Do cables make a difference?
JKroon -- Mon, 09/11/2006 - 16:09
I was an avionics technician, now I'm an electrician, I've had extensive training in electronics and electrical theory. I just don't understand how you can "hear" a cable. Other than conductor sizes I can't see what difference there could be between two given cables except for maybe interconnects. With an interconnect cable I can understand the benefits of different dielectrics and better shielding, although some aren't shielded at all (Kimber Cable). I've read that silver is better than copper for audio cables. The only advantage I can see to silver is that the conductor can be one size smaller compared to copper. But the price difference between silver and copper makes it much more cost effective to just use the larger size wire. Anyway, my question is do cables make a difference in the sound? I'm currently using all Cobalt Cables, for the speaker cables and interconnects. I'm just wondering if there would be any benefits to upgrading the cables. Any thoughts?
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Some audiophiles have used different types of cables as "tone controls" in a attempt to tame aspects of the sound of their systems that they find lacking. In reality, the most neutral sounding cable is what is most desirable, one that does not add any colorations to the sound. As a rule of thumb, these are usually the most expensive cables in a manufacturer's line, and it goes along with the fact that the most expensive equipment out there is also the most neutral and without coloration. In recent years, cable have gone from accessories to component status in the ears of many audiophile writers.
When you speak of cable, whether it's interconnect, speaker cable, etc. you are talking about the most profitable item high end equipment companies offer. I understand from dealers I have spoken with that the mark-up on cables is astronomical.
And yes, they do make a difference that can be heard in listening tests.
llad
The problem is nothing is neutral everything has a sonic signature. So yes its very common to use cables as a tone control to fine tune the overall tonality, thats fine as long as your not trying to overcompensate for real sonic mismatches of electronics and speakers.
Kevin LaTour
35 years hi-end audio video enthusiast
So would you say the best choice for cables is dependant on your equipment, or are the most expensive cables always the best? I've been thinking about upgrading my cables for a while now. Tara Labs and Kimber Cable both have me interested. But I'd hate to lay down a lot of cash only to find that I can't hear a difference in the sound quality. For example, I recently "upgraded" my HDMI cable for my Toshiba HD-DVD player from the one that came in the box to one made by Monster Cable. I can't see any difference whatsoever in picture quality. However, the construction of the new cable is obviously of much better quality. Was it worth the cost? Not in my opinion. So how do you go about choosing the best cables for your system? Do you just pick a big name brand and hope it's better than what you already have? Or is there a way to make an educated guess?
Better than an educated guess is an in home audition in your system. Contact John Pharo at The Cable Company fatwyre [at] fatwyre [dot] com. They have a lending library of cables that allows you to audition cables in your own home, in your own system!
I would be very interested in any scientific study showing that expensive cables make a difference that can be heard in typical listening environments. I have a hard time believing that slight differences resulting from differences in cable material come anywhere close to the differences resulting from speaker positioning, wall/furniture interactions, etc.
” I would be very interested in any scientific study showing that expensive cables make a difference that can be heard in typical listening environments”
While you are searching for this study, also search for a study that shows that they don’t make a difference. I am sure you will end up with the chicken and the egg argument Trust your ears, if you don’t hear a difference that is fine but understand that not everyone listen with the same ears. Listening is a skill just like anything else.
It's impossible for an AB test to prove that you can't hear the difference between cables. However, such tests have been conducted and no one has ever been able to prove that you can. Which suggests that if there are audible difference, they're relatively subtle.
Well, I will not go as far as saying is impossible. One of the issues about this type of test that I see is that they are not properly documented, what I mean is that I have yet to see a test mentioning every step that it was taken during the A/B test, for example, environment conditions, cables used (what brand(s) what type of conductor is the cable made of , etc. The type of cables used during the test will show that the difference can be none or huge or anything in between. However the question is Do cables make a difference? IME they do.
I've noticed the same thing -- the AB tests aren't well documented. That's particularly important in that it's very difficult to conduct statistically valid forced choice AB tests of subtle phenomena. I find blind testing interesting and sometimes useful, but I think there's a tendency for people to assume that because the tests are scientific they have a weight that, from a scientific perspective, they don't actually have. "The test didn't detect statistically significant audible differences in a brief AB comparison under certain circumstances with certain program material and a sample size of such and such" becomes in the popular mind "you can't hear the difference." And when I do learn something about the circumstances under which the tests were conducted, I'm frequently appalled. For example, tests of high definition digital vs. 44.1 *that use material that was upsampled from 44.1." That one actually appeared in the AES Journal! How it got past peer review is something I'll never understand.
I would offer a slightly different perspective. Analog cables, either interconnect or speaker, will have 3 primary electrical parameters: resistance, capacitance and inductance. In addition, some cables are shielded, and some are not - impacting the amount of electromagnetic interference one experiences. These main parameters will then vary by frequency (remember, we're putting a wide range of frequencies through each cable). Given that DVD players, preamps and amps respond differently to different loads, and vary in their response to EMI, it isn't surprising to me that different cables sound different. This can be particularly true if one uses a consistent cable philosophy throughout a system and thus any given effect has the chance to be cumulative.
