I think I purchased the right cable for a system I'll rarely use (my CD transport), and I can't return the cable. So, if I bought something else it would just be money on top of what I've already spent. If my system has decent cable, I don't worry about it. Could it sound a bit better with better cable? I'm sure it could. Would it increase my listening pleasure over time? I can't afford to find out.
Do I need an expensive digital cable?
I have been using a fairly inexpensive optical cable to connect my CD transport to my Moon 280D streamer. I was told that an SPDIFcoax cable would sound better. For an experiment I purchased an inexpensive Pangea coax cable. It didn't sound at all because its terminator ends did not fit snugly in my equipment. I consulted chatgbt who often gives me audio advice. It advised that for the short run of 1 meter, an RCA interconnect would work. It did. And sounded much better than the optical. Chatgbt said that RCA interconnect was good enough.
Now, there is a twist to this story that might make those doubters think twice. A digital cable carries packets of information that are rechecked to assure that the streamer is recieving correct information. There is the timing concern, though. But my Moon 280D has an asynchronous DAC with a clock as part of the DAC. Any information sent by my transport, whether it is clocked by the transport or not, will go through the Moon's asynchronous DAC's clock. So ;there shouldn't be a timing problem. Should there?
Can anyone make a case that I should buy a "better" coax cable?
- ...
- 279 posts total
@emergingsoul in two sentences you have brilliantly distilled the self-delusion out of and redefined the audiophile zeitgeist as it stands at the onset of the 2nd quarter of this century.
|
I think part of the problem is that most of us read reviewers on various pieces of equipment. Most of what I read about is not avalable in my area, and I'd have to drive hundreds of miles or fly somewhere to test out the equipment. But worse than that, the reviewers seem to have all sorts of expensive equipment lying around to try in the system they're reviewing. "When I put in the $50,000 mono amps then I had the power the speakers were hungry for." Who has a $50K set of amps, or even a second amp lying around to test speakers with. Then they have all sorts of cables. "I put in the Nordost Vallhala's and that really brought the system to life." Right! If I had Nordost Vallhalas they wouldn't be lying around. We are all constrained by so many variables. Money, of course, but also access to equipment we've read about. It can be a bit crazy making. However, the bottom line is the music and we all have to remember that. I have enjoyed music on a very inexpensive system, because that's all I had to enjoy the music on. And I have always wanted the music. Even when I had a cheap transistor radio with a plastic earphone. (Just one earphone!) It's always been about the music. |
I merely admired the fact that @emergingsoul told an unadorned truth, namely that most audiophiles spend money to make themselves feel better, and stopped short of the usual "it sounds better to my ears / the difference is not subtle / you get what you pay for"-type of flimsy, fig-leaf rationales by which audiophiles sublimate their profligacy. A majority of folks claiming grandiose claims about the sound quality of their cables clearly do not have the systems and / or the hearing that are prerequisites to making such claims.
|
I enjoy a $50 Bluetooth speaker when I sit on my deck with a cigar and a beverage. Foot tapping and everything to my favorite tunes.
What is this exuberant deciphering of some random dude’s opinion? Are we still talking about a hobby here? Who are you to define or redefine anything? Are you kidding me? |
- 279 posts total