can't say this would be a change I'd notice day-to-day, unlike the original upgrade.
Maybe, therefore, any further improvements in cable will be smaller and smaller (and only therefore significant if I worry about minutiae, which I don't...)
Cheers
IH
Do me (and you) a favour, Ian.
Try Kimber 4 TC.
You'll have a big improvement over that Qed.
I find that Qed speaker cables have a tendency to be bright in the treble (almost aggressive).
And you'll find that after all, those Qeds aren't so good as they claim, and they aren't a step forward from what you had.
See if a dealer can lend you a pair of 4TC to try at home.
I think that in the end, you'll buy them.
And if you can afford 8TC...
Try Kimber 4 TC.
You'll have a big improvement over that Qed.
I find that Qed speaker cables have a tendency to be bright in the treble (almost aggressive).
And you'll find that after all, those Qeds aren't so good as they claim, and they aren't a step forward from what you had.
See if a dealer can lend you a pair of 4TC to try at home.
I think that in the end, you'll buy them.
And if you can afford 8TC...
Oh, what the heck, one more try.
Remember, I said with the same LCR properties.
Now,
How?
How? (I'm assuming you havn't designed a cable with excessivly differing lengths going to the same termination as we have already addressed that)
Screening can only make a difference to the sound of the cable if it's required, and microphony would require a pretty outragous design before it could be audible, both are easily measureable. It will most definately change the LCR of a similar unscreened cable, but remember, we're listening for differences in cables that measure the same LCR.
What I'm getting at here, is that people keep talking about sonic properties of various conduting and insulating materials like they were the wood in a violin or something. Until one of you provides some sort of credible evidence to the contrary, when it comes to cables, sonic differences are electrical differences. That is a fact. And if you were to go to an engineering conference and tell the masses that you could change the properties of a signal going through a conductor without changing it's electrical properties, you would have the attention of everyone present. If you then preceded to present them with the above 'evidence' you would be laughed out of the room. Plain and simple. From an engineering technology point of view, the signal level, frequency and BW of an interconnect or speaker cable is childs play. I routinely use equipment that can measure resistance into the thousanths of an ohm. That is way beyond any difference a cable could impart even at the tone arm. And I don't work with sophisticated stuff.
Since this is a thread on blind listening tests, why don't you guys all just do a quick DBLT with your favorite speaker cable vs. zip cord. If you are so certain you could tell the difference, what are you afraid of. It would take less than an hour. If the difference is obvious, you can take some measurements and start to come up with a theory.
I'm going to, but my results are biased because whether I hear a difference or not, I will be biased towards not. You guys on the other hand are trying to hear a difference, so your results would be more credible than mine. (assuming the test is done properly)
So, why not?
Chris
Remember, I said with the same LCR properties.
Now,
How?
How?
How? (I'm assuming you havn't designed a cable with excessivly differing lengths going to the same termination as we have already addressed that)
Screening can only make a difference to the sound of the cable if it's required, and microphony would require a pretty outragous design before it could be audible, both are easily measureable. It will most definately change the LCR of a similar unscreened cable, but remember, we're listening for differences in cables that measure the same LCR.
What I'm getting at here, is that people keep talking about sonic properties of various conduting and insulating materials like they were the wood in a violin or something. Until one of you provides some sort of credible evidence to the contrary, when it comes to cables, sonic differences are electrical differences. That is a fact. And if you were to go to an engineering conference and tell the masses that you could change the properties of a signal going through a conductor without changing it's electrical properties, you would have the attention of everyone present. If you then preceded to present them with the above 'evidence' you would be laughed out of the room. Plain and simple. From an engineering technology point of view, the signal level, frequency and BW of an interconnect or speaker cable is childs play. I routinely use equipment that can measure resistance into the thousanths of an ohm. That is way beyond any difference a cable could impart even at the tone arm. And I don't work with sophisticated stuff.
Since this is a thread on blind listening tests, why don't you guys all just do a quick DBLT with your favorite speaker cable vs. zip cord. If you are so certain you could tell the difference, what are you afraid of. It would take less than an hour. If the difference is obvious, you can take some measurements and start to come up with a theory.
I'm going to, but my results are biased because whether I hear a difference or not, I will be biased towards not. You guys on the other hand are trying to hear a difference, so your results would be more credible than mine. (assuming the test is done properly)
So, why not?
Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.