Cable auditions - Hard Work?


Does anyone find it to be "hard work" to audition cables? I find that I have to be 'fresh' before I can begin to listen to cables. After I begin, I can only listen, with the intensity needed, for a period of about an hour.

As I do A/B comparisons, it sometimes seems, my impressions change as I listen. Sometimes the differences are so small or subtle, that I question if I'm hearing a difference at all. Have I lost it?

How do you folks do your cable auditions? I'd really like to know.

Thanks
paul
oldpet

Showing 6 responses by jafox

In response to Bojack, the cable business is not all a scam. This is an irresponsible comment that sends the wrong message to newcomers of this hobby who seek to improve their system beyond their source, electronics and speakers. Sure, many cable prices are downright ridiculous but there are some cables that are not inexpensive and yet they bring on a level of improvement to a system as significant as other links in the chain for the same cost. Of course that system has to have the ability to benefit from such cables.

As for what audiophiles need to learn here, I suggest we keep an open mind and not be influenced by blanket statements. The thing to do is to try many different products in our own system and determine the value added for any system change at that time.

In another A'gon thread this week I covered the details of changing all the cables in my system to the Kubala-Sosna Emotion series ..... and, with the honor of Joe Kubala himself taking much of a full-day to help me with this task. The time spent swapping out each cable to a K-S, was ultimately exhausting but it proved a lot to even this long-time skeptic of power-cord differences. When you have the potential for a high-resolution system but you have been using cables that have masked some or much of these strengths for so long, it is quite incredible to hear the transformation. And the NBS and MIT cables that I have been using for so long are very good in their own right. But the K-S cables in my system brought on a new level of musicality that was simply breathtaking. Of course this comes at a cost.

I was able to hear a far greater capability of the Aesthetix preamp and CAT amps....and even the Manley DAC had a bass rhythm that has been lacking all along. It will be awhile before I can afford to purchase each and every one of these cables, but what this experience did for me was make me aware of what is there to achieve without the desire or need to change the other components in my system.

John
Pardales - I agree with your comment on synergy. During the Kubala visit, by the time we got to swapping out the IC from the line stage to the amp, from MIT 350 Evo to K-S Emotion, there was a huge peak in the midrange. Anyone would immediately point blame to the K-S cable. In fact Joe Kubala made a bold statement and said it had to be the Concident TRS speaker cables in my system. His theory was that I had managed to obtain a "synergy" between the MIT and Coincident cables to achieve a balanced midrange. But with this also came a slight roll-off of the frequency extremes. This was new "territory" for me to take on such a theory so seriously and yet you know what...when we put in the K-S Emotion speaker cables, Joe was right on! What my synergy before was nothing more than a bandaid that happened to work with these two different cables. The musicality was there but now with the K-S pair, I had so much more resolution and frequency extreme extension. Two identically voiced cables paired together were far more accurate than two different cables. That's not synergy, that's neutrality and accuracy. I learned far more than I ever would have expected from the Kubala visit.

Synergy is important to compensate for faults in other links in the chain. As we upgrade our system, one component at a time, we base the performance of that new component on how it "mates" with the rest of our system. We need to put in component ABC with its Fault22 because component XYZ is complimentary to this with its Fault47 and so on.

So many people here claim that when one picks a cable, it should be the same model throughout the system. So far I have only ever heard one cable model where this can be done to excellent success - the Kubala Sosna Emotion. Even the Purist Dominus B which I have listened to for 2 days now, and absolutely love, would most likely be too much of a good thing for me if used throughout. It errors just enough from neutrality to make me feel summing up this error in many links would not be ideal. Here, "synergy" would be critical.

In time, I am starting to dislike this whole synergy thing more and more.

John
Yuri: Your "I am right and I dare you to prove me wrong" approach leaves little motivation for anyone here to make the effort to help you determine why you are not hearing some differences with these products. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps your system implementation is the cause of you not hearing such changes?

My system is very different than yours and I do indeed hear changes that do not require any silly blind testing. Rather than preach to us that what we are hearing is all in our minds, perhaps a more pro-active approach would be to learn from others on what they have done to achieve the sonic differences.

Have you taken your audio gear to someone else's home and compared it to what they have? Maybe their setup would allow you to hear such immediate differences.

Your pedantic delivery that cables make no difference, DAC's make no difference, Stereophile's report shows that amps make no difference, etc., etc., benefits nobody. Does such a magazine report imply that everyone will have the same results in their home system? We can all determine the outcome of an audition for ourself.

"Just a few days ago i was testing the digital outputs of my Musical Fidelity Tri Vista 21 DAC against the analog outputs of my Yamaha S2500 when playing a CD, ..."

Why are you using the DAC's digital outputs to compare to the analog outputs of a CDP? What are the DAC's digital outputs driving? A more "conventional" test would have been the DAC's analog outputs vs. the Yamaha's analog outputs into the preamp. And what is driving the Tri Vista? The Yamaha as a transport? And through what digital cable interface? Just this interface alone could mask or entirely destroy the opportunity for you to hear the benefits of the Tri Vista.

"I couldn't tell them apart, and i doubt anyone could."

Probably true but more likely due to the system's implementation rather than there not being actual differences between these individual products.

What I find ironic from your Magnepan 2.7 vs. 3.6 thread, you wrote that changing only the inductors in the speaker brought on an improvement. ONLY THE INDUCTORS!!!! And yet you can't hear amp or DAC differences?

What do you listen for.....simply frequency response and tonality changes? What about dynamic contrasts, harmonic overtones, decays, separation of musicians on the stage, etc.? For me, these are the significant changes brought on by the components which you claim sound the same.

I read the report on the power cable test. A quick review of the components that resulted in that system would indicate that such a system poorly conveys many of the attributes I listed above. I own the Talons, and they are wonderful speakers, but they are not strong in the dimensionality areas. And forget about these attributes with the Parasound JC-1s and the Theta DAC/preamp. If you want to test a Ferarri engine, you don't drop it in a Buick Century.

So Yuri, the big question here is, if you can not hear any differences, then why not just go with a Best Buy rack system and be done with it?
"Maybe the whole point of my posts ...... "

The whole point of your posts has been a series of consistent themes: 1) Cables and other component swaps in YOUR system have indicated no audible differences by you or others who heard it; 2) because YOU do not hear such differences, they are therefore subjective; 3) all the rest of us are only fooling ourselves by our claimed non-blind tests since these differences may exist "but is not something our human ears can detect".

"is that once one reaches an high echelon in the quality of the components in one system, things such as one interconnect cables or fancy power cords make no difference."

Mary, Mary, quite contrary.

As for your four consecutive MAYBE's: 1) "High-end enough"...now that is subjective.....but the answer to the spirit of your question is: possibly; 2) highly doubtful; 3) possibly; 4) possibly

I never claimed to have silver ears. I simply stated I heard an immediate difference that was validated upon a return to the previous product in the link. I simply did not need the "truth" from blind testing as my ears already made it very clear of the differences.

Please search for the word "better" in all posts of this thread and make a note that I did not use this anywhere in my text. I am talking of differences .... not what is better. That something is or was better was your conclusion, not mine.

You are right, I did wrongfully assume there would likely be a difference between the Yamaha and the Trivista. I have heard a few auditions in the past where differences were just not there for me. And this could be the case here. But the implementation of your test pretty much doomed the opportunity for you to hear any differences if they may have existed. And THAT was what I attempted to point out.

As for the Emperor, I believe he is wearing clothes. He just needs to clean his ears and open his mind to the experiences of others, and not be so conclusive that events that occur for him will necessarily be the same for others.