Dynamic range - effect on different speaker cables - even very high quality ones
I have siltech Emperor double crown speaker cables. I recently bought Tara Omega Gold. The difference was very strange, and significant. I could not put my finger on it and changed interconnects to see if there was a compatibility issue. The Siltechs brought out superbly the main "players" and that sound was bang in my face - great. But it was a bit lean in other areas (more periphery sounds such as tinkling of percussion here and there - that sort of thing). The Omegas were exceptionally clean and detailed with EVERYTHING coming through, top to bottom, but no particular light and shade that the Siltechs gave. As such, a great pure sound but a bit soulless and didn't give me the bite that the Siltechs did. I cannot survive life without the hit that the Siltechs give, so have kept those installed and I use the Omegas in an analogue set up (also lower dynamic range it seems) to enjoy those more
My false assumption before was that different cables had different qualities, and (or but) the basics of each recording would be dealt with principally the same i.e. just a different "house" sound My dealer was nonplussed too as my description of the differences was a bit out of the ordinary, and the difference were VERY stark. I have tried many different cables over the years and never encountered this issue.
By asking around he came up with an interesting "reasoning"
Normal "players" or sources chuck out at a dynamic range of 70db. My DCS upsampler/clock/dac sends out at twice that, and the cables may get over saturated with the sound and act differently. It may appear that excessive dynamic range was not particularly an issue when they designed the cables and so the effect might be unpredictable? Does anyone have a practical experience of this too - and I suppose the theory buffs out there could confuse me yet more.
Normal "players" or sources
chuck out at a dynamic range of 70db. My DCS upsampler/clock/dac sends
out at twice that, and the cables may get over saturated with the sound
and act differently ...
Dynamic range is more likely a function of the recording than the source component. I'm not aware of any commercial recording with DR in excess of 100dB and most commercial recordings don't even contain a 70dB DR.
I have navships silvercopper high tech cable throughout my system, including speaker internal wiring. Nice gains vs the radiohsak/chienese generic $5 interconnects etc. Honetly i do not think there is any better wire. I hada tech guy make a pair of $17/ft interconnect with solid copper RCA connects,,sounded aweful. paid like $325...these navships are stunning. He is now making serval pairs of inters with silver and copper RCA's, will posta vid after testing,,,..Bottom line I am nota believer there is some cable out there that is superior to what I have. Might be, but not interested. So lets say there is a inter than delivers a miniscle sonic gain,,at what price?? = $$$$$. I paid under $50. See what I am getting at?
It helps when using terms to understand what they mean and use them properly. Otherwise you make a complete hash of your thought process.
Normal "players" or sources chuck out at a dynamic range of 70db. My DCS upsampler/clock/dac sends out at twice that, and the cables may get over saturated with the sound and act differently.
We’re talking about speaker cables. Its super easy to show what complete BS this story is: turning up the volume will increase the signal and the louder you go the more compressed it will be. But you don’t mention this, because its not happening. Because its BS.
There are major differences between cables in terms of dynamics, but its not dynamic range, that is something completely different. Do a search, read the terms, learn them. Something your dealer should do. This is Audio 101 after all.
Geez my O2 sat is barely 95 and already my brain is like warp speed compared to this wanna-bee. The dealer I mean. I don’t expect every audiophile to have learned even this basic stuff. Dealers I hold to a higher standard.
The differences you are hearing, people love to make up all these technical explanations. Nobody really knows the technical explanation. What we do know is the signal is constantly changing in volume. These fast changes are what we call dynamics. They can be massive like when an orchestra swells or micro like when a violin string quivers.
This all happens across a wide range of frequencies. The timing or rate at which each of these different dynamic swings happens can vary tremendously depending on the frequency of the sound getting louder or softer. Each and every individual instrument has its own unique set of characteristics. We call it timbre, we call it timing, we have all these different names for it.
Point being its very hard to get it all just right. Its also very hard to know when it is being done just right. That’s because the exact same problem we hear with this one speaker cable is repeated across every wire and component in our system, and on up the recording chain as well.
What is very easy on the other hand is to hear and notice different little aspects of this very big picture. Lots and lots of guys get sucked into one thing or another.
