High end speaker wire

[beans]

Hmmm... you trust McIntosh to design and build complex items like amplifiers, but they can't be trusted to know about wire? :scratch2:

I wish I hadn't sounded so sarcastic. In fact I've quoted them several times and referenced their work. I was forgetting that not everyone has read my previous posts. The point is that I am just now looking into the whole speaker cable "controversy" and starting to experiment a little on my own. Until I joined Audiokarma I never knew so many people have bought high priced spkr cables and swear by them, so I've been paying attention to them too. What I've come to realize is that you have to listen for yourself to determine if you can hear a difference because blind listening tests have had mixed results. Gow's test was the only one I was aware of until recently...he and Russell have said that as long as cable resistance for the whole run is less than 10% of speaker impedence, wire is all the same. That is a strong statement in light of all the claims that are out there, and want to put it to the test.

 

[beans]

I have looked at some of the testing on Audioholics.com and they are among the cynics. They take swipe at AK'ers and the like:

"...Many cable vendors and forum cult hobbyists insist on the abandonment of measurements and engineering truths in favor of subjective listening tests in hopes that the listener will think they hear a difference, even if none exists, to justify their unproven claims and sometimes extravagant prices. The belief set forth by these "cable soothsayers" that "you can't measure it" leaves open the avenue of convincing prospective buyers of the differences in product by pseudo-science, clever marketing ploys, and sometimes, just blind faith."

 

[Face]

They also believe that receivers are fine for powering speakers and separate power amps are not needed.

 

[whoaru99]

I have looked at some of the testing on Audioholics.com and they are among the cynics. They take swipe at AK'ers and the like:

"...Many cable vendors and forum cult hobbyists insist on the abandonment of measurements and engineering truths in favor of subjective listening tests in hopes that the listener will think they hear a difference, even if none exists, to justify their unproven claims and sometimes extravagant prices. The belief set forth by these "cable soothsayers" that "you can't measure it" leaves open the avenue of convincing prospective buyers of the differences in product by pseudo-science, clever marketing ploys, and sometimes, just blind faith."

Aside from your concern about being lumped in with "forum cult hobbyists", can you point out anything specifically false about their testing/information?

 

[whoaru99]

They also believe that receivers are fine for powering speakers and separate power amps are not needed.

I'm guessing there's more to the statement than just that.

But, for me, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm using separates because that's what I had for starters and has allowed me to build upon the foundation, rather than replace.

 

[Face]

Aside from your concern about being lumped in with "forum cult hobbyists", can you point out anything specifically false about their testing/information?

You really need to get to a mid/high end audio store and see if they'll demo different cables for you.

 

[beans]

Aside from your concern about being lumped in with "forum cult hobbyists", can you point out anything specifically false about their testing/information?

I have no doubt that their tests are accurate but at first glance it appears that the only measurements they are taking are for L, R, & C. What I and other AKers are proposing is to test with a waveform, whether it's pink noise or white noise or music, and measure distortion and dynamics. Since noise is random, digitizing the waveform will be difficult because of time synchronization in the case of A-B comparisons. But if you can quantify distortion in all its forms, theoretically you'd have a meaningful number and it wouldn't have to come down to A-B comparisons.

 

[Billfort]

Some words of wisdom that seem to fit this discussion.

"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not."--Nelson Pass

This is a fantastic quote.

I used to be obsessed and all consumed with measurements, specs and graphs, figured known science must be able to tell me what good audio is.

Best move I ever made in audio though was to forget about all this stuff, truly listen to the beauty of live music and judge audio on how good it is in bringing that music home.

I have all kinds of equipment now that those old objective yardsticks say is all wrong but in 35 years of trying I've never enjoyed music more. To each their own and if measurements are your thing there is lots to measure and discuss but for me, I'll try the cables, wires, whatever in my system and listen - that's what matters.

 

[whoaru99]

I have no doubt that their tests are accurate but at first glance it appears that the only measurements they are taking are for L, R, & C. What I and other AKers are proposing is to test with a waveform, whether it's pink noise or white noise or music, and measure distortion and dynamics. Since noise is random, digitizing the waveform will be difficult because of time synchronization in the case of A-B comparisons. But if you can quantify distortion in all its forms, theoretically you'd have a meaningful number and it wouldn't have to come down to A-B comparisons.

