Question on high-end interconnects

[kirk57]

I'll answer for Kirk, if he doesn't mind.

Any time, John.

Anibus- I think your sample size is too small to make broad generalizations.

Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the phrase 'largely perceptive'. Since hearing is one way we perceive, that could be interpreted as audible.
Or you may be saying it's all imaginary. That I take issue with.

I can't hear cable differences on the receiver-based system in my office, either. But I can hear them on the main system in my sig. I'm pretty sure you would, too.

 

[JBL GUY]

Thanks for the clarification.

Allthough it's probably just semantics, I don't view any cable as improving/correcting the signal. In my mind cables can only cause degredation to the signal inasmuch as with a "perfect" cable exactly the same thing comes out as went in.

That is true, except the cables are used in a system.

Note that I said that a cable may make the waveform envelope more closely match the source signal or not. The source signal might have a slightly rising frequency response and the cable due to its capacitance might cause a slightly decreasing frequency response. The net result might be more pleasing to the listener.

Or the listener may favor a more subdued high frequency response and the cable that provides a slight roll off the high frequencies may be preferable.

In either case the listener might deem the result as more "correct" because it is what is preferred by the listener.

Garbage in garbage out.

Think about how small changes in the capacitive loading of a moving magnet phono cartridge can affect the frequency response. This can be achieved by changing the loading capacitor in the phono stage or it may be changed (all though to a smaller degree) by changing cables. It has nothing to do with garbage in garbage out.

Is the cable "correcting" or "improving" the signal if the frequency response is actually flatter with that particular cable?

That does not mean that the listener will automatically choose the flatter response as superior.

This is an over simplification of the subtle and not so subtle changes that some claim to be able to hear.

Choose your semantics.

 

[whoaru99]

Think about how small changes in the capacitive loading of a moving magnet phono cartridge can affect the frequency response. This can be achieved by changing the loading capacitor in the phono stage or it may be changed (all though to a smaller degree) by changing cables. It has nothing to do with garbage in garbage out.

Agreed, but you're talking a circuit with impedances considerably different than the typical component/source output impedance. Tens or hundreds of kohms vs maybe a several hundred on the high end for something like a pre out. That's a big difference. What applies to one can't necessarily be extrapolated to the other in terms of net effect.

 

[JohnVF]

I can't hear cable differences on the receiver-based system in my office, either. But I can hear them on the main system in my sig. I'm pretty sure you would, too.

That's where I fall in this, too. I have a variety of systems but only a few get pricey cables, because I've not heard a difference with them on all of my gear. Regardless of what the "audiophool police" think, us audiophools don't all buy chit just to impress our egos. My cats could care less what this stuff looks like, and my girlfriend thinks I spend too much money anyway so I'm not sure how I'm winning any friends with my Audioquest cables.

 

[JBL GUY]

Agreed, but you're talking a circuit with impedances considerably different than the typical component/source output impedance. Tens or hundreds of kohms vs maybe a several hundred on the high end for something like a pre out. That's a big difference. What applies to one can't necessarily be extrapolated to the other in terms of net effect.

That is exactly true, but that does not mean that a change in cable capacitance absolutely can not affect the frequency response of a pre-amp output.

During the time I have been involved in this hobby I have seen the total capacitance for different "high end" cables vary by an order of magnitude or more.

More than enough to vary the frequency response of a line level signal, even if only by a small amount.

I was not aware that this discussion was limited to only high end interconnects used at line level. Are we intentionally leaving out turntable users that might be reading this thread? Or users of tube gear where the pre-amplifier might have a higher output impedance?

If this discussion is limited to line level sources with low impedance outputs (less than a 1000 Ohms) then of course cable capacitance is a smaller factor.

I remembered that the OP mentioned a turntable in his original post. I reread his original post and see that he is not using his turntable at this time.

