Hshapiro wrote: My point is that no matter how good the cable, they will only be as good as the weakest link in the rest of your system. And he continued: "You quoted me out of context when you said that I said, if a cable is good, it reveals problems. Your conclusion that I meant that "problems" is the definition of a good cable is illogical." I guess my point was that if a "good" cable reveals flaws in your system, how do you really know it is a good cable? What if it doesn't reveal flaws? Does that mean its bad? It seems MORE logical to rely on how the cable makes your system sound vs. some perceived notion that the cable is "good" based on measurements or price or if it reveals problems. Like I said, its about system synergy. Certain cables - yes, even $300 ones can make an ordinary system sound great and can in some cases benefit a much higher valued system as well. The results all depend upon the sonics of the components being used as well as the room in which the system resides. Hshapiro wrote: You stated that, "Good cables tend to be good no matter where they are." I'm left to assume that you mean a good cable can make a bad system sound good. On this point I disagree. Yes they can. My definition of "good" as it pertains to cables is simply what sounds best in any given system. What is your definition of good? How do you know your Virtual Dynamics Nite and Audition cables are good? Do you measure them? Do they show weaknesses in the rest of your system or do they just sound good? Come on man, tell me... how do you define a good cable? And.. how do you know its good? Will that good cable sound good in everyone elses system? ** Something to think about - Virtual Dynamics cables made my system sound lousy, so they must be good... right? Hshapiro wrote: The same thing occurs when a better CD player with higher resolution makes a poorly recorded CD sound worse than it did with an ordinary CD player. I have NEVER heard a good CD player (and I've owned several very good CD players) which made a bad recording sound worse than when played on bad CD player. Hshapiro wrote: You can't describe all the sounds you hear as tone any more than you can describe all the things you see as tonal colors. It's not that simple. You are right, its not that simple. Sound itself is simply a set of vibrations containing frequency. And tone is how we perceive the frequencies. Take an old receiver and crank up the bass knob. We perceive greater dynamics - amplitude - weight... turn up the treble and wow, everything is more open, detailed. How exciting! In order to add more detail to music it takes a change of pitch, timbre, yes... tone. How else do you think the vibrations of sound can be mutated or etched to create sound we perceive as more detailed? Hshapiro wrote: Since you have quoted or created definitions of some of the attributes of sound, you should know that the words transparency and clarity are synonymous. Do you honestly assume that I didn't know the meaning of clarity is virtually the same as transparency? Duh! Come on man! Get off your high horse and try to figure out why I chose to quote the definition of transparency vs. clarity. |
Hshapiro wrote: One has to make the assumption that their basic system is already good, in order to assess whether a cable sounds good. I would not be persuaded that a cable was good or bad if a reviewer used it in an otherwise poor audio system. You need to establish that the other components in your system, their setup, and the room the system is in, are of appropriate quality. Otherwise, any discussion over whether your system is making the cables sound bad or vice versa is a chicken and egg argument. So... then please explain how inserting a good cable into a system reveals the problems of the system as you have stated repeatedly. Its the chicken and the egg isn't it? and if it is... then why on Earth would you make the original statement that putting a good cable in a system reveals the problems? And.. if it's the chicken and the egg that is more logic leaning toward the point that I've been making all along... The whole point of audio is synergy within the system. Cables either increase or reduce the level of synergy between components. What is a good and what is bad is relative to the system in which it is being used. As I previously stated, I agree with you that synergy and certainly the room and setup are essential to obtaining good sound, but I stand by my belief that
you can't make a fundamentally bad system sound good with a good cable. Hmmm... perhaps you should experience the Nordost demo where they bring out a cheap boom-box, remove the standard thin red/black speaker wire boom-boxes come with & replace with Nordost's low end cables. The sound of the boom box improves dramatically. Then... the Nordost folks repeat the process with every grade of cable up to Valhalla. With each step, the sound improves tremendously until you are blown away by what Valhalla does for the sound produced by the crappy boom-box. So... you are wrong. Cables can make a significant difference in a cheap system. To emphasize my point, below is a quote from Audioengr's Empirical Audio website - its really, really appropriate for this thread too!! To get the biggest bang for your buck, the best thing to do is try them. You may discover that your $5K system sounds like a $30K system with $2K worth of high-end cables installed. The live sound that we get on our Empirical Audio reference system rivals and even beats systems costing 10X more and it is primarily attributable to our cables! Given that we now know what Audioengr's reference system is, we must assume the cables he makes are magic. You may find a lesser cable that works better with a lesser system, but it is illogical to state that this cable is superior, in and of itself. I will just agree to disagree. What's really illogical is you've yet to tell me what makes a cable lesser than another. Which of cables is lesser? Purist Audio Dominus, Nordost Valhalla, Siltech G5, Audio Note Kondo, TMC Yellow Label, or throw in any others you like...And.. if you can identify the lesser of the bunch, tell me why its that way. Ahh... you did tell me what makes a good cable: good cable, which has to do only one thing well; pass the signal, intact." Wow... if you've used cables which lose signal then you ARE using bad cables!! Can you share with us a cable which fails to pass a signal intact? Hshapiro wrote: I have heard many poor recordings sound worse on better CD players, as the flaws in the recording were exposed to a greater extent. I can't change the fact that you haven't heard this or don't agree with the logic. I will agree to disagree. Oh.. no.. believe me, I understand the logic. Its just that typical bad recordings are harsh sounding and so are most bad CD players. When a bad recording is played on a bad CD player, the problem with the harshness is compounded. While there may be bad CD players which have trouble with detail retrieval and a softness to the sound, I have yet to hear one that was bad in that way. Hshapiro wrote: Quite frankly, I'm not interested in figuring out why you chose to quote the definition of clarity and transparency as if they were different concepts. After all, it was you who posed the questions, "Clarity? How about Transparency?" as if trying to illicit an answer from me on each term. Ah I see where you're coming from. Typically I use the Stereophile glossary as a reference for audiophile terms. Transparency is the proper term to describe clarity. Something for you to think about Bwhite; when you quote definitions of ordinary audio terms, as you have done, it leads people to think that you are the one who is on his high horse. What's wrong with quoting audio terms? It keeps everyone on the same page and using the same language to describe what they hear. I do not write the terms my friend, instead I used them in this case to provide a basis for our discussions. You have repeatedly stated that the changes you heard in sound were not TONAL changes but the glossary definitions of the terms you use seem to indicate that perhaps they were. Then you shift your opinion and confirm that yes, some of the changes were in tone. |