You like the "hit" that the Siltechs give. Great. Good for you. But there really is nothing the least bit new or different about anything else you have noticed- most especially including the dealer and his cockamamie theories about the dynamic range of your DAC affecting your speaker cable.
Use the cables at the same time by connecting each to your power amp at one end and to your loudspeakers at the other end. I think doing it that way is borderline absurd, but others have tried it and reported positive results. As far as cable saturation goes, I think he made it up. One more thing, how does upsampling increase dynamic range?
My Bryston 7b3 amps just have one output set, so parallel is not feasible. I do have Bryston 28bsst2 amps that have 2 pairs, so could try that, but that would entail not using my favoured jumpers which complement the Siltechs like no other I have tested
douglas_schroeder I have looked at your system - it seems your level of quality is well below mine, so you need to grab what is called "humility". Compared with my system I can quite justifiably say you are playing at it and behind the game a bit. Decrying others when you have some way to go yet is delusional (reminds me of a few others on this forum)
Dude, you need to chill out. There's no reason to lash out at
douglas_schroeder or anyone else.
I don't read his post as having the intent to be insulting. Perhaps he means "just playing around" loosely, and he's not actually accusing you of being a hifi lightweight, as you seem to infer. Here's an idea, don't invite the opinion of others on an open forum, if you're so sensitive you fly off the handle when someone's thoughts aren't expressed in exactly the manner and tone your delicate ears require. Don't be so quick to try to mount someone. There is no competition going on here far as I know.
The dynamic range is in the recording. Locked in. It can't be increased from what it is, whatever gear is used. Yes in most current commercial recordings it is horribly compressed. All that is needed is replay gear that has at least the dynamic range of the recording. End.
Clearthinker - it seems you disagree with DCS "
The latest generation of our proprietary Ring DAC™ incorporates a number of important technical advances that have resulted in enhanced dynamic range, reduced jitter, improved channel separation and greatly improved musical realism. "
Pompous, ignorant drivel from top to bottom. Science deniers with Zero evidence to support any underlying premise. Highly refined science (art) of being nasty to each other while wasting thousands of dollars to fund auditory hallucinations. Try a blind comparison with a coat hanger. Whatever...
Point being its very hard to get it all just right. Its also very hard to know when it is being done just right. That’s because the exact same problem we hear with this one speaker cable is repeated across every wire and component in our system, and on up the recording chain as well."
Did your actually read my post? The problem is NOT repeated across every wire or component. That was the whole point of my message, so I really cannot appreciate your generalisation, when I specifically described my reality and obvious, and strange differences in two cables with rrp in excess of £20k each. Another poster wrote his $390 cable was the best ever. Chaps, can we up the game a bit and try and explain the issue. If no-one knows, then fair do, the issue will be unexplained until I find the right source/font of knowledge. I just thought some Audiogoner might have come across. something similar. No problem if not.
The primary reason I answered tatyana69 as I did is because I have worked with sets of cables for many years now. It seemed clear to me that when a person expresses confusion, ignorance of the potential outcomes of mixing cables, which can vary widely, as demonstrated in the OP, that they are not employing proper methodology in system establishment. Ergo, my response was more relevant than realized.
Methodology is irrespective of the level of equipment, and one can spend prodigiously and still get mediocre results, or results that are not completely satisfactory, for the capital spent. Sensitivity to direct guidance in that regard will not change the fact. The amount of capital spent has zero relevance to use of proper methods to attain superior sound. If tatyana69 wishes to ignore my advice, he/she will likely continue to flounder and not move in any directed way toward improvement of the system with cables. It's playing at system development (A lot of us do, and it's fun, too, in its own way) when you simply place in assorted cables, completely disregarding - often arrogantly so -the work of cable designers/manufacturers who design their cables for a specific result. It takes more money, time and effort to do comparison of sets, and that is why most avoid it. But, it is the only way to advance a system directly toward one's goals. Disagree? Fine, do things your way. But, let's not play the game of, "I spend more than you, so my methods are superior," as that is nonsense.
In regard to tbankin63's comment; I am currently working on review of a set of cables that cost thousands. The designer is a person who safely could be said is one of the most knowledgeable engineers on cables on the planet, and who specifically used the science, measurements to direct development. One of the greatest defenses of being chintzy in audiophilia is the attempt to skewer people who are deemed "unscientific". That's a bit harder to do when a world class engineer used LCR measurements to design cables, and discusses openly how the changes to such parameters obviously change the sound.