Note that the above reasoning isn't the same as saying expensive cables are better. It simply suggests that cables may sound different. It does make some sense, however, that it might take some design effort to make all these parameters linear with frequency (or to do whatever would constitute a rational design philosophy). Thus I can imagine that the cheapest cables might not be able to be the best.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that the minimal load differences and EMI caused by the cable itself, in an environment that results in much bigger differences and EMI, can result in a difference that can reliably be heard.
tmartin wrote:...Note that the above reasoning isn't the same as saying expensive cables are better....
I'm actually suggesting that you wouldn't be using Nordost Valhalla or Tara Labs The Zero and Omega cables with NAD or Rotel components. You could, but you would be listening to the short comings of the components more often than the music. The above referenced cables are highly revealing, and highly neutral.
If you can afford the ARS Emitter II and Nola Grand Reference speakers, along with sources of equal measure, than the top of the line cable make sense. It does seem that, the most neutral cables are the most expensive in any manufacturer's line. There are some cables that will get you 90% there, like the Blue Heavens in the Nordost line of cables, and some listeners will be quite happy with them.
Always remember that the law of diminishing returns is at work in the hobby of ours. If a cable or component costs 5 times more that another, it does not deliver 5 times better sound. It more likely will be 10-15% better than a lower priced cable or component, and better is a relative term. It might just sound different. Whether it is worth the investment is up to each individual listener to judge. An that judgement must be based by how closer that sound is to each listeners idea of what is the truth in reproduced music.
donstim wrote:I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that the minimal load differences and EMI caused by the cable itself, in an environment that results in much bigger differences and EMI, can result in a difference that can reliably be heard.
I can give you 2 examples, where I don't think it is that hard to see. The first, which happened to me just last week, is switching from an unshielded to a shielded interconnect between my tonearm and my phono preamp. The shielded cable had roughly 12db less EMI induced noise at my speakers. It isn't too hard to imagine that this is audible, since I'm using an MC cartridge with .3mv output, so after the cartridge and the interconnect there is a lot of amplification (around 80db). And, trust me, the difference was audible with no effort at all (noise at 52db on a 40db noise floor is easy to hear).
The other example is the impact of simple electrical resistance on bass output. An 8 ga. speaker cable over 25 ft will have a resistance of .016 ohms. An 18 ga. cable will have a resistance of .1625 ohms. As an example, my current amps have an output impedance of .01 ohms. That means one cable doubles the output impedance and another multiplies it by 16. Since I can easily hear the impact of different amplifier output impedances using the same cables, it isn't hard to understand why the two cables in my example would sound different. And, it is logical. Since many speakers have much higher impedance at low frequencies than in the mid-range, you have a simple voltage divider that varies with frequency. More relative voltage is delivered to the speaker at low frequencies than at higher frequencies. But the difference in voltage at different frequencies is bigger with the high resistance cable.
Whether smaller effects are audible is of course open to question. But I think we should start the discussion knowing that effects exist in some circumstances that are easily audible. These effects have known electrical sources. Why shouldn't these differences be audible?
All of that said, are expensive cables the best place to spend your money? That is a completely different question.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
I should add that my understanding is that the capacitance and inductance of medium length speaker cables can be on the order of 0.1 to 1.0 ohms at 20khz. With low/variable impedance speakers we might conclude that it is actually hard to imagine that different impedance values among cables wouldn't have an audible impact.
Or as Bruno Putzeys, formerly chief amplifer engineer at Philips, has said:
"loudspeakers are designed to be driven by a nearly perfect voltage source. Only then will they produce their specificed frequency response. It is obvious that different loads have a significant impact on frequency response."
Of course, the lesson here may be more that one should keep speaker cables short, than that one should buy exotic cables.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
tmartin wrote:
Of course, the lesson here may be more that one should keep speaker cables short, than that one should buy exotic cables.
I'll agree with you there!
Your example comparing an 8 gauge speaker cable to an 18 gauge one over a length of 25 feet is a bit extreme, in my opinion.
tmartin wrote:
Whether smaller effects are audible is of course open to question. But I think we should start the discussion knowing that effects exist in some circumstances that are easily audible. These effects have known electrical sources. Why shouldn't these differences be audible?
Again, I agree. But, instead of ending with the question, "why shouldn't these differences by audible" (implying that they are), I would put it another way. Show me, in a properly conducted double-blind test that they are. And don't forget the other factors I think need to be considered -- the typical home listening environment, including the interactions with walls, furntiture, speaker positioning, etc.
