I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[greg7]

Here's a good survey on cables for general knowledge.

http://www.unik.no/~robert/hifi/cable-survey.html

Based on the large sample size of respondents and the results overwhelmingly in favor of cables having different sonics I'd have to say it's gospel.

[mrfeedback]

Originally posted by andy_c
Hi mrfeedback,
Sounds interesting! Could you provide a link to the post you're referring to or to the cable spec itself?
Thanks

From a previous post in another thread...

Hello Dave,
I have used 12-pair indoor telephone cable for years.
Fan out the pairs and group all the whites together as one conductor, and ditto all the colours.
This will give plenty of conductance, and gives a very low inductance connection.
I have used this on many systems and I find it gives a very fine result every time.
You should be able to obtain it at electrical wholesalers, or from metals recyclers.
Either way it is cheap, and the results very good.

Hi Andy, there it is.
You can try 20-pair also.
I have been using this cable for years and can't be bothered with anything else nowadays.
The insulation is pvc, and whilst other members may recommend teflon insulation, I find pvc is perfectly acceptable and to me ears nicer than teflon - teflon is too 'hard' and falsely bright sounding imo/ime.
The sheath is a buff colour (manilla folder colour) and this has good WAF too.
Terminating the ends takes a little effort to get a neat result, but practice makes perfect.
Hint - use a marking pen to mark the stripping length after you have fanned out and grouped the conductors.

With this low inductance cable, I find that typical amplifiers sound nicer (no zedding on female vocals, no smashing cymbals etc....), go louder and cleaner, and run cooler.
Running amplifiers into clip is sonically aparrent, but not as harsh as with more usual cables.
This cable costs only AUS$2.00/metre and is worth a try imo/ime.
If you do try it, please report your findings.

Eric.

[The Paulinator]

I must argue that the idea that the results of a survey make something gospel is far from true. I honestly think of the subject as The Emperors New Clothes, people either don't want to be numbered among those who don't have the ears or the experience to hear a difference, or they actually THINK they hear a difference. I remember how I used to shudder when I knew I was listening to cheap cables, hardly letting my ears pay attention. Pointing out to myself faults that I heard that were either non-existant, or could easily be coming from somewhere else in the process, even the recording.

Once the higher quality cable was connected, I opened my ears to it.

Many people I know who have changed their minds about cables said they were the same way, without even knowing it. We read manufacturers comments about their cables, then we read some reviewer in Stereophile saying that changing to some new cable was like listening to different speakers, and we don't want to be left out.

I also beleive that part of it comes from the bug we were all bitten by that makes us hunger for improvement. We can never be satisfied. We want better. We say "I've got these 500 dollar interconnects and they sound great, just thing how good those 2000 dollar ones will sound!" We don't ever want to indulge the thought that something is not improvable.

[The Paulinator]

And how about that machine listed in stereophile a while back that "broke in" your cables for you? The thing was like 600 bucks! Any thoughts on that little scam?

Or how about all those cd improvement devices? Like the demagnetizer or the spendy little black pen that you use to black the edges of your disk to reduce stray light? The thing costs about 25 bucks and is probably just a black Sharpie. And demagnetizing a cd? Someone explain to me how that effects an optical system... and I mean in a way that could effect the sound?

I just thing manufacturers are mooching off of our desire for improvement in ways that are completely superficial and that insult our intelligence (although people still go for it).

[Brett]

Originally posted by The Paulinator
I must argue that the idea that the results of a survey make something gospel is far from true.

I read that post as being entirely tongue in cheek.

The rest of your post, however is the simple building up of strawmwen, to burn them down, and I would say is just your projection of your response. If, for example, I tried a $US2500/$A4000 cable in my system, and heard a difference, even a definite improvement, I would certainly not be saying, "great how can I afford it, my system will be crap without it" or similar. That sort of outlay gets me my Edgarhorns, my subs finished, my cart re-tipped and a few LPs/CDs. Even if my system were ultra-finely tuned, it would have to be substantial improvement for that sort of outlay.

I also beleive that part of it comes from the bug we were all bitten by that makes us hunger for improvement. We can never be satisfied. We want better.

