Just enough that I would 'not' even 'consider' removing any of those I use, which I have assembled with careful listening and which provide a sound I enjoy, without knowing the replacement would be better. How would I know a better replacement? By listening and enjoying the sound more. Cheers |
Regalmal - "No insult intended" . None was taken. Your note just got me to thinking. I guess maybe 'neutral' sort of means containing characteristics of distortion typical to the listerners reference setting for live music. |
Thg, what ss equipment have you found? I need a new preamp. |
I guess tube and wire tasters are relieved to hear signal molestation. That way they get the satisfaction all that money they spent is traceable, true fidelity aside.
IMMMMHHHHHOOOOO hoho.
How's that for lighting a fuse.....? |
The improvement is there, if all other links in the audio chain are comparable/equal. |
$20,000 more spent on cables will give you... 4-5% higher performance. If you have the money then you should do this.
I think we live in a crazy world: some audiophiles are spending more money on cables than on their equipment. The biggest improvement in sound can only be achieved with the right equipment, system synergy and good quality AC power!! My buddy's FM Acoustics amplifier sounds already great with ordinary 14 gauge copper speaker cables. Using "top notch" and pricey speaker cables yields only a small improvement (somewhat higher resolution and a bit more extended treble).
Imho to spend on very expensive cables (let's say $10,000 for a pair of speaker cables) is the least beneficial step you would make with regard to sound. Of course there will be audiophiles who think I'm talking bullsh**.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that expensive cables are useless, so don't get me wrong.
Chris |
>>$20K spent on cables may give you 4%-5% higher performance<<
How does anybody ascertain the percentage increase or decrease in performance for somebody else's system?
In the absence of any "standard", differences are purely subjective BTW, it's one of the dumbest things I've read here and that covers a lot of ground.
Cables are system and listener dependent. It's that simple. |
How does anybody ascertain the percentage increase or decrease in performance, period? I can understand the notion of the magnitude of improvement, but percentages seem to me to be false precision. |
Hi Ted, I'm not saying all cables sound the same. Cables could bring out the full potential of the system (provided there is already a musical sounding system and excellent system synergy), but it is unlikely they will add much more "musicality" to it. In case of a sytem with bad system synergy you cannot expect from cables (no matter what they cost) that they will "transform" the entire sound into something "magically". It is a fact that most cable advertisements are giving the impression that cables are capable of elevating the sound of a system, whatever the system and whatever the synergy, to a higher level of excellence, but this is absolutely not true.
Chris |
|
Dazzdax. I certainly would not go so far as to say cables cannot elevate the sound to a higher level of excellence. Does this not imply a zero improvement? |
Audiofeil states:
"Cables are system and listener dependent. It's that simple."
That sums it up as well for me. Cables, regardless of their cost, are very system dependent and subjective percentage improvement can only be subjectively quantified by the user in his own system. |
Tbg wrote > "I certainly would not go so far as to say cables cannot elevate the sound to a higher level of excellence. Does this not imply a zero improvement?" Perhaps just an issue of semantics, but a cable is not an active component. It cannot "add" anything to a signal; there is no amplification or gain and it shouldn't be shaping the frequency response or other signal characteristics. What a cable can do is take things away; it can fail to accurately transmit the signal. It can allow EMI or RF interference to distort the signal. It can change the frequency response. It can fail to transmit the full signal strength. But it cannot make the signal "better" than when it left the source component (unless you count on the cable's deficiency to be an inverse match to a defect elsewhere in a system.) Of course, that is an interesting approach, build a system based on combining defects and substandard performance. Not the approach one would typically think to take, but there is room for everyone in this hobby. ;-) |
Mlsstl, it is semantics. Since some cables sound better they must of necessity be passing the signal better and/or keeping spurious signals out better. They are subtracting less in the first case or adding less in the second case. I don't know what this perspective adds to the discussion, however. |
a cable does not sound better or worse in one stereo system or another. the stereo system may sound better or worse with one cable or another.
a cable does not change when it is inserted into one system or another. it is the same cable. how can it sound better or worse ? the cable sounds the same regardless of where it is placed. the stereo system is affected by the cable. |
Again, this is semantics. What we learn is which cable sounds better in our system. |