No debate that setup and room acoustics can be much bigger factors than cable differences. But at some point, one has speaker placement and acoustics dialed in as far as possible. Why not avail ourselves of improvements that cables provide, as well? And, I would argue, starting with a sane cable topology before finally dialing-in room placement makes sense. That's because I think there are simply better and worse cable approaches. It is mostly science. Setup and acoustics are much more complex and inevitably involve subjective tradeoffs to get to a final happy result.
In that context, it is important to assume cables might matter. If I assume that they don't, I skip the cable foundation and then setup and acoustics may have a significant band-aid element in which two wrongs don't quite make a right (e.g. I use less room treatment so that the time independent power response is brighter to compensate for the cable rolloff I have at high frequencies).
To see that cable topology and design might matter, I simply start my logic with "some cable differences are clearly audible". I add that some cable differences are clearly measurable (up to several db frequency response differences, with some amplifiers). And we know from empirical testing that 1db and probably less than 1db differences are audible in properly conducted tests. My point is that the weight of the evidence is that cable differences are audible. And the weight of evidence is that these differences can be explained with known science, although some of the explanation requires knowledge of electronic design that is beyond many of us (e.g. the interaction of amplifier feedback loops with output impedance can get pretty complex).
What I think is missing is that much cable discussion seems to involve voodoo. That makes one suspect of the whole enterprise. If we had more science in the discussion, getting the foundation right would be a whole lot easier.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
tmartin wrote:If we had more science in the discussion, getting the foundation right would be a whole lot easier.
I agree. But where is your science? You have not provided examples of any references to support your claims that assume "some cable differences are cleary audible" and "might matter." Even if that were true (and it is if you are going to include single strand or 18 gauge wire as "cables"), how would you know which cable is "better" unless you knew exactly what parameters made what audible difference, and then knew every important parameter of the cables you were selecting from.
As a result of this conversation, I've conducted some simple internet searches on exotic cables. My conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence is exactly opposite to what you are purporting. Just a few samples:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/10362/do_expensive_cables_reall...
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/130133.html
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/snake_...
http://proav.pubdyn.com/Tech_Apps/May2006TheTruthAboutExoticCables.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/high-end-audio-cables
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#thetruth
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/cables.htm
If one wishes to believe that no cable difference matters, that's fine. Certainly most of the references you provide amount largely to the assertion that cable differences are inaudible. Multiple assertions are great for reinforcing beliefs. I think that is mainly what is going on with much of the "cables matter" point of view as well. Lots of mottos and slogans and very little logic and data. This seems to be part of an effort to debunk cable marketing, which if fine, but if we look closely it isn't the same as saying cables don't matter.
You will note, and I think this is consistent with your original question, that your references that go beyond assertion essentially say "except for a set of well-known differences between cables, there are no audible differences."
My science is the same science quoted in your references: in speaker cables, RCL networks impact frequency and phase response in measureable ways that, in some cases have been confirmed in double blind testing. I have measured 1-4 db frequency response differences between different speaker cable setups. I have not double blind tested them, but since we know from other tests that such differences are audible, it seems reasonable to conclude that in fact we can hear this.
When your sources quote facts, they seem to be consistent with this view. That is, there are certain, mainly topological differences between speaker cables. Resistance matters, certainly, and capacitance and inductance impact phase and frequency response in measurable ways (though this can vary quite a bit with the specific amp and speaker under test). I worry that slogans like "Only poorly designed cables sound different" cause some people to ignore topology differences (cable length and cable impedance) that are only partly intrinsic to a specific brand of cable. You can say that 25ft speaker runs are extreme, but not in many home theaters. Not in large rooms than can support deep bass and limit the impact of first reflections. And, in many set ups, if speaker cables are short, interconnects are long (see below). I would advocate that we suggest that people consider these differences.
In interconnects, it seems to me that shielding and balanced topologies are important topics. As I said above, I've measured huge noise differences between cables. I don't know enough about antenna theory to explain why this occurs, but it may not really matter when the measurements are so dramatic. I don't have the setup to play with balanced cables, so I don't know if they help or not; I only observe that pro audio is full of balanced cables and I suspect those guys simply do what works (though maybe not what sounds best). Anyway, this seems worth a look.
Some of the debate then comes down to whether measureable differences of a certain (small) magnitude are in fact audible, as everyone seems to agree that the big differences are audible. This, I suspect is where one can reasonably take several perspectives.
One view is that these differences are small and should be ignored. Certainly in the context of many budgets, spending a lot of money on cables, even if they did provide a small improvement, is not the best place to focus. I would only comment that this view seems quite sensible, though I'm not at all sure that some of the measurable differences require expensive cables.