 

[Anubis]

What really amazes me is that everyone starts putting words in my mouth. I'm not downing anyone who decides to run thousand dollar ICs or one dollar ICs. What I take issue with is the statements insinuating that I have said such things and hinting that my system is crap without such cables. All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to me. Period, end of story. I am not trying to generalize based on my own system. I only wanted to use it as a lab rat in theory to see if anyone can explain to me what I would expect by using uber expensive ICs. For example one question that should have been extrapulated from my samples is: Do expensive ICs make any difference in a system like mine or do they only count in separates? It's not about whether the system is a walmart special or a boutique uber set up. If the cables (any cables) do as claimed I would think one would experience what they do on any system.
Personally, I don't see the logic in spending more on a couple of ICs then on a good pair of speakers or the entire system. That's ME not anyone else.
Do I need to be more clear? If so, good luck because this is as clear as ever.

See? This is why I think discussions about IC's and such should probably be prohibited on forums. Asking innocently and eventually the claws come out because someone feels the need to justify what they spent on something. Who cares!!!! It's not about what it cost as much as about what it does that can be proven.

 

[JohnVF]

If the cables (any cables) do as claimed I would think one would experience what they do on any system.

That assumes that all gear is equally capable of revealing the smallest details and it simply isn't. Its just not all the same. But when that's said, its often taken as an insult. Its not an insult, its just reality. And when somebody who doesn't believe this goes on to make back-handed comments that cables don't seem to matter, its quite fair to bring up the fact that all gear isn't equally transparent. Its not a receiver vs. separates thing, either. Its simply a matter of different gear being more capable of portraying very subtle things. Like a Kenwood Supreme 600 or Sansui AU-919 being more transparent than my MAC 1900, which I don't run boutique cables on because I couldn't hear a difference when I tried, and it has a bit of a colored opaque nature to its sound that I readily admit to.

 

[Mr. Lin]

Asking innocently and eventually the claws come out because someone feels the need to justify what they spent on something. Who cares!!!!

Actually, this insinuation in these debates is one of the things that commonly prompts deployment of claws.

 

[JohnVF]

Actually, this insinuation in these debates is one of the things that commonly prompts deployment of claws.

That and the backsliding apologies of "I didn't mean to insult you when I called you an idiot with more money than sense who's only imagining things because you like to show off".

Not that you said that Anubis- I'm referring to past experience.

 

[JBL GUY]

Not exactly, since I have my CD player connected to my receiver via fiber optic.
That said, I am basing it on the other gear that I do have connected via RCA ICs and what I used to have connected that way where some RF trouble came into play. (My area just has a bit heavier RF stuff going on than normal at times. Not major, but just enough to make you wonder what the heck your hearing "sometimes" when it's not what you turned on. Not as bad as my previous area though, that was a whole other story). I also have the gear right next to the flat panel TV (LCD), but that should not effect anything...I think.
That's my experience (and budget), everyone else's mileage may vary. I already know that PBJ cables won't work for me simply due to the RF in my area.

A lot of what has been said here makes sense and has merit.

I just refuse to get into a fight over ICs, it's ludicris. I was just looking for data that could prove any advantages of uber expensive IC's out of curiosity since I could never use them anyway. Just trying to cut through the commercials and hype and get to the bare bones. I just got tired of the fights over the hype and wanted some logic.
I just don't understand and never will understand how a brand can arrive at thousand bucks for a little cable or what have you. That's what I was trying to understand. I have nothing against those who have the money and want to buy those for whatever reason. The only thing I'm against is those folks telling others that their systems are junk because they don't use the same cables or whatever. There's no call for it.

Sorry for the thread drift on my part in response to questions about my posts.

I worked my way up the food chain of interconnects for both phono and line level and got to a point of of diminishing returns.

Not that I could not spend more money, I just did not want to. So I started to build my own interconnects. And measure my own interconnects and my factory interconnects.

Actually so as not to have a preconceived bias, I did extensive long term listening and a kept a log of my listening impressions. After a couple of years I began the measurement process. I used my TDR (Time Domain Reflectometer) and my network analyzer.

I was able to find a correlation between the cables I preferred and the their specific measurements. This included some very expensive cables and some not so expensive cables and some of my DIY cables.

I also found a correlation between the cables that I did not prefer and their measurements.

The results are only valid for my listening experience and my sonic/acoustic memory as it relates to my sound quality preferences.

One thing that I did find with factory cables that I tested that may apply to other users, is a definite measured difference between cables (interconnects) that should have been the same. That is the same brand, length, and model of cable did not measure the same. These are some of the cables that I did not prefer.