You can look for the review when it comes out at dagogo.com
Many employ poor methodology in establishing systems, which is why I developed my principle: The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
I never knew wire could be over saturated with sound. I think most know changing resistance in cables can change the sound the question is why pay thousands for wire tone controls when it's so much cheaper and easier with EQ.
I said the dcs vivaldi upsampler increased the dynamic range
Nonsense. The quote says it has increased dynamic range meaning that it can, with adequate source material, play with reduced noise or with the same noise @ 1v out but capable of 10v out which no program contains. Unless it is a range expander [dynamic gain amplifier] which reduces level below a threshold and increases above, it is going to play 40dB material with 40dB dynamic range.
You are not beginning to approach cables properly until dealing with full sets.
Unless this is a joke, more nonsense. Cable need to mate with the components they connect and the overall system.
"It seemed clear to me that when a person expresses confusion, ignorance of the potential outcomes of mixing cables, which can vary widely, as demonstrated in the OP, that they are not employing proper methodology in system establishment. Ergo, my response was more relevant than realized. "
Are you saying I am ignorant of the potential outcomes of mixing cables? That is a stupid thing to say, where did you get that from? I was writing about the effect of different cables, demonstrating very clearly that I am aware of the effect of different cables. And not employing proper methodology in system establishment ... ??? Are you a civil servant with no proper job? Writing incomprehensible words like that shows a lack of touch with the real world, but I have come to that conclusion some time ago. Gosh I despair of some people ...
Your despair at it’s base is borne of the fact that there is zero scientific basis for any aspect of this conversation. Hence all the facts, figures, measurements and assertions that amount to alchemy, witchcraft and wishful thinking. “I swear I can hear a difference from the cable costing $20K!” “A highly respected ‘engineer’ developed it!” There’s science for you. This whole thread is inane.
Let me try and make this simple. It has NEVER been demonstrated scientifically (referring to proper, peer reviewed, journaled SCIENCE) that there is an audible difference between a $20K cable and a wire coat hanger. So, yes, I'm at least saying that - and then some. In fact, if you are interested in SCIENCE, there is a lot of proper SCIENCE to the contrary of the assertion that cables make a difference. It galls me that people waste their time and money in this vein, but more so that they try to belittle and bully the sensible among us who don't sign on for their crap. Frankly, it's a big part of what's wrong with this world of "alternative facts" at large right now.
me try and make this simple. It has NEVER been demonstrated
scientifically (referring to proper, peer reviewed, journaled SCIENCE)
that there is an audible difference between a $20K cable and a wire coat
That's an interesting claim. Please direct us to a "proper, peer reviewed, journaled" study that shows there is no difference between a $20K cable and a coat hanger.
tbakin63 Oh dear oh dear The inadequacies of various people on this forum make me despair of the future of this world. How does the world work with such absolute tosh being spouted. For your information, all people I know can tell the difference in cables, shame that you think I am deceiving myself. The answer actually is clear .. you have a 2 bit system that is so bad it cannot demonstrate anything to do with hi fi. In fact you have no idea what hi fi is. Just don’t tell people who do know that they do not, as really you have no idea
How is it that you continuously miss the point of anything? Your system is substandard as it does not allow you to hear the absolute obvious that others can hear. It is quite clear you should not apply your so limited experiences to others who can hear the differences. And why do you get involved in a thread that has nothing to gain from your limited abilities. I asked a specific question from my own real experiences, and you want to say that I am lying as I cannot possibly hear the difference between two £20k + speaker cables, that you have never been anywhere near, let alone see or hear them. If you cannot contribute to a thread then don't do so.
Your response makes my point beautifully - bully and attack the legitimacy of the heretics and non-believers. We're so unsophisticated and inexperienced that we "continuously miss the point of anything." Fact: you know NOTHING about me, my system or my experience. res ipsa loquitur
Let me clear it up for you: saturation of wire is optimized only after proper break-in following deep cryogenic freezing, but only when the wires' signal directional arrows are pointed properly so the crystal structure of the metal can help the little electrons know which way to go