Another view would be that, though small, these differences may be audible. This camp also tends to believe that small differences add up across a system (try setting up a phono/phono preamp/preamp/amp/speaker test where you change all the cables at once -- it isn't easy, so perhaps we'll never know in the way that is valid for those who need double blind data). And this camp tends to view these small differences as if they were "information subtractive", which is to say that information once lost cannot be recovered and therefore is especially valuable. So, one answer to how one would know which cable is better, is that it would in the case of speaker cable have low resistance, capacitance and inductance. In the case of interconnect cable it would at least be shielded (maybe there are other figures of merit). But, as I said above, I would advocate that the industry do a better job of describing these items (what they are and how specific products measure). Very few people want to have to become a EE with a test lab to figure out which cables to buy.
It is worth noting that this view tends to coincide with the view that double blind tests have their limits. I have seen double blind tests that show that 192k MP3s are indistinguishable from red book CD. Well, perhaps, but some people are not willing to go there just yet. This camp believes that double blind testing places some artificial demands on the listener that make the results poorly predictive of long term satisfaction.
Finally, we have the view of people who have listened to a lot of cables (ie they say 'let's set science and measurements aside and just listen --that's the ultimate test'). Some of them swear they can hear differences. Maybe it is just in their heads. I have had a hard time coming to that conclusion because I know some of these folks, and often when they hear differences in other components, I'll be darned, but I can hear them too. This could be the power of suggestion, but frequently we don't discuss what we've heard until after we listen. This could be another answer to the how do you know which cables are better question: you try those in your budget that experienced listeners have found meritorious.
I can say that I enjoy my current, circa, 2006 audio system much more than my 1998 system and I enjoyed that much more than my 1991 system. My impression is that much of this progress has come at the hands of manufacturers who have taken the view that small things matter. If so, I am reluctant to dismiss this approach.
I am uncomfortable with the way cables are marketed and the attendant prices. But I'm uncomfortable with the way a lot of audio products are marketed. I am therefore reluctant to accept every new claim that comes down the pike, but I would be open to better communication.
Now, per your original question, we should go over to the Audio Set Up section of this forum and post our findings on setup, DSP room correction, the application of room treatment, and acoustics measurement products. That, as you said, is deserving of far more attention than it gets.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Well said.
I remember the first half decent surround sound system I bought. I had a Harman Kardon receiver and Polk Audio speakers. When I first went to hook up the speakers I noticed there were two sets of binding posts on them. I had never seen this before. So I read the directions and learned about bi-wiring. But I left the jumpers in place and just ran a single 12 ga. lamp cord to each speaker. I was very disappointed with the sound. I thought about returning the speakers, but I decided to try bi-wiring first. So I ran a second 12 ga. lamp cord to each speaker and removed the jumpers. It made a huge difference. The sound really opened up. The bass was deeper, the mids and highs were clearer. I didn't understand why it sounded better, but I had become a fan of bi-wiring. I went to Tweeter and bought some Monster Cable bi-wire cables. When I installed them I couldn't hear much of a difference, but the bass didn't seem as strong. I thought about it awhile. The Monster Cable had 14 ga. conductors. I had been using 12 ga. lamp cord. Hmm... maybe the conductor size was what made the difference in the first place. I started out with one 12 ga. wire, then doubled that and the sound was better. Then I backed up to double runs of 14 ga. Hold on a second! I put the jumpers back in place and hooked the double runs of 12 ga. wire back up, only this time I put them on the same set of binding posts. There was absolutely no difference in sound quality between this and biwiring. So I came to the conclusion that the wire guage, or the equivelant total is what actually made the difference. Since then I've upgraded my entire system, and put together a good stereo system, and the main thing I was looking for when I purchased speaker cables was the conductor size. I'm using 10 ga. cables. But I read the Absolute Sound, Stereophile, and other audiophile magazines all the time and I keep reading about these really expensive, but really cool looking cables and how great they sound. Or how they can change the sound of a system. How they can tame bright sounding systems or deepen the sound stage. And I get upgrade-itis. Maybe I'll try a new pair of cables just to see for myself if it's true what they say. If they ARE better I'll have to get a second job just to buy all my new cables though.
As I said above, the best way is to judge for yourself, using your own system. I have used the cable lending library service the The Cable Company offers, and was able to make intelligent, informed purchases of cables. They will consult with you, ask you about your system, make suggestions and send you cables to try so that you can compare the differences in your owh home, in your own system. I don't know of another company that offers this kind of service.
Check out their website: fatwyre.com, and go to the How To page and read the article entitled "How To Evaluate Cables" that explains about the cable library.
If you really want to know if the cables you have read about are really better, this is the way to do it.
Well, first of all, you can't make any empirical claims about cables without direct personal experience with a sufficient number of them in order to pass judgment as to their benefits. You can't start with the hypothesis that cables render no differences and then ask for some kind of "scientific" validation. Of what form would such scientific research take place and just how conclusive would it be? If you're going to undertake such research, you have to start without an hypothesis and with an open mind. Since the effects of cables are contingent on a system, that also affects the kinds of judgments that can be made on them. And for everyone personal sonic preferences come into play. Do you like a more forward and pronounced presentation or do you like it a bit more recessed? What kind of music do you listen to? How do you prefer to hear that kind of music? The end result is going to be highly subjective because listening preferences are always apriori very personal.