I actually preferred cables that were balanced cable to cable, to cables that should have been better, but had variations between the cables. It turned out that "channel balance" is important to me and I am not talking about just amplitude. May not be such to others.

It was exactly the escalating prices and all of the hype that caused me to start this experiment.

The important cable factors to me are shielding, ruggedness, consistency cable to cable, stability (I found some factory cables that exhibited considerable change due to handling and flexing), and last but not least the actual performance of the cable in my system.

In general, but not in every case, I preferred the more expensive factory cables and my DIY cables built with the more expensive components.

So after all of this I know what I prefer, but I can not make a valid recommendation to others, other than look for the qualities that I have mentioned above.

Take this for what it is worth, from one audio lab rat. :yes:

 

[whoaru99]

Actually, this insinuation in these debates is one of the things that commonly prompts deployment of claws.

Yeah, agreed. I sometimes feel the same way from, I suspect, a roughly 180 degree point of view. :scratch2:

 

[DougMac]

Which way is North?

Yeah, agreed. I sometimes feel the same way from, I suspect, a roughly 180 degree point of view. :scratch2:

Agreed. I think our compasses are aligned. I agree with Anubis, there have been times that I've been accused of saying things I never said.

It seems there are three basic reasons to explain away those who come to different conclusions: 1) You're ignorant (Anubis "sample" not being big enough), your system is crap (it is not "sensitive" enough to reveal subtle differences [see the reference to Onkyo]) and finally 3) you're deaf as a post. I've been accused of all three at one time!

There's a lot of "reading into" going on. I'm reminded of a diode. Protection flows one way, but not the other.

 

[Anubis]

Sorry for the thread drift on my part in response to questions about my posts.

I worked my way up the food chain of interconnects for both phono and line level and got to a point of of diminishing returns.

Not that I could not spend more money, I just did not want to. So I started to build my own interconnects. And measure my own interconnects and my factory interconnects.

Actually so as not to have a preconceived bias, I did extensive long term listening and a kept a log of my listening impressions. After a couple of years I began the measurement process. I used my TDR (Time Domain Reflectometer) and my network analyzer.

I was able to find a correlation between the cables I preferred and the their specific measurements. This included some very expensive cables and some not so expensive cables and some of my DIY cables.

I also found a correlation between the cables that I did not prefer and their measurements.

The results are only valid for my listening experience and my sonic/acoustic memory as it relates to my sound quality preferences.

One thing that I did find with factory cables that I tested that may apply to other users, is a definite measured difference between cables (interconnects) that should have been the same. That is the same brand, length, and model of cable did not measure the same. These are some of the cables that I did not prefer.

I actually preferred cables that were balanced cable to cable, to cables that should have been better, but had variations between the cables. It turned out that "channel balance" is important to me and I am not talking about just amplitude. May not be such to others.

It was exactly the escalating prices and all of the hype that caused me to start this experiment.

The important cable factors to me are shielding, ruggedness, consistency cable to cable, stability (I found some factory cables that exhibited considerable change due to handling and flexing), and last but not least the actual performance of the cable in my system.

In general, but not in every case, I preferred the more expensive factory cables and my DIY cables built with the more expensive components.

So after all of this I know what I prefer, but I can not make a valid recommendation to others, other than look for the qualities that I have mentioned above.

Take this for what it is worth, from one audio lab rat. :yes:

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Good job on going DIY for that gives you all the control along with many other advantages such as consistancy, etc. and cost 1/4 as much as the factory cables with the brand name stamped on them.
All I can say is you done right sir.
I suppose you found some measured differences to be too small to worry about, but I'm surprised that some were significant.
Hmm, channel balance would certainly be important to me as well now that I think on it.
I like your balanced point of view in saying that you can not make a valid recommendation other than to look for certain qualities themselves. Those who make assumptive recommendations on IC's and the like I feel are way off the mark. It would be the same as if I were to recommend a certain speaker brand and model to everyone just because I liked it or own it. It would not make any sense to do that because not only do we all hear differently, but all our audio situations are different and it's not one size fits all.

 

[Anubis]

Actually, this insinuation in these debates is one of the things that commonly prompts deployment of claws.

