I don't believe that it is the cables that make the difference at all. It is the shape of the ear lobes - How many ridges, how far the lobes protrude etc. As one who does not have such good high frequency hearing as I used to have I find that sticking a finger behind the ear to make the lobe sit forward a bit drastically increases higher frequency hearing ability. This is not making a horn out of cupped hands. Just slightly bringing forward the ear lobe.
Any rugby forwards out there will know about cauliflower ears - do such people have golden ears maybe to compensate for the change in general appearance????
Any rugby forwards out there will know about cauliflower ears - do such people have golden ears maybe to compensate for the change in general appearance????
Audiophile review;
The cables in question present an accurate picture of the soundstage with no smearing of the lower mid range. High frequency response is particularly pleasing and handle female vocals well. I noted some defraction in imaging though about the mid register....
Rugby player review;
Cable good.
The cables in question present an accurate picture of the soundstage with no smearing of the lower mid range. High frequency response is particularly pleasing and handle female vocals well. I noted some defraction in imaging though about the mid register....
Rugby player review;
Cable good.
I think it's safe to summarize from this thread so far:
If cables make a difference, then the difference is EXTREMELY small. So far this appears to be a point where both sides of the debate agree.
The skeptics say the difference is so small as to be inaudible, and therefore irrelevant. The "believers" maintain that the difference is so small as to be potentially swamped by ABX box characteristics, or noticeable only if extended listening periods are employed.
The question is then what would be a reasonable expense for such a small "improvement"?
It seems that there is a very definite element of "diminishing returns" when speaking about speaker cables. The difference between opposing sides seems to be where one puts the optimum cost vs. benefit threshold.
Considering this, does anybody wish to volunteer what they think a reasonable "per foot" cost is for speaker cables?
I would be willing to pay in the neighbourhood of $1 per foot, for decent quality, and guage, copper speaker cables (not including connection hardware). Personally, I don't think I could justify spending any more.
If cables make a difference, then the difference is EXTREMELY small. So far this appears to be a point where both sides of the debate agree.
The skeptics say the difference is so small as to be inaudible, and therefore irrelevant. The "believers" maintain that the difference is so small as to be potentially swamped by ABX box characteristics, or noticeable only if extended listening periods are employed.
The question is then what would be a reasonable expense for such a small "improvement"?
It seems that there is a very definite element of "diminishing returns" when speaking about speaker cables. The difference between opposing sides seems to be where one puts the optimum cost vs. benefit threshold.
Considering this, does anybody wish to volunteer what they think a reasonable "per foot" cost is for speaker cables?
I would be willing to pay in the neighbourhood of $1 per foot, for decent quality, and guage, copper speaker cables (not including connection hardware). Personally, I don't think I could justify spending any more.
the reason to replace cables is simple after break-up as the result of listening to proper musical matherial they work well and sound rich, but if to mix all spectors they carry during a long time it may be mixed into a white noise that worn them out making them sounding dull, grayish. However, they may be reformed by proper musical spector, but it is too expencive, it is much cheaper to pay $40,000 only for new fresh cables.
My appologies if this link has already been posted, but if I didn't know better, I would have thought this website was a parody:
http://transparentcable.com/index2.html
The tech talk is particularly good for a laugh.
-Aaron
http://transparentcable.com/index2.html
The tech talk is particularly good for a laugh.
-Aaron
To be serious - as the transparent cable and other sites of the same ilk are (The owners of such sites are just laughing when checking their bank statement) - I look for a cable (interconnect) with good shielding and an excellent connector - mechanically. For LS I look for gauge size and the flexibility to use it for biamping (active)
Cable that fulfill those requirements can be found at belden and canare, at a foot price of between 0.70c - 1.20 or so.
I source rca interconnects - due to the tools needed diy doesn't make a lot of sense - from bluejeans, as they utilize the rcap connector which at 2$ ( a piece I think) is mechanically superior to any rca "boutique" connectors at ten times the price.
As I run most stuff balanced - I diy my xlr interconnects using the excellent neutrik connectors with canare l4E6S and the 4S11 speaker cable.
Cable that fulfill those requirements can be found at belden and canare, at a foot price of between 0.70c - 1.20 or so.
I source rca interconnects - due to the tools needed diy doesn't make a lot of sense - from bluejeans, as they utilize the rcap connector which at 2$ ( a piece I think) is mechanically superior to any rca "boutique" connectors at ten times the price.
As I run most stuff balanced - I diy my xlr interconnects using the excellent neutrik connectors with canare l4E6S and the 4S11 speaker cable.
macgyver10 said:
I think it is pretty safe to say that that conclusion is not based on the facts.I expect that the differences in the following 3 cases would be less than extremely small (and i'd win the bet)
The required counter example is the case of speaker wire vrs no speaker wire.
Now the next step up the chain is to compare something like 30 year old green (oxidized) 22 guage ZIP to say 10 or 12 guage OFC copper. Any difference you think? Small, large?
Then compare that last to a single strand of the last of the above to OFC 30 or higher guage magnet wire. Any difference you think? Small, large? (and here we immediately start running into one is better on some systems, and the reverse true in other systems)
You could probably say that about any piece of hifi kit.
dave
I think, planet10, we all are talking wire (actually "cable" approbriate to the purpose. We are not talking corroded, barb wire or constantan wire.
But comparing cable that is made for signal transfer in the range from 0 - 100kHz, I personally have not experienced a difference between cable costing 200$/ 3foot pair or the stuff that comes with the sony or technics unit.
I just don't like it because the connectors are "shitty" or the wire tends to break after a few years right at the junction with the connector.