It makes little sense to suggest that the people who think cables make a big difference are driven to such conclusions by their "desire" to want to hear such improvements. It's as if to say that people want their systems to be more expensive and impressive--like a high-end automobile--in order to be front and center of conspicuous consumption. Most people would likely give up the investment in cables if they couldn't hear sonic differences. It's a lot cheaper to buy standard cord. You could always resell your investment in cables and get most of your money back or at least a significant portion of it. So the argument that people say that cables make a difference in order to justify the investment made by deluding themselves into hearing sonic differences that aren't there is pretty ludicrous. And it's not very empirical either.
Ultimately, the final determinant is one's own ears. The ear is the subjective interface between the objective sound produced by a system and how the brain finally determines the quality of the sound. Like all organs, there are no standard pair of ears. So you'll never get a "scientific" result that isn't already clouded by a human organ as a go-between. If ears were the same, there would be one single best system of all. But then it would just as easy to imagine another possible world of people with a different set of standard ears that would prefer something else.
yes, cables make an enormous difference but under varying conditions, particularly in terms of shielding and cryogenic treatments. Lately, after investing in an excellent used power conditioner from Audio Magic (first generation Stealth), I've been playing around with power cables. I have two PAD Dominus fluid and another ferox with Aqueous Anniversary interconnects and speaker cables. One of the fluid cables is on my amp, which I believe is the best location for the fluid cable. The other is on my Esoteric DV-50S. The ferox is on my MF Nu-Vista CDP. Yesterday, I just got an Aqueous Anniversary PC in the mail and decided to run it into my conditioner from the wall after some previous experimentation. Previously, I had used my fluid cable on the conditioner but I thought my Nu-Vista lost some of its dynamics this way. Initially, the fluid cable on the Esoteric had impressed me with its bass authority and soundstage depth but sounded a bit dark on the Esoteric. It had a similar effect on the Nu-Vista. The Nu-Vista really opened up with the ferox cable though, especially after it had fully broken in. I returned the Dominus cables to their respective sources and removed my Shunyata Diamondback from my headphone amp and put it on the conditioner to the wall. This worked much better to my ears with the ferox cable than the fluid cable to the wall. So I left it there and ordered the Aqueous. The Aqueous completely transformed the dynamics on the fluid cable into the Esoteric. Much more dynamic, resolved and enveloping now. Might be a better overall cable. I suppose I should try a full Aqueous on that one source. It's not cheap but cheaper than the Dominus. I still prefer the ferox on the CDP though. So cables do make a huge difference according to my empirical experience and open mind in trying out different combinations. Some of the results are a bit surprising. It might be the case, for example that a cheaper cable does the trick better with your system. But it also might be the case that a more expensive cable could very well blow your mind. It's worth at least giving it a try before you try to pass judgment. The Cable Company is a great resource. I bought my amp cable from them and at a pretty big discount. In any case, your ears will be the "science," not some arcane measurement.
I do think that the Aqueous Anniversary line of PAD is a real giant killer even with their own products. One of the best values in my opinion in the industry. depending on your ears, though, you might feel differently.
...it is easy to find a type of machine to correspond to each society, not because machines are determinant, but because they express social forms capable of engendering and using them.--Gilles Deleuze
llad, I think I'll take your advice. I'll let you know how it works out.
I just found out The Cable Company is only about an hour away from my house. Road trip!!
JKroon wrote:llad, I think I'll take your advice. I'll let you know how it works out.
You are about to undertake an illuminating journey. Please, let us know how things go for you.
JKroon wrote:I just found out The Cable Company is only about an hour away from my house. Road trip!!
Please tell John Pharo hello for me. He has been very helpful in the evolution of my system.
.
Ok boys, I've conducted properly organized, well thought-out, blind listening evaluations and always come to the same conclusion: cables don't make an audible difference in an audio reproduction system.
Those of you on this forum who are determined to stick to your "yes they do" guns: all I can suggest is that you submit yourself to a blind evaluation - one where there is [absolutely no way] for you to see which cables are in place at any time. In fact, the best case scenario involves listeners / loudspeakers in one room and reproduction kit / cables in an adjacent room separated by a closed door - a situation such as this:
http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/node/
...which I conducted for a group of enthusiasts on a Canadian Audio website. Let me go on record in stating that I am more than ready to retest [anyone] who offers to come forward with whatever cables they wish to show up with at my doorstep - any time.
There is a humorous follow-up to that evaluation here:
http://cdnav.com/cdnav/viewtopic.php?t=164 (read it to the bottom to get the gist)
In closing: Something like this:
http://www.thesourcecc.com/estore/Product.aspx?language=en-CA&catalog=On...
...works perfectly for RCA interconnects and something like this:
http://www.thesourcecc.com/estore/Product.aspx?language=en-CA&catalog=On...
