Cable quality on subwoofer

[chicoaudio]

I recently purchased a paradigm pw 2200 v2, and I am hearing differing info as to go with a high end subwoofer cable or go with an average cable because some argue that the sound quality difference between cables is minimal. What do you think?

[markw]

I think thepoint of diminishing returns on cables and interconnects is much, much lower than the marketing mavens would have you believe.

Also, I don't see how an interconnect designed for the relatively limited "full" range of audio signals needs to be "tweaked" for the limited range needed by a subwoofer when a standard interconnect is more than up to the task. IOW, I see it as a marketing ploy. ... and this is from a guy who worked with wave guide in the AF.

But, some fel better by buying an "official"* subwoofer cable. If you're one of 'em, enjoy. It's your money. Spend it any which way makes you happy.

*Hey, the package says so. It must be.

[kexodusc]

I use to believe heavily in the power and impact of good cables. My experience has been that many people go from cheap, thin, poorly constructed cables straight to expensive, but decently built Monster or AR cables or something similar at the suggestion of a salesperson. They notice a significant difference in performance, and attribute it to the cable. They then logically conclude that this performance increase is directly proportional to the amount of money invested in the cable.
That's their mistake. At least, it was mine.
I spent a few hundred bucks on a few cables a few years back, and was disappointed not to hear much improvement in sound quality. After performing my own admittedly amateur experiments with the various cables I had at that time, I came to the conclusion that once you get a decent fitting connector-end (especially important for subwoofers) attached to some decent wire, the margins for improvement diminish dramatically.
Others have different experiences, that's fine. I know what I heard with my own ears, and how much money I spent to learn that lesson. I've since found a few places that sell cheap, but quality cables. Radio Shack Gold aren't bad for a start. You can find Monster, XLO, and Acoustic Research cables incredibly discounted on ebay if you're patient and prefer brand names, and those aren't a bad way to go either. You can even build your own if you so desire. I did once, but I find it quicker just to buy something made for me already.

You're going to hear alot of different opinions and experiences on this...you'll probably never really know until you try. What I'd do if I were you is ask your salesperson if you can buy 2 cables, one reasonably priced of reasonable quality, and another "premium" quality cable, on the condition you can return the one you don't want to keep. Go home, listen to them both, and decide for yourself.
Good luck.

[piece-it pete]

chico,

As I like quality for qualities' sake I like decent interconnects, meaning good build, fair thickness, better quality jacks. I consider sheilding as legitimate, too. I think kexos' comments are excellent.

These seem like a good deal:

http://accessories4less.com/Amazing/itemdesc.asp?CartId=132-EVEREST-49507PPYTK61&ic=ATS%2DGAC12S&cc=&tpc=

Pete

[Mingus]

I think it is important to get a decent cable for the sub connection. When I lost some output from Velodyne FSR12 sub, I thought the sub was defective. Since the sub was still in warrantee I call Velodyne and they suggested that I take the sub to their authorized repair location which was not too far from my house. I took the sub there and within a week they said there was nothing wrong with the sub. Then I thought the receiver (Yamaha 995) might be defective. But as a afterthough I decide to change the cable and this solve the problem. The oriiginal cable was cheapie I purchased from a discount audio store.

[stuartlittle]

I think any sub cable w/ decent shielding is going to be fine...anything one step up from entry level, really. Discerning differences in subwoofer "sound quality" from different cables has to be near impossible. So long as you block out interference and get a good coonection, it's going to sound fine. That's really where the main difference will be -- an unshielded or very cheap cable might let in some interference, and a sub is really good at producing things like electrical interference at 60 cycles.

[Woochifer]

I agree with stuartlittle, in the low frequencies, the main thing you need to worry about with the interconnect is if it's sufficiently shielded. Insufficient shielding can let audible interference enter the signal path. In my experience, pretty much any interconnect that's constructed better than the plastic collared OEM cables that come with typical components can greatly reduce the amount of interference that seeps in.