|
Hshapiro its your turn. I will address both the issues you have with me in two posts. This post addresses the issue regarding what I said in my original post on 08-26-02. First off, you either mis-quoted me or mis-interpreted what I said. You can either go to the post I made on: 08-26-02 or read what I wrote below:
Biggest bang for the buck? Argh! Tough question but - I would have to say the right cables can make a sad system sing and a great system sound utterly magnificent.
You seem to think I said something different: Hshapiro wrote: It was this statement about a good cable making a bad system sound good that I took issue with. For the third time, here is what I actually said in response to your position above, “If, for instance, your electronic components which cost ten times that of your cables are flawed in some obvious way, no $300 cable will come to their rescue. In fact, a good cable, regardless of price, will only reveal other problems upstream.” In this context and this context only, is why on earth I made my original statement. OK? Okay... Well I didn't say that a "GOOD" cable will make a bad system do anything. I said THE RIGHT CABLE can make a sad system sing. Key word = RIGHT! When you say that a good cable reveals problems upstream it's idiotic - and the kind of thing you hear folks say who don't know what the hell they are talking about. This is why I kept quizzing you on which of the cables I named, were good. Not having tried the cables and LISTENED TO THEM YOURSELF, you would have nothing other than the opinions of others, price, and perhaps reviews to base your decision. Here are three scenarios: 1) you buy and expensive cable, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link? 2) you buy a cable that received a great review, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link? 3) you buy a cable that everyone is talking about, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link? How do you as the audiophile deduct that the cable is good and your system is bad? The asinine assumption that a cable will "show" you a weak link just makes me laugh. That is such a mid-fi way of viewing high-end. As Rcrump put it to Sean - (two guys who I believe in by the way), "Sean, the quote is all wire is crap, but some are less crappy than others." The cables themselves are in many high-end systems - the most likely candidate as the weak link. Perhaps this will help you - if you already own the VERY BEST SYSTEM in the world & there are no possible upgrades for ANY of your components. And you put what you consider the very best, most highly rated cable at any price in that system and it sounds bad.... what do you do?? Oh my lord!!!! You buy another cable! If you have an OKAY system or one like Audioengr's which sounds like systems costing 10x more!! And you put what you consider the very best, most highly rated cable at any price in that system and it sounds bad.... It becomes an issue with TRUST... I think you stepped up to the plate in one of your posts and talked about having a level of confidence in your system vs. the cable. This is good and I think its a fair way to judge performance. What your gut tells you is usually not far off. Needless to say, I don't trust Audioengr's system and therefore I would keep the cable and ditch the system. But that's a rare case! :) But when you stoop down to a lower level system - lets say something like a Philips CD player, an Outlaw Audio Home Theater Receiver, and Low End Speakers. Cables make a dramatic difference in sound. Yes, it can be very much like painting a $200 car with $2000 in paint - but no joke, the difference in sound is astonishing. In fact, I would have to say that the RIGHT cables in a cheap system will have more impact on a percentage scale than GOOD interconnects in a high(er) end system. Hard to believe? Well... I don't know for sure but experience tells me it is possible. Keep in mind - cheap systems are harsh, bright, muddy, ugly sounding pieces of doo-doo. This is where the effects of cables can be quite profound. REMEMBER - I never said GOOD CABLES WILL MAKE A CHEAP SYSTEM GOOD... I said SING. Maybe its Karaoke night kinda stuff, certainly not gospel - definately not REAL good.. but entertaining... often surprising... obviously better than doing nothing and more fun than listening to the cables they ship with the gear. If you have a crappy system. Try it. Did you re-read what I wrote about the Nordost demo? That's important because they change the speaker cables on a boom-box and the differences are amazing. If you don't have a crappy system, do you have a VCR? Try switching the cables on your VCR with your Virtual Dynamics and see if you can hear a difference. Not sure if your TV speakers are capable but you might hear an improvement. |
Biggest bang for the buck? Argh! Tough question but - I would have to say the right cables can make a sad system sing and a great system sound utterly magnificent. The margin of improvement by a single component in any system is far less - regardless of the quality of the component. Dumping a pair of Tenor's in a system comprised of a first generation CD player, radio shack preamp, and cheezy speakers is not going to provide the same results dollar for dollar as if the problems of the system were addressed with better suited cables. How much are the tenors? 20K? That's one heck of a cable budget! We may have money left over for better speakers! There are many reasons for this - most of which *I* cannot explain. We often read how the electrical properties of cables, the preservation of signal, the capacitance, reactance and inductance all work to make it "better" but focusing on this is like looking at only one piece of the puzzle. Here is an example. The new BMI Shark power cord is made of platinum. We know Platinum is a crappy conductor but people claim the Shark is an awesome "sounding" power cord. Likewise there are other cables (and components) which measure poorly yet sound very musical. Why is this? To get a better understanding of why cables make such a difference, one must first better understand the world around them. Everything is in play. While the preservation of a signal is important - there is truly so much more. Take a look at HyperPhysics to get a grasp. Did I say cables can give you the biggest bang for the buck? |
Nrchy - it seems to me that you're really beginning to get a good understanding of how this works. :)
Its the "end result" or the final sonic signature of the component that really matters - how it gets there should be mostly irrelevant to the listener. The fact that a component sounds good is all that should really matter.
