A butt-load spent in cables - how much improvemt?


We spend quite a bit in cables for our systems, I'm wondering how much overall sonic improvement we get from cables? Let me explain my thought.....

I'm very happy with my current cabling (IC's, PC's, digital coax, and speaker cables). I was thinking about removing ALL of them and putting in ALL the original stuff I started with (stock PC's, cheap Monster IC's, Monster digital coax, and Monster XP copper speaker wire).

Then listening to the system to see how much degradation in sound I would have. Has anybody else thought of doing this or has done this?
vman71
Some stereo systems, because of their components, are more neutral than others. A trained listener is a person who attends live acoustic performances. If the stereo can reproduce a cello and a violin convincingly, then that is a trustworthy indication it can get other musical entertainment accurately as well.

The closer the system can approach neutrality, the more evident most cabling sucks. The majority of expensive cabling is heavily jacketed with synthetics. On a super revealing system, that insulation floods the signal with a static mess. I can prove that.

Highly obscuring cables are for what ales your source, preamp, amp, and speakers. Get those items right, and rid yourself of the need to cable roll.
jim,

Sigh. This is why i stopped posting at rec.audio.high-end. It seems the reductionist camp and the "everything is magic" camp never tire of arguing.

Unreliable and being level matched certainly sometimes.

People tend not to name what they are hearing if they don't understand properly what they are listening for or how they are listening for it. This doesn't mean they do not hear something, it only means they cannot identify it.

I remember there was a DBT test a friend of mine who is a mastering engineer participated in some time back, where people were asked to identify dithered and non dithered material. Most people couldn't not identify the sound of jitter or could not say what it was. However, when the sound of the jitter was turned up so one could hear the way it sounds and then turned back down to its original "inaudible" level, most people could tell the difference in the DBT because they knew how to indentify the sound they were listening for.

I don't have a problem with DBT's myself, I do them when I can to listen for differences in gear.

The history of DBT's has been spotty though. They have showed us apparently, that no amps sound different, that vinyl does not sound different from cassette , etc., etc. So, one can say that these were poorly conducted, but at some point something everyone knows, like that there is a discenable difference in the sound of amplifers, has been "proved" wrong by a DBT.

I don't particularly care whether people swear by them or don't and I am also suspicious by nature about tweaks, cables and other things that seem less than scientific. Since my job is in audio, I am constantly testing for audible differences. However, this process has a lot more wiggle room than determining that a motorcycle can't get you to the moon.
Mothra,

Appreciate the intelligent response, specifically the example of turning up the jitter effect and then returning it to its normal level. These discussions need more elucidation of that sort, and less ad hominem.

While we must consider whether or not the listener knows what he's listening for, I wouldn't say that the phenomenon you describe undermines the credibility of double-blind tests, but rather more clearly defines what they actually achieve. In other words, DBT's never proved that amps sound alike, but only proved that the test's participants couldn't readily identify the difference.

I guess we should always qualify the question of audible difference in terms of whose ear(s) we're considering. The general public wouldn't be expected to differentiate between cables, but those individuals who CLAIM they can tell the difference (like those in your example who've already heard the jitter turned up) should have little trouble discerning reliably in a blind test.
No one hearing my system first can tell me a blind test is necessary for telling for sure the difference of this amp or that amp. I had a two very respected maker amps servicing my speakers, and they both sounded nothing like each other, and neither approached the fidelity of my amps.

Like I said before, wires create distortion. Wires and ribbons cannot be improved on through insulation. They just go through make up and costume.

We tried different digital cables on a fine Audio Note SET system. One was a simple AV triwire we get with cheap video purposes. There was also a Silverline Audio, an Audio Note silver, Audio Quest, and the most expensive, a Virtual Dynamics. We had one blindfolded listener, who is an audio reviewer, and four other honest audiophiles, including me.

Without the blind folded person knowing we exchanged the wires from the cheapest to the most expensive. The AV cable sounded really good on this excellent system. The next three sounded..... No different. I was the cable skeptic of the bunch. At the time I didn't have the system I am enjoying now.
I was feeling quite vindicated.

Then it was the $900 VD's turn. To all of our amazement, It sounded decidedly more vivid. The Blind folded guy was the only one allowed to speak during this test. He too heard a difference only with the VD installed.

Structurally, the VD is very different.

The moral is, science can make a better wire. It's just that most audio wire makers are more interested in creating the most successful lure. That's what sells.
Thanks for the response Jim.

FWIW , unless I inherit cables in gear purchases,I make my own and have been quite happy.

I have some friends who changed all their power and IC cables and really felt it made a huge difference but I have yet to be convinced to go that route.