How many of you have actually compared sets of cables? I'm curious because so many people have strong opinions about cables, yet it seems an awful lot of those opinions have been formed by reading others' comments or simply one's own hunches.
I ask whether you have conducted comparisons between entire sets of cables since that is the most effective way to hear distinct differences between cables, and to hear them as the designer intended, as a network for the components. Piecing together such a network one cable at a time would, I believe, for those with some hearing loss, prove futile as they might not hear the distinctiveness of the individual cable. However, swapping entire sets proves so different in sound that it is likely even those with some hearing loss would still catch that difference.
My guess is the large majority of audiophiles have not done so. Many mix and match, which effectively kills any legitimate comparison, not knowing precisely what any given cable is doing. Others likely don't want to spend the money, take the time, etc. to conduct such comparisons. I would not be surprised if less than 10-15% of audiophiles actually conduct such comparisons. If so that would explain the ongoing failure to reach any consensus about cabling.
It's easy to sit and theorize or pontificate about topics like cables. It costs more (at least temporarily while dollars are tied up with extra cables) and takes more effort to do comparisons of entire sets. Therefore, most people don't do it. Simply put, that is one reason why most people are nowhwere near their best sound, despite their perception that they are. A fair number of audiophiles are simply cheapskates, concluding that they can have near SOTA sound with very little input monetarily. They glom onto the belief that wires are wires because it's more comfortable to avoid considering a heavy expense for something deemed uneccessary. I used to be that way and used all the arguments in existence for not considering cables as a serious component. It was not until I actually DID comparisons that I was proven wrong. This all occurred prior to reviewing, so there was no vested interest in the decision. I tied up thousands of dollars temporarily in securing sets of cables to compare. THAT was the definitive breakthrouh which redefined my understanding of cables. It also took me from being a hack stereophile to a serious system builder.
Steve, I disagree with your comment regarding conductors. Part of my analysis in review of the Wire World cables was comparison between identical geometries and total gauge but differing conductor materials (copper vs. silver ofc); sizable difference in performance. I would never recommend that the serious audiophile neglect conductor material in exploration of cables. Briefly, I have consistently found that silver conductors are typically "thinner" sounding, very detailed but lacking in some tonal richness and macrodynamic weight, having some affinity to SET amplification. Copper conductors are typically more robust sounding, having more macrodynamic weight/slam, a darker or more robust character but sometimes might be considered not pristine enough or not detailed enough.
There is a huge performance spectrum between makers of cables of either conductor type. One cannot assume that because a favorite cable maker has a great copper conductor cable the silver will also impress or vice versa. One simply has to compare to know.
In the end all theoretical discussion proves impotent to improve a rig. Those who summon the money and the time to make comparisons of entire sets of cables are those who will advance the most in the establishment of their rig. The payoff is a system with utterly enchanting sound, quality of experience beyond what was deemed possible.
It does not take much effort to look up websites like Shunyata, MIT, etc. who offer some data regarding their designs. I have also found that those who don't want to seriously consider cables will readily dismiss such data/findings. That, then, leaves us back at the first square, which is: Are you going to actually conduct some comparisions or not? If not, then there's little of practical benefit in chewing over the theory when such simple means of confirmation/disproof is readily available.
Even after several reviews of technical nature with cable manufacturers they will all admit that there are aspects of cable design where things are influenced sonically but we can't "prove" why they are influenced. Perhaps one aspect of design can be isolated, i.e. dielectric or conductor material, but as of yet no one has been able to measure the hyper-sensitive differences which the marvelously designed ear can detect. So, if you're looking for a cut and dried answer prior to exploring/experimenting with cables, it'll be a long wait. I suggest you get practical with the issue, because your system will not improve until you do. :)
I ask whether you have conducted comparisons between entire sets of cables since that is the most effective way to hear distinct differences between cables, and to hear them as the designer intended, as a network for the components. Piecing together such a network one cable at a time would, I believe, for those with some hearing loss, prove futile as they might not hear the distinctiveness of the individual cable. However, swapping entire sets proves so different in sound that it is likely even those with some hearing loss would still catch that difference.
My guess is the large majority of audiophiles have not done so. Many mix and match, which effectively kills any legitimate comparison, not knowing precisely what any given cable is doing. Others likely don't want to spend the money, take the time, etc. to conduct such comparisons. I would not be surprised if less than 10-15% of audiophiles actually conduct such comparisons. If so that would explain the ongoing failure to reach any consensus about cabling.
It's easy to sit and theorize or pontificate about topics like cables. It costs more (at least temporarily while dollars are tied up with extra cables) and takes more effort to do comparisons of entire sets. Therefore, most people don't do it. Simply put, that is one reason why most people are nowhwere near their best sound, despite their perception that they are. A fair number of audiophiles are simply cheapskates, concluding that they can have near SOTA sound with very little input monetarily. They glom onto the belief that wires are wires because it's more comfortable to avoid considering a heavy expense for something deemed uneccessary. I used to be that way and used all the arguments in existence for not considering cables as a serious component. It was not until I actually DID comparisons that I was proven wrong. This all occurred prior to reviewing, so there was no vested interest in the decision. I tied up thousands of dollars temporarily in securing sets of cables to compare. THAT was the definitive breakthrouh which redefined my understanding of cables. It also took me from being a hack stereophile to a serious system builder.
Steve, I disagree with your comment regarding conductors. Part of my analysis in review of the Wire World cables was comparison between identical geometries and total gauge but differing conductor materials (copper vs. silver ofc); sizable difference in performance. I would never recommend that the serious audiophile neglect conductor material in exploration of cables. Briefly, I have consistently found that silver conductors are typically "thinner" sounding, very detailed but lacking in some tonal richness and macrodynamic weight, having some affinity to SET amplification. Copper conductors are typically more robust sounding, having more macrodynamic weight/slam, a darker or more robust character but sometimes might be considered not pristine enough or not detailed enough.
There is a huge performance spectrum between makers of cables of either conductor type. One cannot assume that because a favorite cable maker has a great copper conductor cable the silver will also impress or vice versa. One simply has to compare to know.
In the end all theoretical discussion proves impotent to improve a rig. Those who summon the money and the time to make comparisons of entire sets of cables are those who will advance the most in the establishment of their rig. The payoff is a system with utterly enchanting sound, quality of experience beyond what was deemed possible.
It does not take much effort to look up websites like Shunyata, MIT, etc. who offer some data regarding their designs. I have also found that those who don't want to seriously consider cables will readily dismiss such data/findings. That, then, leaves us back at the first square, which is: Are you going to actually conduct some comparisions or not? If not, then there's little of practical benefit in chewing over the theory when such simple means of confirmation/disproof is readily available.
Even after several reviews of technical nature with cable manufacturers they will all admit that there are aspects of cable design where things are influenced sonically but we can't "prove" why they are influenced. Perhaps one aspect of design can be isolated, i.e. dielectric or conductor material, but as of yet no one has been able to measure the hyper-sensitive differences which the marvelously designed ear can detect. So, if you're looking for a cut and dried answer prior to exploring/experimenting with cables, it'll be a long wait. I suggest you get practical with the issue, because your system will not improve until you do. :)