As far as going with a high end cable, my question to you is what do you think that a higher end cable will accomplish that a lower priced cable cannot? Keep in mind that most audible problems in the low frequencies are room induced, these room effects affect ALL subwoofers equally if they're in the same position and setup the same way. Simply put, cables do not address anything that's room related, and those just happened to also be the most serious issues in the bass response for most rooms.

In general, you'll get much greater bang for the buck by investing in a parametric equalizer and/or room treatments. Almost all small to medium sized rooms will have at least one problem frequency -- this is simply a consequence of the wave lengths of low frequencies and how they interact with one another. Huge peaks have the net effect of making the bass sound boomy and uncontrolled (you can easily pick this out by listening to an acoustic bass; if a particular note blasts out much louder than the others, that's where the peak occurs in your room). The equalization and room treatments are very effective at neutralizing the big frequency peaks, which allows you to more correctly set the overall level and make for a much fuller and more balanced sounding bass. Cables by themselves are incapable of targeting specific frequencies at specific amplitudes, which is a huge part of what you need to do to truly optimize your bass performance.

[ToddB]

See if a local dealer will let you take some home to demo. I've found cables to make fairly obvious differences regarding PRAT, frequency extension, resolution, etc. The only way for you to find out if you'll hear any differences are to listen to them for yourself.

[kexodusc]

That's like blaming a guy urinating in a river for pollution when a toxic waste dump is just downstream leaking it's content into it.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Guys, we have GOT to get an AR.com "member quotes" page up and running!

[Woochifer]

There's not really a whole lot of frequency extention needed in a subwoofer. It operates ina bandwidth of what? Near DC up to maybe 100 hz? Not a challanging task for any shielded piece of wire.

I think your post pretty much nails it. Not needing to deal with the entire frequency range is the whole reason why a parametric equalizer like the Behringer Feedback Destroyer is so frequently recommended for subwoofers, even by ardent analog advocates who typically recommend only the most direct signal paths possible. Things like audible noise and distortion that show up in the more inexpensive digital EQs in the higher frequencies, are not audible issues in the lower frequencies.


Now, if we were talking RF or maybe microwaves, then we might have something.

Likewise, resolution would be more affected by the physical movement of the drivers and room interactions than any cable...

That's pretty much been my experience as well. The only times where cables produced any audible improvement in my system were when I lived in an area with a lot of RF interference and switching out to a better shielded cable reduced the noise level in the line. Things like using a rumble filter on a ported sub, and room acoustic corrections make for audible, measureable, AND verifiable improvements in the overall bass quality that are far more applicable and adaptable to a variety of situations than cable swap outs.

[ToddB]

markw, I deleted your second post because it violates the posting policy, specifically, this section:

"4. Please restrict discussion of DBT, ABX and lab measurements to the "The Science Lab"

This forum is for discussing experiences from a hobbyists perspective. We feel that challenging forum participants to always back up their experiences with scientific "proof" stifles discussion and defeats the purpose of the forums. Since "scientific proof" is hard to come by in a typical hobbyists home, we ask that those who wish to discuss to discuss DBT's and lab results refrain from bothering those who wish to talk about their listening experiences.

That said, we recognize that technical discussions are often a relevant aspect of discussion, and don't wish to ban it outright. We do wish to prevent people from using the pretense of "science" to mock or abuse a person, their experiences, or opinions."

Eric's had the posting policy up for two weeks now, which is ample time for people to have read it and asked any questions about it. If you somehow managed to overlook the policy, you can read it <a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=6307" target="_blank">here</a>. To avoid having your posts deleted in the future, abide by the policy, and stop trying to perpetuate the "toxic waste dump" that has characterized much of the discussion at AR in the past.

[ToddB]

Gonna delete this post also?
Yes...