Like I said, when you get down to the bare metal it doesn't matter what someone spent on something. What matters is whether or not it works in a measurable way. If it works, wonderful and who cares?

 

[Anubis]

Agreed. I think our compasses are aligned. I agree with Anubis, there have been times that I've been accused of saying things I never said.

It seems there are three basic reasons to explain away those who come to different conclusions: 1) You're ignorant (Anubis "sample" not being big enough), your system is crap (it is not "sensitive" enough to reveal subtle differences [see the reference to Onkyo]) and finally 3) you're deaf as a post. I've been accused of all three at one time!

There's a lot of "reading into" going on. I'm reminded of a diode. Protection flows one way, but not the other.

Don't I know it!
Just for clarification: When I say "perceived" that is meant as "audio perception" and not necessarily pure imagination. While we all certainly have the capacity to imagine all kinds of things I think it is a bit more difficult to do when it comes to listening to controlled audio. I thought my speaker analogy was pretty clear, I guess not. All add to it though to say that in a real life example: I just got a pair of high-end mains (Paradigm Studio 100s) after saving and sacrificing for a year and 3 solid months of daily research and auditions. Now I am seeing lots of people praising those speakers as the greatest thing since sliced bread. That said, I'm sure there are an equal amount of folks that would tell me how crappy those speakers are. Both sides are using perception. I pay little to no attention to either side because at the end of the day I didn't buy the speakers for everyone else, I bought them for me and after deligent homework. I happen to find that they work for me. If any of us were to try to purchase things based solely on everyone else's perceptions and biases we would not be able to purchase anything because we wold always be wrong in someone's eyes and perhaps equally as right. It's about the music and our enjoyment of it at the end of the day.

 

[sonix]

Wow, this thread picked up more speed and distance than I thought it would!:thmbsp:

 

[kirk57]

Don't I know it!
Just for clarification: When I say "perceived" that is meant as "audio perception" and not necessarily pure imagination. While we all certainly have the capacity to imagine all kinds of things I think it is a bit more difficult to do when it comes to listening to controlled audio. I thought my speaker analogy was pretty clear, I guess not. All add to it though to say that in a real life example: I just got a pair of high-end mains (Paradigm Studio 100s) after saving and sacrificing for a year and 3 solid months of daily research and auditions. Now I am seeing lots of people praising those speakers as the greatest thing since sliced bread. That said, I'm sure there are an equal amount of folks that would tell me how crappy those speakers are. Both sides are using perception. I pay little to no attention to either side because at the end of the day I didn't buy the speakers for everyone else, I bought them for me and after deligent homework. I happen to find that they work for me. If any of us were to try to purchase things based solely on everyone else's perceptions and biases we would not be able to purchase anything because we wold always be wrong in someone's eyes and perhaps equally as right. It's about the music and our enjoyment of it at the end of the day.

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW I've heard good things about those Paradigms. I have a pair of 7se MkII in the A/V system and I like them a lot.

 

[Anubis]

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW I've heard good things about those Paradigms. I have a pair of 7se MkII in the A/V system and I like them a lot.

Yeah, now that I have them people are coming out of the woodwork praising them. However, it should be noted that while I was researching I had plenty of people telling me they are not good or crappy based on their perceptions of course. This is why I listened to my ears and never read any reviews on them or anything that would color my analysis.

 

[Mr. Lin]

It seems there are three basic reasons to explain away those who come to different conclusions: 1) You're ignorant (Anubis "sample" not being big enough), your system is crap (it is not "sensitive" enough to reveal subtle differences [see the reference to Onkyo]) and finally 3) you're deaf as a post. I've been accused of all three at one time!

I've never seen anyone say any of those things, so I think you're exaggerating, or simply misunderstanding what people are saying. And the "protection" you're referring to flows the "other way" in every other forum but TOL.

Like I said, when you get down to the bare metal it doesn't matter what someone spent on something. What matters is whether or not it works in a measurable way. If it works, wonderful and who cares?

You are the one who brought up cost.

 

[whoaru99]

Yeah, now that I have them people are coming out of the woodwork praising them.

Hmmm....coming out of the woodwork? Where? I think in the years I've been on AK I've only seen them mentioned a handful of times...and most of those probably was me mentioning my pair.