WHY CABLES MATTER!

Most articles from cable designers that I have read indicate that power transmission cables, such as speaker cables and power cords, benefit from low resistance and low inductance designs, with low resistance being most important.  Of course, lowering those parameters raises capacitance, which is why certain ultra-low inductance speaker cables such as Alpha Core Goertz caused instability/oscillation in some amplifiers.  

This about speaker cables from Audioquest:

High-Inductance geometry smears sound and reduces information. Star-Quad low-inductance geometry preserves time information, preserving dynamics and clarity.

This about power cables from Steve Nugent, owner/designer at Empirical Audio:

Good power cords, (primarily for power amps), are low inductance. The idea is to have a cord that is at least as low inductance as the ROMEX in the walls and yet flexible and durable. The reason I believe that low-inductance power cords can make a positive difference, particularly in power amplifiers is that they eliminate inductance in the path from the power grid to the amplifier power supply. This inductance, I believe, can cause the voltage to sag at the output power transistors during high-current transients in the music when the capacitor bank discharges and power line must recharge it quickly (during the time that the rectifier diodes are conducting), in order that a sag in voltage does not occur at the power transistor DC supply.

A link to one more interesting article on speaker cable design by Gareis of Belden, who designed his Iconoclast cables to have geometry and materials that provide balanced and consistent parameters.

I would recomend this test to anyone interested in actually hearing for themselves if there is any decernable difference in cable quality and decide for themselves if the difference is worth their hard earned money.  Here is what I did, starting from a very sceptical viewpoint, I decided I wanted to prove this issue for myself once and for all. I started small with a USB cable connecting my computer to a Parasound P6 Pre amplifier. My purpose was converting all my favorite music to digital so I could stream it wherever I wanted. I decided I was willing to spend way more money than I would consider reasonable under normal circumstances to see if there was any noticeable improvement as I went up in quality and price. I settled on Audio Quest cables for my higher end cables and purchased a few Amazon selections at the lower end, but I was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY going to spend the rediculously high amounts that were available from Audio Quest's top tier, (at first Anyway). So I started with an Amazon Basics cable for about $12 and another higher end brand but not Audio Quest for about $25 to start my test. To my surprise, I could hear noticeable improvement from each of them above your standard freebe cable. So there was my first proof that there was something to this cable hype after all. Now things got interesting, there was a lot of choices between $25 and the top of the line 1.5 meter USB cable which if my memory serves peacked out at $850.00. To save money, I decided not to test every little step up the ladder, I went with their Pearl level next at $40 and then went up to $100 for a Cinnamon, and each step up in price yielded an ever better improvement in sound quality, better stereo seperation and resolution, started hearing details in the music that were not there with the lower quality cables.

Now I had a problem, where was I going to draw the line price wise, in order to really do this test correctly I now knew I had to go to at least the second best cable to test the law of diminishing returns, that meant I had to get the Coffee version and that was a whopping $480.00 for a 1.5 meter cable, but I had to prove to myself that there wasn't enough of an improvement with that cable so I could rest assured that I wasn't missing anything significant in sound quality and be content with something that struck a good balance between price and audio fidelity. So I bit the bullet and ordered a Coffee, and the worst thing possible happened, not only was there not a diminishing return cost to quality improvement, it was a huge improvement in sound quality. Where the Coffee excelled was in bringing in the lower frequencies up to the same levels as the higher fequencies, it was balanced big and bold, the bass was totaly missing from all the prior cables, I knew I was hooked I knew I could not settle for anything less than a Coffee level but, the good news was, I felt like this was good enough, it was perfect, as perfect as it needed to be anyway, I did not feel the need to take that last step to the pinnacle, the Diamond line. As with most things in life one step below the top of the line is usually where the best quality to value proposition can be found. I subsequently purchased numerous other Audio Quest cables after this test and even got a couple of free upgrades to the diamond line from the seller becuase they were out of stock (supposedly) of the Coffee's that I ordered. I have a suspicion they did the free upgrade to let my ears hear the difference of the Diamond line and get me to order more. I will say there was an improvement in the Diamond line over the Coffee but the Coffee at half the price delivers I would say 90 to 92% of what the Diamond has to offer so I believe that is where the law of diminishing return exists. But if money is no option there is a very noticeable difference between the two, more details more bass, more mids, and more highs but all very balanced and natural sounding. The closest thing to being there in the same room with the performers is the best way to describe it, the lower end cables start out with the performers being in another room and the sound just gets closer to the performers as you move up the line. I really hoped all the cable naysayer's were right, unfortunately for my bank account, I can say with certainty they are wrong, but do the test for yourself if you dare, but you have been warned, it will end up costing you if you do. My feeling after this test is you should probably spend about as much on cables of all kinds from power all the way to interconnects as your system components cost. You are wasting your money on equipment if your cables can't bring out what the components are able to deliver.    