I build amps because it's fun. I could live happily with the ST35 based amp I have, but the two others I'm playing with are better, though cost 5x as much and weigh >10x more. But it's fun, and it's not hard to tell the difference. And if you doubt me, fine, I've not bought better bikes and cars because I enjoy what I have, even though I can easily afford them and readily discern the difference in performance. The amps that remain in system, are designed for good sonics, as well as excellent stability and life. Once something is packaged up and final, I'd rather not stuff with it and just enjoy.

However, I'll grant there is an element of 'grass is always greener' with a lot of people, hence all the big market for accessories. But this is a DIY forum, and there is a ton more skepticism about what works and doesn't. People are willing to try things, and have a better idea of what's actually inside a component and how it affects the sound. I know I can re-bias one of the stages in my amps (not clipping etc) and probably produce more sonic difference than a cable. Let alone what I could do with a change in speakers......

Your posts, and the one above this whilst came in whilst typing, read like an evangelical expression of you wanting to influence us to walk your path, because you've had a revelatory experience. I mean no insult, it's just how it looks to me (remember I basically agree with you on cable importance).

Cheers

[Circlotron]

This is the 95 (not 90) square mil cable I was talking about before. If someone imagines *this* isn't good enough for *their* refined and wonderfully discerning taste then they simply haven't got enough to whinge about. Poor, poor people.

[DrewP]

What if for years you'd been telling people that the Emperor had no clothes on (fine if the weather's warm I guess) and all of a sudden you discovered that he was wearing a full dress uniform?

My tale is as follows...

In early 2000 I was fortunate enough to purchase from a close friend a second hand (he was the first owner) pair of Monitor Audio Silver Fives (or were they sevens?) (The smallest of the towers with Di'Apollito driver configuration). These were the first iteration of the speaker, before the "i" update which was purely a change in the internal cabling.

The previous owner had internally re-wired these speakers with VdH cs12 cable. Far from top of the tree as wire goes. This was the only configuration I ever heard these speakers in. They were connected to my Sugden Optima 140 and Arcam Alpha 5 using two other VdH cables: Thunderline and a 2.5 metre run of CS122.


I was fortunate enough to be burgled later that year, curiously, after leaving my address details as part of the purchase of a DVD player through a major electrical retailer in Australia. Looks like some dodgy transfer of lists going on as the folks who did us over weren't just druggies, they were professional housebreakers.

Amongst the items removed were the speakers (each with 25lbs of lead shot in the bases and they still got carried out the window!) the Sugden amp and the Thunderline interconnect. The CS122 and the Arcam Alpha 5 survived curiously.

Once the insurance folks came good, off I went to a local hifi store who sold VdH, Sugden and Monitor audio with the intention to simply replace the missing items. I figured I'd listen to what I was buying just to be sure

They had the identical Thunderline interconnect (I took the CS122 and the Arcam with me) and the Optima 140 so we hooked it all up with the (run in) store pair of MA Silver 5i's.

I was *EXPECTING* to hear exactly the same sound as I'd been listening to at home. All the elements were identical and I knew the sonic signature of the store having demo'd quite alot of gear there over the last 5 years. All the elements were the same. Same amp, same source, same interconnect and speaker cable, same speakers the only difference was that mine had been rewired with the CS12 and 30cm of cable wans't going to make a difference...

...I never replaced those speakers as the new ones were unlistenable. We tried changing a few elements of the system to try and replicate the sound I'd had at home and by the time we had 7 of 8 grand of Musical fidelity pre/power and 2 grand of Nordost cabling hooked up we were nearly there.

I was gutted. I'd spent years laughing at people who raved about cables making a massive difference. I'd purchased some low-midrange VdH cables to give things a better than even chance when I'd had the spare readies but I'd never been a believer. The whole experience went precisely against what I was expecting (and the internal cable change to Silver 5i was supposed to be an upgrade anyhow). I wanted it all to sound the same and replace what I'd lost but it simply didn't.

Drew

BTW, if you're exhaust airflow is too great (usually due to oversize exhaust pipe) you'll burn out your valves (internal combution engine not thermionic amp).

[mrfeedback]

I saw some cable just like that in a big bin at the local metals recycler the the other day.
Maybe it didn't sound so good.