But with wire in my experience more so than any other piece of audio gear. I can somewhat understand to build an amp for the market costing 10 k$ - but a pair of cables costing the same is just laughable.
But comparing cable that is made for signal transfer in the range from 0 - 100kHz, I personally have not experienced a difference between cable costing 200$/ 3foot pair or the stuff that comes with the sony or technics unit.
I just don't like it because the connectors are "shitty" or the wire tends to break after a few years right at the junction with the connector.
But with wire in my experience more so than any other piece of audio gear. I can somewhat understand to build an amp for the market costing 10 k$ - but a pair of cables costing the same is just laughable.
audio-kraut said:
Where do you draw the line? What is appropriate. That last example is a real world case. In some systems the fat wire will sound better. In others the magnet wire. And in both cases the difference won't be subtle. Wire cannot be divorced from the system.
Where do you draw the line? What consistutes appropriate for the purpose?
dave
PS: did you all try the experiment with the zip cord?
Now what have I started. That's why I will never be rich .... can't keep me ruddy mounth shut.
.... and the realists say, as stated a few years ago by Douglas Self: "Why I buy my cables at Woolworths".
Jamikl, my friend!
Rugby ears - they will not understand. I bet we do! (Gonna beat you at the World Cup pal!).
Old green wire - been done. In a test about a decade ago some naughty person left a length of RG58 in sea water for 3 months. When disected later the whole core was GREEN, etc. - never mind the screen. But in a loudspeaker test using some 6 different cables, it came second ....
Quasi,
Please excuse my lack of culture (it might have showed earlier). Could you please give me the title of that haunting verse at the end of your posts, either here or on my e-mail address privately? Much obliged.
Regards.
macgyver10 said:
.... and the realists say, as stated a few years ago by Douglas Self: "Why I buy my cables at Woolworths".
Jamikl, my friend!
Rugby ears - they will not understand. I bet we do! (Gonna beat you at the World Cup pal!).
Old green wire - been done. In a test about a decade ago some naughty person left a length of RG58 in sea water for 3 months. When disected later the whole core was GREEN, etc. - never mind the screen. But in a loudspeaker test using some 6 different cables, it came second ....
Quasi,
Please excuse my lack of culture (it might have showed earlier). Could you please give me the title of that haunting verse at the end of your posts, either here or on my e-mail address privately? Much obliged.
Regards.
All these arguments and published test are great, but I have one worry:
Since there are so many blind tests that show no one can reliably tell one phono cartridge from another, or CD player, or amplifier, or DAC or RCA cable, speaker cable, etc. - why bother?
The only thing we don't seem to deny is that speakers sound different. So why not just buy the cheapest stuff possible, and get good speakers? That $30 DVD player at Wal-Mart is starting to look pretty good.
In fact there are probably blind tests that show no one call tell the difference between crossover components of the same value, MDF from plywood, poly-fill stuffing from fiberglass from wool. All that matters in a speaker is crossover topology, box size and tuning, and maybe drivers.
It all gets pretty simple. But somehow I suspect that just isn't right. Or have I been duped by the audio marketers, reviewers and enthusiasts?
Since there are so many blind tests that show no one can reliably tell one phono cartridge from another, or CD player, or amplifier, or DAC or RCA cable, speaker cable, etc. - why bother?
The only thing we don't seem to deny is that speakers sound different. So why not just buy the cheapest stuff possible, and get good speakers? That $30 DVD player at Wal-Mart is starting to look pretty good.
In fact there are probably blind tests that show no one call tell the difference between crossover components of the same value, MDF from plywood, poly-fill stuffing from fiberglass from wool. All that matters in a speaker is crossover topology, box size and tuning, and maybe drivers.
It all gets pretty simple. But somehow I suspect that just isn't right. Or have I been duped by the audio marketers, reviewers and enthusiasts?
If the salesguy and a couple of reviewer chimps from S'phile told everyone that the sea soak was deliberate and made the sound startlingly, jawdroppingly better (along with some bs explanation about green CDs, catching photons, and containing unleashed energies...), you'd have gullible audiofashionistas grabbing the green stuff every time.
If that's true, why is there a debate? Differences that can't be picked up in controlled subjective testing must be more subtle than 0.1dB level shifts, or 0.3dB changes in EQ.
Careful with that straw man, it's inflammable!
If that's true, why is there a debate? Differences that can't be picked up in controlled subjective testing must be more subtle than 0.1dB level shifts, or 0.3dB changes in EQ.
Careful with that straw man, it's inflammable!
There are tests that clearly show that differences between cd players can be perceived - although they are subtle as well.
The same goes for differences between tube and SS amps.
So there are perceivable differnces between gear, tetsed and true - just not for cabeling.
I also had done a test between a shure V15V and a shure ultra 500.
Both mounted on different arms on different record players with different phono preamps (studio type). Just a fun test to see if differences show up between two very differnt sysrtems - one an airbearing arm on a thorens, the other a sme arm on a transcriptor.
There were clearly (9/10 times) perceivable differences between the cartidges - but only in the upper range - could as well have been the filter curve of the phono preamps.
The same goes for differences between tube and SS amps.
So there are perceivable differnces between gear, tetsed and true - just not for cabeling.
I also had done a test between a shure V15V and a shure ultra 500.
Both mounted on different arms on different record players with different phono preamps (studio type). Just a fun test to see if differences show up between two very differnt sysrtems - one an airbearing arm on a thorens, the other a sme arm on a transcriptor.
There were clearly (9/10 times) perceivable differences between the cartidges - but only in the upper range - could as well have been the filter curve of the phono preamps.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.