@tvrgeek

Interesting experiments. Thanks for sharing that.

@demigodparticle

Thanks for sharing your experience. I’m getting the impression that not all of us hear these differences as important, if we hear them at all. I haven’t gone as far as you with trying cables because I did not immediately notice the incremental improvements, or any change at all most of the time. On the few occasions I did think I heard something it wasn’t clear to me whether I liked it better or not. It just seemed slightly different in tone, although I wasn’t even sure about that. The one time I actually managed to get a blind test done I was unable to tell an expensive cable from a very cheap one, even though on sighted listening I thought the difference was quite obvious.

When real, significant sonic changes occur, I suspect it largely comes down to the equipment you are using, not necessarily the quality of it, but the interaction characteristics between the components you are connecting. If they interact well, plain old cheap cords might work absolutely brilliantly and give you a sound that you will be hard pressed to improve upon with further cable changes. If not, you may need a cord with some peculiar characteristics to help things out. In my experience, mainstream brands at the upper end of their standard consumer offerings tend to be engineered extremely well and work as they should without the need for peculiarly high quality cables. Exotic stuff is more likely to have weird issues. I’ve noticed the same thing with bicycle parts. The weird issues with audio equipment make things more interesting, giving you some room to create changes with the sound that are maybe out of spec, but perhaps desirable. With bicycle parts there’s often no upside to it except lower weight. If you can get the stuff to shift and brake half way decently you get a lighter, maybe slightly faster, and much more expensive and harder to maintain bike. Or maybe you get a specialty lever that works with your hand size or some odd type of handlebar you want to use, or lets you use a cassette from a different manufacturer that has the gears you want. Interface problems.

Come to think of it, when I worked on bikes I was stickler for good shifting and braking, and it sometimes put me at odds with my employer, who felt that as long as it would go into all the gears it was fine. I wanted it to go in quickly and precisely, one click one shift, without the user having to fudge with it. Similarly, some people may be much more sensitive to subtle differences that cables make, while others of us find a cheap cable close enough. Our ear can fudge for us. One of my co-workers who was a semi-pro racer admitted to me that he was so skilled at shifting bikes that sometimes needed a deft touch to get into gear that he hard time noticing the things I was talking about.

Let's be clear. I am NOT saying there is no difference above the "bad" level. I am not telling you if you hear something or not.  I am not saying the simplistic measurements sometimes quoted are the whole story.  I do want to be clear we can measure all parameters of a cable. We just don't know how to quantify them as a minimum " good enough" combination for one person, let alone everyone's personal preferences. 

No, I believe what I hear. I know it may be real or may be in my head.  I believe in the laws of physics so those things I know are impossible, I know are impossible.  Being an engineer, I know how these things work to a reasonable scale so I know when the invented logic of snake oil salesmen or well meaning people making false logical jumps without the technical understanding come up with pure BS.  BS is actually very good. Makes clay soils much better. Not my stereo though. 

I also know from soft science, we do not understand very well how our brain converts reality to what we hear. We have some clues. Small linear distortions and small timing differences we seem to detect.  We seem to detect timing differences across frequencies our brain does not recognize as natural. We also know our brain "maps" our environment and makes adjustments over time.   If anyone can point to some papers quantifying these issues, I would love to read it. Better yet, if you are a grad student looking for a project, there is a lot to be learned. 