Eric.

[mrfeedback]

...I never replaced those speakers as the new ones were unlistenable.

Hello Drew,
What kind of 'unlistenable' do you mean ?.

As a further note, I have never found a hifi store to be an optimum listening environment - noisey power, sub optimal room treatments etc, but despite that you can usually get a good enough idea.

Eric.

BTW - What's a "Large Technology Conservator" ?.

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa,

Originally posted by The Paulinator
I must argue that the idea that the results of a survey make something gospel is far from true. I honestly think of the subject as The Emperors New Clothes, people either don't want to be numbered among those who don't have the ears or the experience to hear a difference, or they actually THINK they hear a difference.

<SNIP for clarity>

I also beleive that part of it comes from the bug we were all bitten by that makes us hunger for improvement. We can never be satisfied. We want better. We say &quot;I've got these 500 dollar interconnects and they sound great, just thing how good those 2000 dollar ones will sound!&quot; We don't ever want to indulge the thought that something is not improvable.

It may amuse you if I tell you a few of my "early" experiences with differences in sound in cables. These where all made in a "Pro-Audio" context, though much of my homegrown DIY Audio gear in those days (and now again) has transformerbalanced in/out's on Tuchel or XLR connectors, just my "Pro" gear.

Anyway, living in what is former East Germany any number of things where not easy to come by, be it shielded 2-Pair Microphone cable or be it cables with large numbers of individually screened pairs for making "multicore" cables to reach from the FOH mixing desk to the stage.

As a result we had to find suitable cables and "make" these items ourseves. Working at the time as Day-Job in a Steelwork originally build by the Italians as EE Service Engineer I had easy access to drums of cable of all sorts of types of specification and was able to on many occasins to bend certain rules slightly and buy relative large length as "leftover scrap" for the copper content equivalent scrap value.

Among these where for example 36 Pair solid core twisted, foil screened pair cables (PTFE insulation, silverplated, heavy duty outer screen, silicone rubber outer insulation for use where it gets VERY hot) that made excellent "Multicore" cables, except for their tendency to eventually break, but we had enough of the cable to have spare whole Multicores on the truck and loads of spare pairs, so this was a minor inconvenience.

Still, I eventually bought a "proper" Multicore cable for our most often used and shortest 25m Cable, this being imported with much red beurocratic tape and at a very cost to me from West Germany. This multicore when placed in the system wired up correctly etc. made the whole system sound muddy. Previously clear Mike channels sounded mushy, you name it. I thought something else had gone wrong (after all, as ANY EE knows Cables CANNOT make a difference in sound) and I was searching for weeks what was wrong, untill I needed to use the 50m Multicore in a larger venue, this multicore being of the old style "liberated" high spec stuff. Voila, the systems original sound was back.

This really boiled my noodle, it got worse when at a later point I had to improvise immediatly (from morning to evening) a 10m Mike cable for our vocal Mike, which had been destroyed the previous evening (cut through when dismantling the system). I "liberated" quickly 10m of some single, shielded pair cable, this with stranded, silverplated conductors in PTFE, foil & weave screen and again silicon rubber outer insulation. This cable was a lot stiffer than the original Mike cable and our singer initially complained, so once I had time I made up a new cable from limp, PVC insulated dedicated "microphone" cable. Guess what, it sounded worse, not hugely, but audibly. So as you can imagine, I got a "scrap" reel of that high spec shielded pair stuff too.

We never did much about speaker cables, internal wiring in boxes was always heavy duty solid core (installation) cable, as we could get that easily, but from the Amp-Racks to the Speaker Stacks we did need limp, stranded cable, so that's what we used. Still I wonder....

Another annectdote is from a time when I worked in a company (still East Germany) that made mixing desks for the Radio & TV. Normally all the cable trees inside the frame/blackplane for these where done using thin, solid core cable. We had to use for a few frames stranded cable (couldn't get the other stuff) and these few Frames/Backplanes sounded notably worse than those wired with solid core stuff.

Note, during all these experiences I EXPECTED cables to make ABSOLUTELY NO audible contributions and was mightly pissed off when they did and in such a fairly large degree too (I recenoed the differences of multiocore and mike cables together easily in the same region as those between a real Sure SM-58 and a cheap far east copy, so not particulary subtle).

