Why Do Cables Matter?


To me, all you need is low L, C, and R. I run Mogami W3104 bi-wire from my McIntosh MAC7200 to my Martin Logan Theos. We all know that a chain is only as strong as its' weakest link - so I am honestly confused by all this cable discussion. 

What kind of wiring goes from the transistor or tube to the amplifier speaker binding post inside the amplifier? It is usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper. Then we are supposed to install 5 - 10' or so of wallet-emptying, pipe-sized pure CU or AG with "special configurations" to the speaker terminals?

What kind of wiring is inside the speaker from the terminals to the crossover, and from the crossover to the drivers? Usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper.

So you have "weak links" inside the amplifier, and inside the speaker, so why bother with mega expensive cabling between the two? It doesn't make logical sense to me. It makes more sense to match the quality of your speaker wires with the existing wires in the signal path [inside the amplifier and inside the speaker].

 

 

kinarow1

Ok, I didn’t communicate my point. I’ll try one more time and you don’t have to read my notes.
-Listening- to what? I mention Anthony Hopkins because everyone knows his voice but few have heard it in person, I’m not name dropping, If you have had season tickets to the London Philharmonic for 40 years you buy a record of the latest season, you still don’t know where the microphones were placed to record the performance, you don’t know what effects were put on each microphone, you probably aren’t even familiar with those microphones nor all the components and mic cables that were used in the recording nor the components in the mixing. You nor I or anyone other than the mixer has any idea what to -listen- for because you didn’t do the recording.

People with -golden ears- who evaluate sound systems who don’t do the recording and the mixing (which is very rare) have no right to say there is to much of this and not enough of that, the entire "listening" based on accuracy is silly. Sure some people are good at picking adjectives to describe what many people like but the idea that a cable is accurate is impossible. -More- is not always proper I used to use an old EV mic cable to record tubby sounding women in the studio it worked like gold we would go to a mic like the Sennheiser 421 dynamic first then if that didn’t smooth out her voice we’d use the special mic cable because it was screwed up which made it perfect to record big powerful women’s voices.

Cables are not a consideration in a recording unless there is a problem, you obviously always use good quality cables and if you do use cables you have to run them in ways they don’t get interference from the lighting/power guys who are set up right next to you in concert situations, this is why Dante and digital networking are used in concerts today because 1s and 0s stay 1s and 0s all the way to the decoder or else it doesn’t work at all.

What are you listening for? Answer, simply to enjoy the music.

Also with todays digital EQ and dynamic tools its easy to change the signal, for some reason audiophiles don’t want to manipulate the signal in the digital realm with no phase or harmonic coloration problems you used to have with analog manipulation. Why not save $80k on cables and boost the bass or whatever frequency to exactly match the way you like the sound?

@donavabdear -

"Ok, I didn’t communicate my point. I’ll try one more time and you don’t have to read my notes."

"Listening- to what?"

     APPARENTLY: you don't even bother to read the very first sentences of posts previous to yours.

ie:  

      AND (incidentally): I DO have a number of recordings, of my own creation (using a John Oram board and complimentary cabling, FYI), that I've used to critique my system and it's accuracy in instrumental/vocal tonality, etc.

       But: a more scientific way, at least with which to determine if a system will/can recover room ambiance, describe the air between the above voices and image well, which (to me) are what is most greatly affected by cable choices, is the LEDR test, so easily found online and CD.

From the next post:        The adherents of the Naysayer Church will never accept that there exist a multitude of variables, when an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performance in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.

         IOW:  The majority of us that are experimenting with better cables, do so that we might enjoy a more realistic presentation, in ALL aspects.

         Many of us have found that improving our interconnects, PC and fuses, has resulted in more accurate information retrieval, and/or less loss of information, throughout the system, NOT with the intent to, "...change the signal" or, "boost the bass or whatever frequency to exactly match the way you like the sound?"

          Nothing lost through the use of crappy cabling, can ever be recovered by you beloved digital EQ and dynamic tools.

               Are you really that obtuse, or just choosing to be argumentative*?       

                                     *AS IF that's not already obvious. 

@donavabdear I’ve been trying to understand why so many people are willing to spend so much money on cables, when no studio does, easy question really,...

 

Easy question and easy answer, which has been answered for you, multiple times.

Either you fail to read carefully and try to comprehend, or simply don’t want to.

When someone has not tested something first-hand, no point trying to debate it.

A friend owns a recording/mastering studio - and does not short-change on cables.

@rodman99999 Yes I read that post, and that is perfect exactly what I'm saying but that is the exception, you understand. I'm asking honest questions so smart audiophiles will give me their view. You mentioned being obtuse, that is what you did when you mention using bad cables, again, again, again no one on either side of the discussion advocates using bad cables (strawman). You are wrong about DSP not making up for problems in the signal. Have you ever used ProTools and the amazing plugins that are available in it? If you are good with audio tools you can make recording sound much better. I have a friend who mixed the Sinatra Duets album, Frank said no efx, the original recording was so unmixable they did it anyway, something you don't do when Frank say no, the album was great and no one ever knew. 

BTW I'm not stating normal anti cable argument like saying they aren't testable or they don't sound better, I never said anything like that. I've spent millions on sound equipment over the years believe me I know sound equipment on the professional level I'm just trying to understand it at the audiophile level. Honestly.

You’ve made yourself very clear. You’d be embarrassed if you knew how clearly you communicate.

Ouch!!!

_ _ _ _ _

- He lumps all audiophiles together - like the Borg in Star Trek. Not as independent thinkers with successful careers - who, as music-lovers, have arrived at similar observations and experiences over their decade’s-long audio journey.

- He doesn’t respect cable swapping. But, he definitely favors mic swapping. It’s okay to address the needs of different performing artists with different voice boxes and chest cavities during the recording phase. But, it’s not okay to address the various needs of source components and speakers during the playback phase. Such as synergy.

- Location sound is always tweaked in Post Production. EQ, room tone, re-recording, etc. Matching the SQ of different mic’s on different actors in different takes. Altering the voice perspective as to whether the shot is a wide Master or a Close-up.

- He still doesn’t get that the cables’ metallurgy and architecture affect the electricity - the fuel for the entire playback system. High octane = High performance.  Getting the various components to integrate well is the goal. 

- After insulting everybody, he wonders why people are attacking him.