I've seen lousy wire used inside of great components and while the quality of the wire was an initial concern to me, I ultimately realized that it was silly to worry about that when the sonics produced by the component were outstanding.
Likewise, I have known people who re-wired their equipment with GOOD wire, only to have horrid results.
As Tim (Tireguy) so eloquently stated in the first post - "Your system is a sum of all its parts". & I would have to agree.
But I'd like to take an additional step...
Audio is really quite similar to the game of Black Jack whereas the objective is to get a "21" without going over - by adding too many cards.
When building a component (or a complete system) every change made can take you closer to what might be considered a "21" - making too many improvements sometimes results in a sonic downgrade or "going bust".
You are right - everything has a sonic signature.
A component adds its own signature to the signal it receives. For example, if a component is bright sounding, a bright signal being fed into it will be undesirable.
The trick is to ensure that each component is fed with the sonic signature it needs to produce an optimal result.
Make sense? |
Ah... but if inferior cables (less expensive) can benefit the sound of an inferior component vs. a continued degradation in the sound with a superior cable, wouldn't that make the inferior cable the truly superior cable in that instance? :)
I would gladly dismiss excellent cables in favor of inferior ones if the inferior ones make my system sound better. |
Nrchy - it seems you just don't get it. I was referring to the statement made by Audioengr where he wrote, "...are tempted to use inferior cables designs as "tone controls" to the get "sound" they are looking for." What is superior and what is inferior are relative to the application in which they are being used and not always governed by measurement. If a cable noted as "inferior" sounds better than one deemed "superior", wouldn't that make the inferior cable superior in this instance? Guess that depends on what's important to you as a listener. To me - sound is what's important. I don't give a hoot what the electrical properties are...I only care that it sounds good. There is a lot more to the sound of a cable than the electrical properties. Unfortunately at the level most of our systems are at, this usually equates to more expensive and hence perceived as "superior". The PAD Dominus you tried is a great cable - sounds great! but I seriously doubt it has the best measurements of any cable out there. So does that make it inferior? Some would say yes because they believe that measurement and electrical properties are the silver bullet of audio. Likewise - very few (if any) cables that measure better than the Dominus will actually sound better. Why do you suppose that is? |
Audioengr - butting connectors together in a system is not possible. Any imaginary result or benefit of having no cables is pure speculation and therefore irrelevant. There must a be conductor of some sort connecting the components together. Even in an integrated product, there is wire which connects each module. And we all know that speakers do not hook directly to the back of our amps. Each component (good or bad) has a sonic signature. There is always a need for tone control of sorts to acheive the optimal results. Heck... each module within a component has a unique sonic signature which changes as a signal propogates through the component - are these tone controls too? If so are they bad? Should I imagine music as if there was no analog output stage or power supply in my CD player so I can get a better idea of what superior clarity and focus sounds like? When I change the caps in my CD player or add a silver wound transformer to my preamp, am I just adding a tone control? If we go back to an earlier post I made which said, Its the "end result" or the final sonic signature of the component that really matters - how it gets there should be mostly irrelevant to the listener. Then we can better understand my position that superior and inferior are relative to the application. If the Linn CD12 CD player uses crappy wire internally but sounds awesome, is it a bad CD player? Would changing the crappy wire to "superior" wire inside the player actually improve the sound...? That's doubtful unless other things were changed to compensate for the addition of the "superior" wire. Similarly if a system lacks midrange presence, weight or body it is not going to be fixed necessarily with a cable that measure good. It could... but it might not. The best is simply what sounds the best, tone controls are everywhere and nothing is truly superior unless it sounds the best in the application in which its being used. |
Okay.. I just went to a couple websites which I knew had Inductance and Capacitance specifications listed for their cables. Interesting enough, the cheapest cable in this list has the closest measurement to the most expensive - which is recognized as a "reference" cable and not typically considered inferior.
So what does it mean?