I've never said don't test with a machine.

Actually, I've said quite the opposite. Test with all the machines you want. I'd not be at all surprised to find some measurable difference between many cables.

However, the point remains, at what point can you hear it/at what point does it matter? If you do a test and find some parameter different by a fraction of a dB at 50kHz will the claim then be, "See, there is a difference!"?

I say, so what. It's beyond the realms of audibility, unless you have ultrasonic hearing capabilities.

As I said before, you can observe many things with an electron microscope that you cannot observe with the unaided eye. To me, it's no different with the audio.

I am 100% for "let the ear" decide, but I want to see more than just anecdotal evidence the ear is right more often than random chance choosing.

It's been suggested I go to a high-end store to listen to cables and that's fine.

My suggestion is to try some true blind, level matched testing. I should hope that's an equally legit suggestion. It's not that easy, but with an honest effort and some assistance, it can be done.

BTW, I think the quote by Pass actually does not apply. It's never been about what sounds better in the cable debate. That is a commonly held misbelief about the viewpoint of cable skeptics. It's about detecting and identifying differences beyond mere chance.

 

[beans]

I've never said don't test with a machine.

Actually, I've said quite the opposite. Test with all the machines you want. I'd not be at all surprised to find some measurable difference between many cables.

However, the point remains, at what point can you hear it/at what point does it matter? If you do a test and find some parameter different by a fraction of a dB at 50kHz will the claim then be, "See, there is a difference!"?

I say, so what. It's beyond the realms of audibility, unless you have ultrasonic hearing capabilities.

As I said before, you can observe many things with an electron microscope that you cannot observe with the unaided eye. To me, it's no different with the audio.

I am 100% for "let the ear" decide, but I want to see more than just anecdotal evidence the ear is right more often than random chance choosing.

It's been suggested I go to a high-end store to listen to cables and that's fine.

My suggestion is to try some true blind, level matched testing. I should hope that's an equally legit suggestion. It's not that easy, but with an honest effort and some assistance, it can be done.

BTW, I think the quote by Pass actually does not apply. It's never been about what sounds better in the cable debate. That is a commonly held misbelief about the viewpoint of cable skeptics. It's about detecting and identifying differences beyond mere chance.

I think we're in agreement here for the most part if you're saying what I think you are. By "beyond mere chance" I take it that you're referring to the customer who buys cable X for $Y in hopes of getting the best sound possible, but in reality doesn't know exactly what he has bought.

I'm a complete capitalist pig and want the marketplace to decide things like this. This is how you do it. Let the customer decide once he or she has all the facts. I'll get the mostexpensive thing I can afford that will improve the sound, but I want to know whether or not spending more will sound even better, or on the other hand, whether or not I have already reached the point of diminishing returns.

 

[beans]

...BTW, I think the quote by Pass actually does not apply. It's never been about what sounds better in the cable debate. That is a commonly held misbelief about the viewpoint of cable skeptics. It's about detecting and identifying differences beyond mere chance.

Again, the only problem I have with high-priced cables is the high price. If I can't afford something that will improve the sound of my gear, too bad. But at least I'll know that I'm missing out on something. If I'm already getting the best sound I can with my wires, I'd like to know that, too.

 

[Bigerik]

I guess I never understood what the big deal about the measurements was. Or even double blind testing for that matter.

The cables I use I picked because they made a definite and easily discernible difference to ME (and to the wife for that matter) in MY system. I didn't rely on anyones test results to determine the above. I did what I always do with EVERY piece of gear in my system and I listened to it. In MY system. If it sounds good, it stays. If it does not, it goes.

Now, my first pair of interconnects I chose with my EARS were recommended by a friend whose ears I trust (Thanks Gary).

I am a trained musician. (I was classically trained as an operatic bass). The two things I know well are the sound of a piano (spent more hours than I want to think about standing beside one) and the sound of a human voice. The only measurement that matters the ME is whether those things, and many others that I don't know as well, sound "right" to me in my system. It might measure great. It might measure like ass. I really could not care less.

One of the most "real" sounding systems I have ever heard is Billforts. I have met Sarah McLachlan. I have heard her sing live on many occasions, amplified and not. His system makes her sound by far the most "right" of any I have heard. Yet, his is a single ended triode system that I am quite confidant will measure horribly. Do I give a damn when I a sitting there, losing myself in her voice? No.