Originally posted by The Paulinator
And how about that machine listed in stereophile a while back that &quot;broke in&quot; your cables for you? The thing was like 600 bucks! Any thoughts on that little scam?

What are you complaining about here? Are you again saying:

"Because someone charges 600 Bucks for a "break-in box" there is no break-in process in cables!"? If so I would consider this some feat of logic, in line with "The lemon tastes sour and car doors open to the inside!".

Or are you saying "600 Bucks is a lot of money for a box that is simple squarewave/noise/etc. generator! And I find the reality of the phenomenae called "break in" in cables questionable."

Please be precise. Is your problem the pricing of cables, break in boxes, CD Improvements and whatever else? If so, don't buy them. If I find something poor value for Money I keep my money.

Or do you have problems with the physical principles claimed for the operation, in which case the mention of money is absolutely irelevant, as is the mention of marketing practies etc., as these have ZIP bearing on the questions:

1) Can whatever is being done have an effect?
2) Can this effect lead to audible changes in sound?

Originally posted by The Paulinator
Or how about all those cd improvement devices? Like the demagnetizer or the spendy little black pen that you use to black the edges of your disk to reduce stray light? The thing costs about 25 bucks and is probably just a black Sharpie.

Again, what is your problem here? Is it the cost of 25 Bucks for a "Sharpie" or is it the concept that painting the edges of a CD produces changes in sound? BTW, yes, most if not all of these things are generic pens with special print on them, however often the ink is not quite the same as in your generic pen. Still, you can buy a green or black felt tip permanent marker for ver little money and use it similarly. Also, if you get the black one it effectively defeats Sony Musics copy protection system (when applied correctly) so you can make a backup copy of your CD on your PC.

Originally posted by The Paulinator
And demagnetizing a cd? Someone explain to me how that effects an optical system... and I mean in a way that could effect the sound?

Well, to be simple, IF changes in error correction and/or focusing behaviour of the Laser could be proven (maybe sharper "pit's" from "burning" away stray metalisation via eddy currents - the metaised film is very thin) you would have two variable that effect the the optical system but cause differences in sound. The error correction is obvious, the fairly high currents pulsing and changing in the laser focus mechanism ultimatly modulate the PSU which invariably modulates the jitter spectrum of the player, which MAY be audible.

Originally posted by The Paulinator
I just thing manufacturers are mooching off of our desire for improvement in ways that are completely superficial and that insult our intelligence (although people still go for it).

Maybe. Or maybe some of the "********" marketing is not only there to "sell" but also to obscure the actual function and to misdirect others in an effort to protect intellectual property?

I agree that in High End audio both pricing and physics are being streched beyound sensible limits, not only in the accesories industry, but also by the equipment manufacturers. However, to go and in effect say:

"It's all bunk because I cannot immediatly understand it from 19th century physics (which is about the level thaught in schools and universities until very recently or still) and because it costs a lot of money!"

illustrates my point of monetary and moral affordability.

You are REALLY saying:

"I would have to pay a lot of money and/or I'd have to change a system of fundamental belief (namely "I don't beleive xxxxxx makes a difference") neither of which I can afford, so I'll just diss the stuff and talk it down, which makes me feel good about myself (after all I'm exposing charlatans) , makes me feel good about me not being able to afford those toys and really smug about those idiots who buy the stuff which CANNOT work anyway."

This is exactly the same principle and approach underlying in most (not all, but most) cases the "objectivist" position and is the direct root of what I call "DBT Conspiracy" (eg. Dum Bass Noisaine, the buch of guys at the SWWTMS [or something like that] and the "Audio" bunch).

I agree that an equally questionable psychological process happens within the subjectivist group, here TOO MUCH is taken at face value and yes, too much is believed.

I guess as an openminded Humean (after David Hume) who takes nothing on credence or not but prefers to investigate empirically I am sort of in the middle between the trenchfight between the equally deeply entrenched subjectivists and objectivists.

I guess that makes me a SOBjectivist...

Oh well. I can live with that, especially as I have often been called a "SOB hard as nails", so I guess the cap fits....

Sayonara