We know  a preconceived negative expectation can create a difference in our head even though no actual difference exists. We know a positive bias will also generate a positive response. We know our brain likes to play tricks on us and flip what we hear from reality.  We know these biases may not hear a difference even when there is one large enough that we should.  Everything we do is biased.  If you ask a random person if they hear a difference, we know a large portion will hear a difference even if there is not one because we biased them with the expectation of a difference. This has been demonstrated many times to statistically valid levels.  We know group think and reinforcement will strongly bias our perception. This is why witness evidence is  recognized as the least reliable in court. 

So, by understanding both hard and soft science, I can take a much shorter route to better sound and avoid the clear snake oil ethereal made up attribute magic crap. I can make a reasonable guess where to stop as we leave engineering into magic. 

Follow the old 90% rule.  Find your biggest problem and fix 90% of it. Then find your next biggest and fix 90% of that.  That last 10% may or may not even be achievable and you get lost in a rabbit hole without improving the situation as a whole.  In theory, that first last 10% will become the largest remaining problem, and you then attack it. In reality, it never happens. Not only are the very best speakers still pretty poor, the source material is even worse. In other words, don't expect a cable to fix either. 

Today we have an advantage we did not have way back in the 70's. We have instrumentation thousands of times better.  We can do things like hook a cable up and measure the signal at both ends, subtracting one from another to quantify the difference.  Qualifying it is harder.   There is no longer a reason to use pure subjective imagination to look for differences.  Alas, the SINAD chasers are stuck in a very limited set of measurements and the subjectivists are completely controlled by their unconscious bias.   I hope real engineers keep an open mind and if a statically valid subjective test shows a difference, we should look to measure and quantify it. Quite a mess. If the esoteric hucksters could prove their cable is better, they have the money to do so.  Not even publishing the R-L-C parameters and explain why their balance is better. No data on rejection vs frequency. ( go look at a Belden data sheet. You find a lot more parameters! ) Some on geometry and engineers can make an educated guess why one many be better at some particular issue than another.  Things any engineer wants to know when selecting a cable.  Nope, hucksters just make up slick-page hyperbole and tell you how great it all is. A lot of exotic products are perfectly fine. Just not magical.  Some people still believe the world if flat and we did not land on the moon.  That is religion and is not easily swayed. 

So in the middle. I use my understanding of physics to rule out the total BS. I can look at measurements on some things to rule out the obvious crap.  Then I have to listen.  100% accurate? Heck no, but neither are any of the supposed double blind tests I have read as none of them reach the 3 sigma level to pay attention to, let alone 5.   I have won 20 games of solitaire in a row. Taken as a sample, I am so great I win 100% of the time!   No it means I still only average 40% over sets of 100. A statistical anomaly is all.   A lot of reviewers need to study statistics before them make claims on tests. 

Now, the really hard part. Do you want your cable to be part of the signal shaping distortion adding part of reproduction, or do you want it to just convey the signal?  BOTH are valid.  Same argument of SS vs tubes.  I happen to prefer my MOSFET amp to a Benchmark.  Is it some added distortion I like, some higher distortion masking something I do not? Some more complex distortion not typically measured? Not a clue but I know what I prefer and there are real measurable parameters that could explain the differences. I just don't know which ones.

Or do you want to let your belief that nirvana is just within reach with one more tweak?   Subconsciously, if it costs more it has to be better?    Music is all in your mind, so how you get there is up to you.  I am not filthy rich, so I take the shorter path that falls within the expectations of reality. My budget is to save for a new roof before it is needed,  not a set of speaker cables. 

FEDX should deliver my new amp today. I have an appointment with a parlor next week to see if I can hear a meaningful difference between my DAC and a Chord or the other mega-buck ones he has. I go in with a bias.  Half says my DACs have reached the as good-as-I-can-hear and the specs are better than the Mojo or Qurest, the other half of my bias is there is still some "digititus" to be smoothed by a more expensive product.  Should be fun. 

I don’t understand why people who can’t hear have so much to say on these audio forums.

Years ago I had a buddy, a musician with perfect pitch.  He came over and tuned my piano with a single tuning fork.  Even then he didn’t really need the tuning fork.  It was for my benefit to show that A was the right pitch.  No chromatic tuner, no measuring equipment needed.  Best the piano ever sounded.

If someone needs measurements to confirm for themselves what they are hearing, that’s fine; but why claim others are deluding themselves for not relying on measurements?