Does any of this matter to anyone other than me? Probably not. Will a million blind tests telling me that I cannot be hearing a difference make a difference with me? Nope. I won't be paying attention to them anyway. I'd rather spend my time just listening to my stereo, enjoying the music. Do I mock anyone who wants to spend there time measuring cables? Not in the least. If thats what makes you happy, have at it. Promised to help with that myself at the next AK fest. But it is certainly more an interesting bit of naval gazing than anything else.

I have no interest in a cable sales company. I do not gain anything by one more or less cables sell. I really don't know if a $10,000 pair of cables will sound better than my Grovers. i would hope they do, for the money. Given the oppurtunity, I would give them a listen. In fact, i don't think much about cables at all (except when I am moderating here ). Do I begrudge anyone for spending tens of thousands on cables? Certainly not. I figure that if a person has done well enough in life to make that kind of money, I am not going to mock there choice by deciding what they may or may not be able to hear or laughing at how they spend their money. It is THEIR money. Let them enjoy it.

Anyway, enough naval gazing on this subject for me.

 

[Mr. Lin]

Very well-said Erik. I was about to respond to some of the recent posts, but I think you've effectively covered it.

 

[beans]

...I am a trained musician. (I was classically trained as an operatic bass). The two things I know well are the sound of a piano (spent more hours than I want to think about standing beside one) and the sound of a human voice. The only measurement that matters the ME is whether those things, and many others that I don't know as well, sound "right" to me in my system. It might measure great. It might measure like ass. I really could not care less.

One of the most "real" sounding systems I have ever heard is Billforts. I have met Sarah McLachlan. I have heard her sing live on many occasions, amplified and not. His system makes her sound by far the most "right" of any I have heard. Yet, his is a single ended triode system that I am quite confidant will measure horribly. Do I give a damn when I a sitting there, losing myself in her voice? No.

Then we both want the same thing: accuracy...whatever sounds the "most real". And I'm doing what you did: trying different cables in MY system... getting started on it anyway. I started to get a set of used 8' AudioQuest Crystal Hyperlitz cables on ebay but missed out. I just looked it up and they sold for $46...probably should have sprung for them, but I'll keep looking.

I haven't been around as many musicians as you have, but have heard quite a bit of live music...always had good sounding gear. I think I know what music is supposed to sound like, but perhaps I should not trust my ears as much as you do. (I know you didn't say that; I'm being serious) Right now these are the best ears I've got, and they've served me well. I can't keep buying $50 wires every month until I find the right ones for MY system. But I would like to know the point of diminishing returns. It's possible I'm there now.

 

[subdermis2000]

I guess I never understood what the big deal about the measurements was. Or even double blind testing for that matter.

.....

The only measurement that matters the ME is whether those things, and many others that I don't know as well, sound "right" to me in my system. It might measure great. It might measure like ass.

For a while the Japanese were buying scotch based on the gas chromatograph profile, i.e. if the shape of the graph was the shape that the buyers thought was the right shape, they would buy the scotch. As selection was not based on taste, apparently most of the scotches they imported, and later made themselves, tasted like ass.

 

[RickB]

What gets me in a lot of the tests of speaker cabling is that I have seen tests where they take different brands, gauge, etc., of cables, BUT they are still parallel conductors (typical "figure eight" construction), like the original Monster Cable, vs. other parallel conductor cables, and ascertain that there is little to no difference...well, DUH!

In that case you will be trying to hear the differences in insulation, metallurgy, gauge, and really, to my mind, nothing else....these are very, very subtle effects that are initially hard to discern, and many times never become an easy thing to hear...

Something like Kimber Monocle, Shunyata Phoenix, Ecosse Reference, Cardas Cross or Twinlink, DH Labs Silver Sonic T-14, DNM Reson, JPS Superconductor, even Monster M2.4 (all cables I am intimately familiar with) each sound different from each other, and, IMNSHO, miles ahead of "The Original Monster Cable", even on speakers of less than stellar resolution, like my Boston A-100's or Klipsch Hereseys, much less when using them on something like my Third Rethms or Martin Logans....

And it is "Horses for Courses"....in many middle of the road systems, expensive cabling is not called for...it's all part of Synergy...what you can afford, what you can hear, what works with your gear.