...does the trick every time for loudspeaker cables.
Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com.
“.Let me go on record in stating that I am more than ready to retest [anyone] who offers to come forward with whatever cables they wish to show up with at my doorstep - any time.”
Hi Andrew,
Are you still convinced that cables don’t make a difference? What do you offer to anyone that will prove that they do?
This should be a fun post as I know the issue of high-quality A/V cables is capable of turning everyday citizens into venomous anti-cable evangelists, bent on proving to the world that a piece of cable is a piece of Cable Suppliers. I assure you these disbelievers couldn’t be more incorrect if they tried.
As others have pointed out, blind tests suggest that (reasonable) cables don't make an audible difference. By "reasonable" I mean cables that make a good connection, are properly shielded, and have an appropriate impedance. But blind tests aren't the final word. By their nature, they can prove that there's an audible difference, but they can't prove that there is no audible difference. So it is possible that, with some equipment anyway, exotic cables can have an audible effect, for better or for worse.
For me, the real issue isn't whether cables can make an audible difference, but that the people who make and sell them are selling a few dollars worth of materials for hundreds or thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. That, IMO, makes exotic cables only slightly better investments than Nigerian banking emails. If you really want to use cables as tone controls, RFI filters, or elecrophoretic plasma beamers, measure the impedance of a cable that you like and duplicate it.
Here's an article on how to clone a $12,500 cable for less than $200:
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-a-Transparent-Audio-Referenc...
LOL.
Absolutely! Cables do make a difference. When thinking about cable switching, start w/ the power cable(s) first...
In my system, I have noted that the further down in the system, the more likely a difference. I heard no difference swapping out cables between source and preamp; I heard a difference between preamp and power amp, though.
Lemme get this straight. You're saying that after your electricity travels hundreds (perhaps thousands) of miles from it's point of origin, passes through perhaps dozens of transformers and switching yards, then winds through your house wiring for hundreds of feet, picking up computer noise, refrigerator and air conditioning transients, RF from wireless networks and local radio stations, that the last THREE FEET from AC outlet to the power supply of your components is going to make a difference in the sound of that component? That's going to require some technical explanation, because by any physics I know, that's sheer nonsense.
There aren't very many ways in which power cords can make an audible difference, but I know of a couple that might.
If they're ludicrously undersized, they'll increase voltage drop during moments of peak demand, when a power amplifier can draw several times the rated current of the line; whether this would have an audible effect is open to doubt, but there's a theoretical possibility that it might. But they'd have to be ludicrously undersized or otherwise have high resistance if the voltage drop from the panel isn't to predominate.
The other way is through hum radiation into adjacent audio cables. The second phenomenon is real: way back when, I was involved in developing a lead dressing protocol for the equipment racks in a large post-production audio and video facility. We used a real time spectrum analyzer and it was easy enough to see the 60 Hz hum when power cords were moved close to audio cables. The problem and a related one (crosstalk of the 15,750 Hz horizontal frequency from the video cables) were easily solved by separating the classes of cables. That was balanced audio, too: a single-ended, high impedance consumer system would be even more susceptible to hum. In practice, hum radiation can usually be prevented with reasonably careful lead dress, and that's in fact an old setup recommendation. But because it can happen, it seems to me that audio power cords that are shielded could in some cases sound better than power cords that aren't.
Well, of course if they're ludicrously undersized they will cause a voltage drop (or even get hot). But the assumption here is that no manufacturer is going to provide a mains cable with their equipment which isn't rated for the maximum current draw of the appliance. They'd never get a UL listing going that route. And believe me, and an adequate mains cable for anything that operates off of a standard 15 amp 115 V (US/Canada) service does not need to be the size of a baby's arm to be "adequate". And anything more than adequate is waste.
Yes, cable dressing is necessary for the lowest noise floor, but that won't be due to the AC cord, it's due to the proximity of 50/60 Hz to inadequately shielded high-gain audio circuits.
Yes, I think it's a fair bet that amplifier manufacturers choose power cords that are adequate to the job. It would hardly be in their interest to compromise their own product. And given the short length of the cord, I agree that UL ratings are probably adequate to prevent the power cord to contribute significantly to voltage drop. The resistance of the cable from the power panel will predominate.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point about shielding. The shielding of audio cable is not sufficient to eliminate hum from AC cables in close proximity. This is true even in the case of properly shielded balanced audio cables feeding differential circuits or transformers with good common mode rejection. The problem can be solved with proper cable dress, yes, but presumably, it can also be mitigated in a more idiot-proof manner by adding shielding to the power cord. In any case, the question here was whether power cords can make an audible difference, and this is one area in which, potentially, they could.
To these ears, yes, cables do make a difference. Another yes, as various cables have a different 'sound' or 'characteristic'.