TMC Yellow Label ($300 1m pair)
Inductance 0.059 µH/ft
Capacitance 23.40 pF/ft
Empirical - Holophonic-2S ($419 1m pair)
Inductance .72µH
Capacitance 10.3pF
Nordost Valhalla ($3300 1m pair)
inductance 0.055uH/ft
capacitance 22.0pF/ft
Harmonic Tech Pro Silway ($359 1m pair)
Inductance 0.43 uH / ft
Capacitance 32 pF / ft |
Audioengr - you are totally overlooking the fact that each module in a component DOES add a sonic signature - maybe the gain and buffering stages do not but can you honestly say that two different analog output stages on CD players or two different power supply designs will sound the same?
and that neither of these change the sound of a component?
As for the Linn CD12 sounding good as a result of short wires.... That's bologna too. What about the PC boards inside? I bet those sound great!
Cable butting... that's funny. Totally impossible and completely impossible to truly "imagine" what the final sound would be.
I think my system has nearly no weak links - perhaps your cables will make it have NO weak links. Do you think my AudioNote Kondo KSL is the weak link? Or my NBS Statement? |
Okay guys we are getting way off track from the original post. I do believe that cables offer the biggest bang for the buck. The right $300 cable can revolutionize a system where as a $300 component wouldn't in most cases. now I digress... Hshapiro, I do not think I am missing Audioengr's point. He kind of side stepped my arguments by mentioning two modules which do not effect the sound the gain and the buffer. But.. what about the other modules? First off, I believe the term "tone control" as well as "Band-Aid" have both been negative ways people have chosen to describe the effects of cables on a system. While the terms are for the most part accurate, the terms are still a slam on cables in general and really not fair commentary on a system. Secondly, I have never taken a LinCD12 apart so I cannot confirm whether or not the wires are short. They may infarct be but its silly to attribute the astonishing sound of a Linn CD12 only to short wire... Audioengr does also state that changing bad wire to good wire might make an improvement but it would be infinitesimal. This seems to differ from the results you had with your Adcom GFA-555 where you replaced cheap input wire with "custom" 22g pure silver wire in a Teflon jacket. Can you describe the changes you heard? Do you think that just maybe, the tone of the Adcom changed a bit? If not, what did change? How did you know it was better? I guess I have stepped across a new line in the sand when I speak of the tone controls inside of a component as well as the components themselves being tone controls designed to produce a specific sound. This side of the sand is fun to be on.. so for fun, let me ask, hasn't any one here thought that just maybe, ALL AUDIO COMPONENTS (REGARDLESS OF WHICH ONE) ARE IN FACT TONE CONTROLS... What do you think differentiates McIntosh, LAMM, Krell, Levinson, AudioAero, AudioMeca, Sony, Pioneer, blah.... blah... blah....and yes the Linn CD12?? They all sound different do they not? Why do you suppose that is? Could it be tone? Tone comes in many forms and yes, dynamic contrasts, shadings and a lack of distortion can in fact be a direct result of "tone" since the definition of TONE as it refers to sound is: the quality or character of sound, a distinct pitch, a sound of distinct pitch and vibration, quality, and duration, a... blah... blah... blah.. the list goes on. Tone is a pretty big word. And since audiophile tend to use visual cues to describe what they hear, tone can be even more profound than the above definition indicates. Anyhow, perhaps we are not aware that many aftermarket manufacturers have been quite busy upgrading parts inside of the new SACD players (they don't just shorten the wire), they alter the various "modules" as I called them - with new parts. The upgrades improve the quality of sound these components (SACD players) produce. Now.. what is the difference between the before SACD player and the after CD player? Do you think that maybe the tonal quality... --> From Stereophile Glossary: The accuracy (correctness) with which reproduced sound replicates the timbres of the original instruments. --> may have improved? Audioengr... I would be very interested to know what your system is comprised of. You make a rather bold statement: Until you have heard a superior system where there are no "weak links", one that is wired with truly low-loss IC's and speaker cables, you will not know what I am talking about. This "tone-control" mentality is what makes it really difficult to get an even playing field to compare cable performance. Who needs an even playing field to compare cable performance? Which combination of audio components makes for an even playing field? Isn't sound the ultimate playing field, or are electrical properties more important? And.. while were on the subject of even playing field. How many of you have a room that sounds just like mine? or Audioengr's? THERE IS NO EVEN PLAYING FIELD! |
Audioengr is there a difference in sound between Auricaps and Black Gate? Do Caddocks sound the same as Vishays? |
Hshapiro - for the most part it looks as if we are on the same page. The topic of this thread is "cables vs. electronics: biggest bang for the buck". I used a $300 cable vs. a $300 component as a comparison and it seems you agree that a $300 component wouldn't revolutionize a system like a cable might. How about a $1500 cable vs. a $1500 component? Hshapiro wrote: In fact, a good cable, regardless of price, will only reveal other problems upstream. Obviously, a $300 component would be incapable of "revolutionizing" a system. So if a cable is good, it reveals problems? Not in my experience. What defines a "good cable"? Problems? That's weird. Good cables tend to be good no matter where they are. If a cable reveals a problem upstream - wouldn't you think that just maybe the cable isn't the best choice for the application? Or do you fall in the camp of folks who try to change components to accomodate what they perceive as a good cable? Hshapiro wrote: I happen to believe that all modules, including gain can effect sound, even if only in a less obvious way. For instance, the choice of a pot for controlling levels can effect the sound. Tell me if I am wrong but I think the potentiometer is in the signal path. It's not truly the "Gain Stage". But I know what you mean. I am glad you