[nightflier]

I wanted to add to the shielding issues. I originally had my sub cable sitting right on top of the sub's power chord in the same conduit. After following the advice of some of the posts here, I seperated the two and I heard a noticeable difference. I was also using an inexpensive, unshielded cable that was not made specifically for subs, which was also a factor I'm sure. I have since replaced the cheap cable with one from the same people that manufatured my sub (SVS), and I feel if anyone knows how to make a good sub cable, it would be them. But seperating the two was key.

So to make a long story short, keep the cable, even a shielded one, away from the power cord.

[ToddB]

Great, unbiased moderation here. I am enforcing the posting policy. If you have a problem with that policy, start a new thread about it, and maybe Eric will take the time to explain to you what is already very simple and clear. Unless you have a comment that's relevant to the subject of this thread, within the bounds of the posting policy, then stop posting in it.

[Woochifer]

markw, I deleted your second post because it violates the posting policy, specifically, this section:

"4. Please restrict discussion of DBT, ABX and lab measurements to the "The Science Lab"

This forum is for discussing experiences from a hobbyists perspective. We feel that challenging forum participants to always back up their experiences with scientific "proof" stifles discussion and defeats the purpose of the forums. Since "scientific proof" is hard to come by in a typical hobbyists home, we ask that those who wish to discuss to discuss DBT's and lab results refrain from bothering those who wish to talk about their listening experiences.

That said, we recognize that technical discussions are often a relevant aspect of discussion, and don't wish to ban it outright. We do wish to prevent people from using the pretense of "science" to mock or abuse a person, their experiences, or opinions."

Seems to me that you were the one that brought up the subject of frequency extension in the first place, which doesn't need a lab, elaborate equipment/software, or bias controls that are outside the expertise of an average hobbyist to measure -- a $40 Radio Shack SPL meter and a bass heavy DVD will do the job just fine. For markw to say that a cable does not address frequency extension and explain some basic reasons why IMO hardly constitutes "using the pretense of "science" to mock or abuse a person, their experiences, or opinions." He's disagreeing with you and explaining why.


Eric's had the posting policy up for two weeks now, which is ample time for people to have read it and asked any questions about it. If you somehow managed to overlook the policy, you can read it <a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=6307" target="_blank">here</a>. To avoid having your posts deleted in the future, abide by the policy, and stop trying to perpetuate the "toxic waste dump" that has characterized much of the discussion at AR in the past.

This is another part of the rules that you are enforcing:

"1. First and foremost, be civil and respectful at all times:"

Even though markw's last remark might have been somewhat off color and crass, accusing him of perpetuating a "toxic waste dump" and laying past issues from this board at his feet is not exactly a "civil and respectful" response either.

[ToddB]

Seems to me that you were the one that brought up the subject of frequency extension in the first place, which doesn't need a lab, elaborate equipment/software, or bias controls that are outside the expertise of an average hobbyist to measure -- a $40 Radio Shack SPL meter and a bass heavy DVD will do the job just fine. For markw to say that a cable does not address frequency extension and explain some basic reasons why IMO hardly constitutes "using the pretense of "science" to mock or abuse a person, their experiences, or opinions." He's disagreeing with you and explaining why.
You've already established that you have very selective reading comprehension when it suits you, so I'll make this as simple as possible.

The relevant portion of the posting policy is this:

"refrain from bothering those who wish to talk about their listening experiences"

You might notice that the relevant portion of chicoaudio's question that started this thread is this:

"because some argue that the sound quality difference between cables is minimal. What do you think?"