When Kimber Kable went from using WBT connectors to WBT's NextGen connectors on their interconnects I heard significant improvements in resolution and microdynamic shading. The answer to the original question is yes, but it depends on the resolution of your system and, more importantly, the "resolution" of your ear.
Actually, it depends on the resolution of your imagination.
No. Categorically, and without exception, cables make NO difference in audio. It's all a question of manufacturer's hype and "expectational bias" (you just bought new cables. OF COURSE they're going to sound different [better?]). No double-blind test ever performed (to my knowledge) has ever been able to statistically show that cables have ANY sound whatsoever. The cheapest speaker cable (even 14 GA lamp cord) or interconnect and the most expensive one that you can buy, will, all else being equal, be indistinguishable from one another in a carefully designed, scientific ABX or double-blind test where listener bias has been eliminated from the equation.
Not only do the double-blind tests confirm this, but the maths and physics of conductors tell us that at audio frequencies, over the lengths usually associated with home audio, there is NOTHING a simple pair of conductors and their end terminals can do that will have the slightest audible effect on your audio signal. They can't affect frequency response, they can't add or eliminate distortion (although dirty contacts can cause distortion, they'd have to be VERY dirty to set-up a diode effect that would be audible). That said, I will stipulate that it is possible to design cables which have outside components such as resistors, inductors, and capacitors connected either in series or in parallel with the signal path which will work as either gentle low-pass, high-pass or bandpass filters. These WILL and DO sound different from simple conducting cable whose only goal is to transfer an audio signal from one component to another. These "filter cables" are wrongheaded (and not a little dishonest) in that they are playing with the frequency response of one's system in order to introduce a sound that is "different" from a simple conducting cable. Remember, a passive filter in the form of a cable, can only SUBTRACT from the signal you are conducting, it cannot add. It might peak the highs, for instance, but it does so by attenuating the lower frequencies. It can give you more midrange, but only by attenuating those frequencies below and above the midrange. In other words, these cables and interconnects sound different by robbing you of the fidelity that your component's designers have worked so hard to put into their products, and that you have paid your good money for.
Anyone who says that cables have "a sound" simply have not been privy to a properly set-up double-blind test where the listeners do not know which cables they are listening to. Don't know what the cables look like, and don't know what they cost. In every instance where the rules of DBT have been strictly and rigidly adhered to, the "differences" between speaker cables or interconnects have simply disappeared.
Double blind test are BS when someone like yourself participates, You don't believe there is a difference so you wouldn't admit it if there was.
Go ahead an continue to listen to basic wire, We don't care what your system sounds like.
Jim
Double blind tests have problems, but that's not one of them -- a valid ABX test has a wide range of participants, including, presumably, those who expect to hear a difference.
Perhaps more to the point, since ABX tests under report subtle differences and despite what the OP implies *cannot* prove that a differences isn't heard, is that more than a few audiophiles have reported that the differences they were sure they heard disappeared when they tried a simple blind comparison. That I think is an easy and practical way to make sure something a cable actually makes a difference before plopping down money on it.
What "proves" that differences don't exist is the physics and the maths behind the proposition, not the test itself. The test merely confirms that which the science tells us MUST be true. I worked for years in the cable lab of a large aerospace firm. I know conductors and connectors inside out. I have tested every kind of wire under every conceivable situation (and some not so conceivable) and at just about every frequency you can imagine from "DC to daylight". I can assure you that there is simply NOTHING that simple wire and a pair of spade lugs, banana plugs or RCA plugs can do at audio frequencies that would have any effect on the signal passing through them (as long as the connection at the cable's terminals is gas-tight and the terminals are clean. But this applies to all wire and interconnects, irrespective of cost or technical pretensions and has nothing to do with the conductors themselves ).
The notion that any "belief" system, pro or con, wrt the effectiveness of wire in a stereo system could, in any way shape or form, affect the outcome of a properly set-up and conducted ABX or DB test, shows that Mr. Stillone has never participated in one or even read the statistical results of one. Such tests are the "gold standard" in science. They are used to test all hypothesis in which human perception of the outcome can be influenced by the expectational biases of the test participants. By definition, belief or non-belief in the hypothesis under test is an expectational bias, and it's these very biases that ABX and DB testing are designed to eliminate from the equation.
IOW, it doesn't matter what any given participant believes. He/she doesn't know what they are listening to. They aren't asked WHICH they like best, or which sounds best, they are asked only to note if there is a difference perceived between the two wires or interconnects under test when the two conductors are randomly switched (or not). The participants don't know what they are listening to and neither, in a properly set-up test, does the "operator". If the results are that after X numbers of tries, using all kinds of music, that no participant can reliably pick out a difference beyond about a 50% "blind chance" result, then it can be deduced that no difference exists. If carefully set up (levels matched, etc), then ABX and other DBTs are pretty foolproof.