agree that the various modules can change the sound of a compoenent. However... Hshapiro wrote: Yes, one of the changes was in the tone, but it was the least obvious improvement in this tweak. The frequency extremes gained greater extension. Whenever the original signal is allowed to pass unhindered, some increase in a particular frequency will shift the overall tonal balance. The greatest improvements were that the sound became quicker, with greater dynamics and weight. Clarity improved as well, and there was a decrease in audible noise. All of this came from changing a few inches of wire in critical areas of the amplifier. Everything you experienced in the changes to the Adcom can be associated with tone and are perceived because of the change in tone or accentuation of various frequencies which were otherwise subdued. Greater Extension, Dynamics, weight, clarity, speed, decrease in noise, etc. This is tone at work. Dynamic: Giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast. ---> Made evident by a change in tone. If you've ever thought of cables as tone controls you should try high end NBS cables... Man! They can produce some very dynamic music! Weight: The feeling of solidity and foundation contributed to music by extended, natural bass reproduction. Clarity? How about Transparency? Transparency: A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity. Highs.... Open up the sound create that illusion of clarity. |
Audioengr I disagree with you - but thanks for sharing the components in your reference system. One thing I ask, please show some sensitivity before you go off making comments like, "Until you have heard a superior system where there are no weak links..." consider that not all of us really know how to put together such a system. With the Coda, the Sony DVD player, a Proceed pre/pro and Kef speakers, it seems you have the upper hand here my friend.
The whole point of audio is synergy within the system. Cables either increase or reduce the level of synergy between components. What is a good and what is bad is relative to the system in which it is being used - this includes the room. |
Hshapiro - for a guy with Spectral gear and who has been "required" to use MIT cables for a long time... until you risked using VD.... You sure seem convinced that you know a lot about cables. Having only two cables in your system, how did you get so much knowledge and become such an expert? First - regarding the NORDOST demo. You misread what I wrote. They are not removing internal wire from within the Boom-Box. They ARE removing and replacing the speaker wires only. Re-read it. The combined general concensus on Audiogon and one that I agree with (and fight diligently to defend) is that there is no single cable that will work best in every system. Which means that the best cable for any given system is dependent upon what the system is. In my collection of "systems" I have what I call a pretty cheap and crappy system . It might retail for $500 total... But maybe less.. This system uses Audioquest Lapis cables (which retailed for about $800 - I think). In my honest oppinion, the Audioquest cables help the system tremendously - in fact, the improvement is huge. This experience seems to contradict what YOU repeatedly state that, "good cables cannot help a bad system". So each time you state that, you are telling me that I cannot hear, I cannot determine for myself what sounds better and I resent that. As for the "tone" issue you have with me... I will reply to that later - to help you understand where I am coming from. I have read many of your posts and believe you are a great contributor to this site and seem like an awful nice guy. Therefore it troubles me to be in such a heated and at times - confusing, discussion with you. I will reply to your post later. But... Please in the future when you quote me use the "quote markup tags" (by clicking on the link above or as described in the link at the bottom of the text entry window) so people don't confuse who says what. However, I doubt by now anyone really cares or is reading this stuff:) |
Audioengr - re-read the post. I was being sarcastic to Hshapiro... I think you are confusing who said what. And.. in the process confusing yourself... see below.. I know what you intended to say and it makes sense but reads a little strange. Audioengr wrote: Cables can only color the sound and thereby conceal weakness in the components of a system. This is how good cables can highlight weaknesses in a given system. If a cable conceals a weakness that is a good thing. The system will sound better... if a cable highlights a weakness whos to say that the real weakness didn't come from the cable? Me thinks the only ones who would blame the system instead of the cable would be quasi-cable manufacturers don't you? So you're telling me that if I put an Empirical cable in my system and it sounds bad that I need to buy different components? You are funny!!!! |
Audioengr - taking in to account the following information in your quotes below: Audioengr wrote on 09-09-02: I disagree. Until you have heard a superior system where there are no "weak links", one that is wired with truly low-loss IC's and speaker cables, you will not know what I am talking about. This "tone-control" mentality is what makes it really difficult to get an even playing field to compare cable performance. Audioengr wrote on 09-10-02:
As for my system, I have 3, so I will describe my reference:
Source: Sony DVP-S7700 transport
Pre: Proceed AVP
Amp: Coda 10.5
Spkrs: KEF reference 104/2
Cables: Empirical Audio
Based on your own logic, a reference system has no weak links. Everything is equal. No single component is better than the next. If something were better or worse it would stick out like a sore thumb, because good cables highlight weaknesses, and reveal problems. Continuing with your profound logic and through my own deductive reasoning - I can safely assume that the cables your produce are equal to and no better than a Sony DVD player which is no longer in production. If the cables were better than the DVD Player, you would have been able to identify it as a possible weak link. In a system, an audio signal does not get better than the source that produces it. Therefore I must say, I am not impressed. |
Hshapiro on to tone... What I said was surely very confusing. Especially since most people perceive tone as a pair of knobs which add or subtract from bass and treble.