As in the previous instance of the Japanese and Scotch, there are oenophiles that can taste and discern every subtlety in a wine...me, well.....I can't, it's either too sweet or dry enough...I just never took the time to educate my sense of taste to where the different things I was tasting had a meaning, an explanation, and a reason to them....and me, well, I don't care, I like beer!

Same with training your ears in listening...and, it can really be hard, fatiguing, taxing work...yes, sometimes listening that intently can tire the 'ell out of you...but, when you are able to hear the little things that make a difference, and combine them together in your system, you can get something that sounds pretty darn good, you don't have to spend a boatload of money.

I've been lucky to have a part time job where I get to experience many, many high end audio pieces, even taking them home and using them for extended periods....well, the more you learn, the more you hear, the more you know, the easier it is to hear the little things that make a difference....it sometimes takes a lot of direct comparison to be able to hear the little differences.

Combining a lot of little improvements is sometimes all it takes to take something from dreck to delightful...

Then again, if the system is too revealing you may find, as I did, that there are a lot of things that you used to listen to that you can no longer stand....finding yourself wishing for that old Sansui or Marantz or Pioneer receiver, with it's loudness controls, bass boost, treble control, and it's murky presentation to hide the flaws that are no longer obscured...a recent listen to a Chicago factory recorded cassette tape on my Nakamichi rammed that home....sounds great in the truck...really bad in the house...but put on a Windham Hill chrome cassette and the Nak is a marvel....

I love the older gear, and it can be quite musically satisfying...but the way the new high-res gear pulls things out of the grooves on an LP or the quiet little things in the atmosphere of an SACD..well, it's darn near magical....

And as far as the Audiohorics article...well, how did they sound? Not a single word in there that they spent any real time listening and comparing the cables they were testing...hooked them up to machines and read the results...well, fine, but follow that up with listening tests on decent gear...and I'm not going to read thru 14 pages of engineers and their groupies mentally masturbating to see if they ever did listen...give me the bottom line, did they sound good or did they suck....and, could they even tell the difference?

Once upon a time I, too, worked as an engineer and can understand this mindset...but...measurements should be an adjunct to listening as a way to select things....if you like something and the measurements suggest that it's going to suck, but it doesn't, then what do the measurements even mean?


As always, YMMV, and as wacky, insane, or down right poopy-headed as these may be, they are just my opinions and experiences, nothing and nobody else's...

..

 

[whoaru99]

... the more you learn, the more you hear, the more you know, the easier it is to hear the little things that make a difference....it sometimes takes a lot of direct comparison to be able to hear the little differences......

Is the implication that cable naysayers have never done this sort of thing?

 

[stuartk]

I have no doubt that their tests are accurate but at first glance it appears that the only measurements they are taking are for L, R, & C. What I and other AKers are proposing is to test with a waveform, whether it's pink noise or white noise or music, and measure distortion and dynamics. Since noise is random, digitizing the waveform will be difficult because of time synchronization in the case of A-B comparisons. But if you can quantify distortion in all its forms, theoretically you'd have a meaningful number and it wouldn't have to come down to A-B comparisons.

"Distortion" in wire? What kind of distortion?

 

[beans]

"Distortion" in wire? What kind of distortion?

By "distortion" I mean any deviation from one end to the other. I did not mean THD or IMD necessarily. It just seems to me that the differences people are hearing between these cables ought to show up as a deviation from the source waveform. Measuring LCR numbers is not going to tell the story...they all measure extremely low in that area.

 

[whoaru99]

By "distortion" I mean any deviation from one end to the other. I did not mean THD or IMD necessarily. It just seems to me that the differences people are hearing between these cables ought to show up as a deviation from the source waveform. Measuring LCR numbers is not going to tell the story...they all measure extremely low in that area.

All cables do NOT measure extremely low in those areas.

Many cables, especially those of unique construction methodology, have much higher values of either C or L than "normal" cables.

I'm a cable objectivist mostly (as if that isn't already clear) but even I agree that measurements of any sort prove nothing about what can actually be heard. At best, the measurements might support what type of change one might expect, but that still doesn't mean it can be heard.

For instance, changing values of L, R, and C in a crossover affect the way things sound. Nobody would disagree with that, would they?

So, when there are changes in these values in a cable, one might reasonably expect a change too. However, the difference is that the R, C, and L values in a crossover are many orders of magnitude larger than in cables.