While I agree with most of what your post, a forced choice DBT can't disprove the existence of an audible difference; it can only demonstrate one. This isn't just an academic formality. See forex Les Leventhal's paper, "How Conventional Statistical Analyses Can Prevent Finding Audible Differences in Listening Tests":
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11480
In practice, I've found ABX testing fatiguing and confusing, and apt to suppress both some differences that are apparent on an initial listening and to miss differences that become apparent only with long familiarity. I don't happen to believe that this affects the null results in the case of interconnects, unless perhaps they're extremely reactive or have high enough resistance to substantially reduce the damping factor. But as far as I can tell, the best ABX testing can do is demonstrate the absence of phenomena with a high probability of detection.
Like I said at the beginning of my last post: "What "proves" that differences don't exist is the physics and the maths behind the proposition, not the test itself. The test merely confirms that which the science tells us MUST be true."
The AES paper that you reference applies to components (one assumes amplifiers, preamps, CD players DACS, etc,) not cables. Cables are so simple and so cut-and-dry that the DBT results are pretty conclusive in that that there is either a perceived difference or there isn't, and that the results of these tests track what physics tells us will be the outcome.
To put it another way, Physics tells us that given the weight of the average human body, the muscle power that humans can develop in their shoulders and arms, coupled with the surface area of a human's arms and hands, that jumping off of the roof of a barn and flapping one's arms like a bird will not produce enough lift to counter the force of gravity and that the result will be that the subject will fall to the earth at velocities high enough to cause serious injury or death. Actual tests of this conclusion have verified its veracity to a point where it is no longer in doubt.
Your Physics and Math may confirm that two different wire pass a signal from Amp A to Speaker B, that does not mean that some percentage of us hear differences due to the various constructions or materials used to produce the cable and how they impact the signal that passes thru.
Physics and mathematics do not belong to me. They belong to us all. It's the laws that govern the way the the universe works. Physics and maths cannot be "right" enough to predict the conditions under which an airplane will fly and yet be wrong enough to falsely predict that wire has no magic characteristics that we don't know about that allow cables to have a "sound". We have left the realm of science here, and entered into the realm of religious belief. I do not, will not and cannot argue this point on a religious basis.
If you hear differences under uncontrolled circumstances, those results are suspect. If you hear them under bias controlled circumstances, they are probably real. The maths and science of conductor technology say "no" and every legitimate double-blind test not only backs that up, but the results are repeatable.
My argument isn't with the physics: while cables can have audible effects, it's easy to select one that doesn't. Rather, it's with the utility of forced-choice double blind testing for the detection of subtle audio phenomena on complex program material. It's essentially useless for that. The best forced choice testing can do is demonstrate that any audible phenomenon would have to be relatively subtle or intermittent. Still, from what I've seen, participation in an AB test can be instructive to those who don't appreciate the power of confirmation bias.
Please explain how this could be possible. You and a panel of other listeners are comparing two cables. The person (or the machine) doing the comparison switching doesn't allow you to know what cables (or which of those cables) you are listening to. When the cables are switched, you will either hear the differences between them or you won't. Complexity, detection of "subtle audio phenomena" are irrelevant. If you can't detect any difference when these cables are instantaneously switched, given the human ear/brain's poor aural memory, how the heck are you going to notice any differences over extended listening? I'd say your imagination would be much better at constructing differences based on your subconscious expectations over a long "subjective" listening session than it would on a direct comparison. I'm sorry, but your premise doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid.
Long-term listening allows the brain to overcome the limitations of poor aural memory.
Consider two paintings. One may have been altered slightly, and your job, as in those children's games, is to detect the differences, if any. However, there are some caveats. One is that you can only see one canvas at a time. What's more, you can only see a part of that canvas, you can't choose which part you're seeing, and when you switch between canvases, you will be seeing only approximately the same part of the canvas. Only it's more complicated than that. There's a third canvas, which can be identical either to the first canvas or the second canvas, and you have to determine which canvas it's identical to. All with a time limit, and on multiple trials.
That's essentially what ABX testing requires the listener to do. It's not surprising that it doesn't work very well with complex test material like music.
On the other hand, if you were able to study the paintings at leisure, you'd soon become so familiar with them that you could see at a glance that something had been altered.
The opposite phenomenon occurs as well, in that some sonic characteristics that are apparent on initial listening are filtered out by the brain. This is something with which long term listening can't help.
"Long-term listening allows the brain to overcome the limitations of poor aural memory." You're going to have to explain that one. If I cannot remember, for very long, what something sounds like. How is listening to something else long-term going to help me with that? What overcomes poor aural memory is direct, instantaneous A-B comparison. If two cables do sound different, that difference will be instantly recognizable and totally unambiguous upon switching from one cable to the other.
I'd say that if one cannot hear a difference between cables on direct, instantaneous comparison, then (A) the differences don't exist (just as the science predicts), or (B) the differences are so miniscule as to be not worth the effort, and certainly not worth the money - no matter how anal one might be about these things. Either way, it's a pretty thin premise upon which to build an industry.