To me, tone is much more significant in that it encompasses or provides for the nuance, subtleties, emotion, timbre, dynamics, and transparency of music. While the list of what tone does goes on - I am limited for time tonight. :)
I have been trying to select a good analogy to describe tone to you and its been tough but I think I've got a good one...you'll have to do a little creative thinking and imagining to understand.
Take a familiar image - say the Mona Lisa and lets imagine it as a drawing made from pencil - maybe even us drawing it. With a pencil there is a limit to how dark and how light the colors (tone) can be. Ultimately the paper on which the image is drawn becomes the clearest - brightest surface to work with and a hard pressed pencil produces the darkest blackest tone of shadowy silence possible.
Are you with me?
Creating the truest shape and the life-like form of the Mona Lisa in pencil would then become simply a matter of using everything in-between the bright white and dark black to produce the shades of gray that ultimately define the image you see. Every nuance is described by a different gray... Long gradients of light to dark show us the gradual change from height to depth while short gradients provide us with insight into the detail and sudden drops.
If we imagine the frequency spectrum as Black being bass - til silence and White being treble til silence. We can better view how all the tone in-between shapes the sounds we hear. Its the millions of grays that describe the context of the music.
These grays tell us the difference between a Krell and a Jadis, or a Sony DVD player and an Audiomeca Mephisto. They also tell us the full emotional story about the music being played in a full 3D soundstage.
Every change to a system effects the way the grays are interpreted by you, the listener. You perceive those changes and try to describe them with a limited vocabulary... No offense - I am sure you have a great vocabulary but, can you describe 3 million or so grays individually? How about 16+ million in a full color portrait? Not to mention the fact that the English language offers very little for describing what we hear.
SO without the words to describe exactly what we here we are forced - to use visual cues.
That said, the word tone can in fact mean many things and in audiophile terms it is quite broad since most of the things that audiophiles hear are defined by the millions of grays in-between the sharp contrasts of black and white. |
Nrchy - Cables are a controversial subject and people get their feathers in a bunch when a topic like "Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck" hits the forum.
There are so many perceptions, so many quasi-theorys and lots of BS floating around. Every now and then I try to stir things up to get people thinking outside the box - ironically it rarely works with those who cling to science yet still have no sensible method of explaining what they hear.
With variables like personal preference, room accoustics, components, parts, and budget... Science will never satisfy all of us. As a result, measurements are meaningless and SPICE simulations on cables are a joke because people who love music and invest in audio don't really care to impress their friends with a specifications sheet or the SPICE tests on some guys website. They would much rather impress themselves (and their friends) by enriching their lives with the music that inspired this passion in the first place.
This is why I state that what's best is what sounds best. Seems like a lame, no-brainer statement to me, but if you read this thread, you'll see how much heat I got.
I think you are one of those who IS sure. You experienced the PAD cable in your system and it made an amazing improvement. You are the only person who can determine if the level of improvement was worth the price.
In my experience, cables are huge. Whether they be tone controls or superconductors it's irrelevant. It's how they sound man! and how their signature effect the components they're attached to that matters.
You may already know my answer... YES.. dollar for dollar, on a level playing field, and within reason($), cables are in-fact the best way to improve a system and perhaps even counteract some of the nasties encountered by the acoustics of a listening room. |
Hshapiro - now we're getting somewhere. Sorry for coming across as having an elitist attitude. In a way, all audiophiles are to some extent elitist in their views. We would be hard pressed to find a dedicated audiophile who was satisfied with the same audio gear the rest of the world had.
When I complimented you, I meant it. However, I was a little squirmish when I read comments similar to "...highlighting the weakest link..." and "...pointing out problems..." because they didn't seem to fit your standard logic and intelligent way of describing what you hear.
I have a couple pet-peeves or things which cause me to cringe when I read 'em. For example - when someone says, "shows you problems upstream" or "sounds like systems costing 10x more" - I freak out. Perhaps I should better contain my reaction.
Anyhow, I see your point in regard to whats *perceived* as a good cable showing flaws in an otherwise untrustworthy (or flawed) system - one which the owner may perceive as having a weak link after installing a cable they feel is "good" or "better" than the rest of the system.
I guess it all has to do with what your goal as an audiophile is. If you put a good or better cable in any given system and it "highlights a problem" it becomes an issue of how much you want to spend to resolve the problem-or how far you're willing to go.
I'll ask a couple rhetorical questions to make a point. If you have a Krell amplifier and put in a fine silver cable, it could sound lousy... does this really mean that you need to change your Krell to a Jadis in order to keep the cable? What if you start off with a Jadis and put in a GOOD cable that sounds bloated, does that mean you go out and buy a Krell?
There is a lot of room between what's good for Krell and what's good for Jadis. The goal should be finding the cable that is RIGHT in either situation. Hence my suggestion to most people is NOT to upgrade components based on what cables do to a system, instead change cables based on what they do to the components - based on what you, the listener, feel is right.
And if down the road they upgrade components, change cables accordingly. Its simple.
Just because a cable is as some may put it, "low rez" does not mean its bad. Likewise, if a cable is "high rez" it might not be that good. Depends on the usage.
Make sense? |
Regarding my comment That is such a mid-fi way of viewing high-end. Hshapiro wrote: Laugh all you want, and thanks for exhibiting your elitist audiophile side again. Please define the "mid-fi way of viewing high-end?" I will try to define the "mid-fi" way of viewing high-end without an elitist perspective. Once an audiophile has chosen his/her path and selected components from within the available spectrum - everything between black and white - or since I used Krell and Jadis before - everything between Krell and Jadis... The goal is to make the system sound as close to ideal as possible - based on listener preference, room conditions, etc. At the higher end, audiophiles select components based on what sonic signatures they prefer and in most cases try to tune their systems as best as possible - to bring out every last bit of performance. I used the analogy of Black Jack in one of my posts above...whether they know it or not, folks in the high end are trying to get a 21. They don't want to bust - go over 21 - because that would be too much. They view 21 as a winning hand - perfection - and each baby step they take toward that number is a small victory. A cable which turns out to be too low-rez could set someone back to 15 or 10... but likewise cast them into the 22 or 23 range (depending on choice of components). The same thing can happen with a cable that is to high-rez, again, depending on choice of components. Its an almost never ending cycle. Often components are changed for better or worse but the audiophile must determine if they actually improve the sound (get closer to 21), deduct from the sound (loose a few points), or go over the top - damn! I went bust! IF 21 is equal to the perfect resolution then you can view 22 as being too detailed or analytical and 20 as being slightly compressed. Make sense? Mid-Fi - Pretty difficult to explain and pretty risky since I will be required to make some tough statement... but...I'm a glutton for punishment so.. here it goes... I characterize mid-fi as a phase where folks don't exactly know where they're going with their system. Their goal is often making their system sound like systems costing 10x more! (which isn't a bad thing) Like most of us - including myself - they do not have the dollars required to venture into the highest of high end and therefore are easily swayed in their opinion of their system. Even if they did, they wouldn't know where to go... They have less of an idea of what is good or bad about their system - and the lack of trust in their components often keeps them bouncing back and forth. They tend to be easily excited by dramatic changes and regard the results of the changes as a result of the component (or cable) they view as being the most competent - instead of trying to build a synergy! Mostly, I view mid-fi as not having direction, not knowing what component to upgrade, cable to buy, etc. The stress of mid-fi is overwhelming and I think its mostly because these people for the most part, haven't been exposed to really high-end (20's, 21's and 22's) so they just don't yet know what they truly enjoy. Once a mid-fi person chooses the direction, everything becomes clear and the steps required to accomplish the goal become evident. This is why when someone says, "reveals problems upstream" they are talking mid-fi. its a very vague statement (what problems?) and typical of someone who doesn't know where they're going with the system - and doesn't trust it. If the mid-fi person had direction in their system, or a goal - they would know whether or not the addition of the new component or cable put them closer to 21 or further away. |
Hshapiro - GREAT! I think we have come to a meeting of the minds. Thanks for your objectivity! Hey.... Not to stir things up again but regarding your last statement: Yes. If a "low rez" cable helps make a "low rez" system sound better, then the result is positive. I have heard some "high rez" cables that did not interact synergistically with other "high rez" equipment, so it can go either way. It seems like we have come to a meeting of the minds and I feel a whole lot better. Usually - on the high(er) end - low(er) rez cables make high(er) resolution systems sound better. There are some VERY, VERY GOOD cables out there which may be perceived as low rez by some. Most cables deemed high-rez do not work well with high-rez systems. High-rez cables are great for low(er) rez systems. On the lower end - lower rez cables will make harsh sounding systems sound better - easier on the ears - and high rez cables make muddy systems sound more transparent. On the highest end - when a synergy has been formed - lean toward the most neutral cable for the system. Its impossible to fine a 100% purely neutral cable and unlikely to hear a 100% purely neutral component. At this level, one really wants to listen to the music and not the cables or components. Given that the quality of sound reproduced by such components is typically superior but not absolutely perfect, it becomes a delicate balancing act to add the RIGHT cable into the mix which has the most neutral presentation possible without leaning the wrong direction. Even at this level (20 or 22) its possible to be too sterile or too rich with the components. At this level, high-rez is just as bad as low-rez. |
Audioengr wrote: Usually, when a cable conceals a weakness in a system it does this by corrupting the sound in some way or adding coloration. I dont see how this is an improvement. Ya... but if a system has a weakness... the sound is already corrupted! So who the hell cares!!??!! If the cable makes the system more listenable - THAT IS A GOOD THING! |
Hshpiro - regarding the VD cables. Long story. In order to explain I have to first say that I tried countless cables in my system before settling on Audio Note Kondo KSL-LP (which is the newer doubled version of the old Kondo AN-Vz between my source and my preamp), NBS Statement between my preamp and amp and Audio Note Kondo KSL for my speakers. Given that my speakers are tri-wire, its a royal pain in the rear to get the perfect cable in there. I went with countless brands - using jumpers between the three sets of posts - and even at one time went to the extent of using three different brands at the same time - Cardas Golden Cross for the bass driver, Kimber Select 3035 for the mids and Audioquest Sterling for the highs. While this was certainly interesting, since each of those cables exhibit rather strong qualities in the areas I placed them... it was damn expensive to keep three "top of the line" cables laying on the floor scaring my wife - The expense was in my relationship more so than the dollars spent. :) It sounded okay but didn't have the greatest coherence. Guess it was like an allstar team - individuals who perform well on their own but lack the team work required to really make a smash.
Ultimately, upon the advice of a reviewer for Ultimate Audio Magazine I tried a set of Audio Note Kondo KSL speaker cables and they were good. While they didn't knock you over with their sound, they were crystal clear - pristine - with no nasties - and didn't seem to compress the sound at all.
So given that the speaker cables were a pain in the rear, I "settled" for the Audio Notes and never looked back. While they do have a certain sonic signature, it is difficult to identify, making them rather neutral and a good cable to work with.
I got the VD cables when I read the "buzz" - I had my system right where I wanted it but felt like playing around and checking out the new guy on the block. I purchased a pair of the VD Signature interconnects used. At about the same time, Joe at JC Audio actually loaned me what was once the top of the line Signature VD power cord as well as a low end VD cord.
With the VD cables in my system, the first thing I noticed was the added "sledge hammer" bass and a "gimmicky" sound quality. I had worked very hard to make my system as organic as I could with the cables I owned (and NOS tubes I selected) but for whatever reason the VD and the NBS didn't mesh well together. It brought on a harshness to the sound so I pulled out the NBS and inserted the Kondo and the sound was more livable but still not right. I felt that the harmonics were inaccurate in my system and the bass was overloaded. The highs were shimmery & like a school of fish I could never predict where they were going next. It was a bit more coherent in that setup but certainly not an improvement over where I was before VD.
Even though my experience with the VD cables wasn't all that spectacular, I cannot say its a bad cable. In fact, they have qualities which would be pretty good in the right system.
Basically - my goal with my system has been to produce something I think sounds natural. Real. With a pace as close to the smoooothness of good analog. Subtle and delicate with finesse. Relaxing and comforting. Soothing and persistently Dreamy - yet still able to kick ass when the time was right...While I only spent 72 hours with the VD in my home and even less time listening to them, I heard the VD as a pretty dynamic cable which was more ready to kick ass than it was to give me a kiss on the cheek...but I must say, in a nice way of course, that problems I found in the cables were more in regard to my preferences & system than to the cables themselves.
I sent the Signature power cord back to JC Audio and sold the interconnects three days later. But.. I kept the low end cable and ripped it open to find out what Rick does inside there to make them tick.
Another thing I didn't mention is that the VD power cords replaced a pair of more refined yet anything but transparent Shunyata King Cobra V1 power cord and an ElectraGlide FatMan K. The Shunyata ads a surreal quality to the digital front end and the Electraglide adds a vividness to the texture and a smooth seamless intensity to the dynamics. Whether or not the VD's were broken in, I do not know but they certainly lacked the refinement of these two cables.
Anyhow...its getting late so gotta shut this one down.
With the VD cables in my system, my system became someone elses system - the sound might have been right for someone else, it just wasn't right for me. |
WOW... Gone a few days and look at the action! Ah.. it looks as if most of you have started to realize something...
Albertporter! Outstanding response on 09-15-02! That made my day. :) Pure class and well written indeed. Touche' |
Hshapiro: my 1m Kondo KSL is a doubled version of AN-Vz. AN-Vz is made of "four wires" and KSL-LP is eight. Similarly, Nordost Valhalla interconnects are rumored to be a double run of Quattro Fil.
Even though the Kondo stuff is expensive, my cables do not cost $19K. They're much less expensive. That person in the quote you made must have been using a 2 meter length. :) Seriously... I think with the Yen/Dollar conversion Kondo KSL is now retailing at $3500 but the US distributor has been selling for $1800 new.
A few years ago however I read stories of AN-Vz being sold in the US for nearly $22K for a 1m length - while in Japan it was only $5K. Weird stuff. Can't explain it.
I've never read of anyone who could bag on Kondo's cables for issues other than price. |
FYI - I have a number of Bybee's I've removed from my equipment one by one - after having them installed one by one. They do make a nice change to certain systems but are not for everyone or every component.
I would say that overall they tend to ad a subtle but darker character to the music and ultimately make it less life-like and less lively - dull, flat... but the back-ground is blacker... What's more important? Lively or a black background... you decide! The sound stage doesn't "expand" per se', it does however become muddied and thicker sounding perhaps giving the illusion that it got bigger? I dunno... But when you get excited about soundstage while listening.. think about how realistic the size is rather than how wide it is. Sometimes a consolodation of the soundstage is a more accurate representation of the performance than a great big through-the-walls soundstage.
There are components which would benefit tremendously from Bybee's like the SCD-1 and 777ES SACD players and maybe some solid state components. Bybee's should be avoided with tube gear unless you're using an ARC preamp - in which case the more Bybee's the better! ;)
Given that I have not ever listened to a Modwright player, I would have to say that it could be that the mods add so much "detail" that the Bybee's become a welcome addition to refine and tame the sound slightly.
For instance, on a stock XA777ES, I would hesitate to think Bybees would make any improvement and think they would make a negative sonic impact over the original design since this particular player leans ever so slightly toward the darker side of neutral when compared to the SCD-1, and 777ES.
A fully modified XA777ES may have far greater resolution and perhaps too much - making the Bybee's an effective solution which refines the overall signature. |