I shared with chicoaudio my listening experience and what I think about it. markw then saw fit to respond directly to my post and kindly inform me that my hearing was wrong. I guess markw assumed that he was doing me a favor by presuming to hear for me, which makes me wonder if he would also presume to do my tasting, smelling, seeing, and touching for me as well. How he would have any idea what I heard when I changed cables is beyond me, since he wasn't around when I was changing the cables, he's never heard my system, and he certainly isn't in possession of my hearing. As his supposed justification for most thoughtfully letting me know that my hearing was wrong, he trotted out a series of scientific statements, none of which were based on that really inconvenient little word, "listen". He clearly did this in an effort to mock what I had posted, and to suggest that this wasn't his motive is either a professional-level attempt at spinning the situation, or the result of a profound lack of understanding. markw can disagree all he wants to about whether or not cables make any sonic difference, and the post of his in which he states that is still up, and will remain so. But ridiculing my comments about what I heard is an attack upon both my hearing and my veracity, and is an insult that the posting policy thankfully says no longer has to be tolerated.


This is another part of the rules that you are enforcing:

"1. First and foremost, be civil and respectful at all times:"

Even though markw's last remark might have been somewhat off color and crass, accusing him of perpetuating a "toxic waste dump" and laying past issues from this board at his feet is not exactly a "civil and respectful" response either.
Well, if the pointy black boot with the big brass buckle fits...

This is the last time that I will entertain comments about moderating policy or moderating decisions in this thread. chicoaudio, I apologize for the clutter that's accumulated here. The moderators are in the process of reversing a long-standing problem at this site, and the people who've taken part in creating and perpetuating that problem are not very happy about the effort.

[markw]

I suggest that anyone who wants an unbiased answer with reasoning behind it to any question post in the Audio Lab. If one wants unqualified reinforcment of their beliefs, which may or may not be real, then feel free to post their question in any other forum.

I don't see where this breaks any posting laws, do you? It merely offers the poster the option of hearing two sides of an issue should they so choose.

So, don't be surprised if a reply to a post in any forum simply contains the text "See reply in Audio Lab", or perhaps a hyperlink right to that post.

[markw]

I am enforcing the posting policy. If you have a problem with that policy, start a new thread about it, and maybe Eric will take the time to explain to you what is already very simple and clear. Unless you have a comment that's relevant to the subject of this thread, within the bounds of the posting policy, then stop posting in it.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=6654

C ya in the Audio Lab. E-Stat's already on board.

BTW, from the few responses and emails I've received so far, I'd say the other sites are monitoring this thread with great amusement.

Gotta say, yer doing the moderators proud...

[kexodusc]

ToddB:
I have been largely behind the need for moderators and have supported Eric and the others in their appointments here, but deleting markw's post in this case was just excessive, wrong, and only opens the door to yet another battle.

What's worse, you've deleted a post that for the most part is still present in this thread in the "quotes" of other posters...What kind of half-assed moderating is that? Good moderating, Todd.

I have found Terrence, and Geoffcin to be excellent moderators so far...mostly because they are flexible and accommodating, and open to discussion. If technically inclined members are to merely post links now to the "Audio Lab" to get their opinions heard, what the bloody hell is the point in deleting and censoring these posts anyway? There's a mountain of infinite wisdom in these "forum rules", isn't there?

Just like you so correctly claim that nobody else can hear, taste, see, smell etc, for you, who are you to tell the readers that what we WANT to read in terms of responses to questions? Was there a poll asking which direction to take these forums?

I'm asking you, please, reconsider your position and philosophies as to when moderation is needed. It may be as simple as adding a feature to this site such that when a member makes a new post, he/she selects "allow technical responses" or "personal subjective hearing experiences only" or something to that effect.

Oh, BTW: Taking on Woochifer -- NOT a good idea, Todd!!!

[46minaudio]

I recently purchased a paradigm pw 2200 v2, and I am hearing differing info as to go with a high end subwoofer cable or go with an average cable because some argue that the sound quality difference between cables is minimal. What do you think?
Some will hear a difference some will not.To find out why some hear a difference please visit the Audio Lab...http://forums.audioreview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47
and ask your questions there..It is a place where you can get the best advise from the smartest minds in audio..One thing to keep in mind when buying high end"high dollar" cable.If one spends 200$ on cables another spends $200 on CDs.You will hear a diff between 15 different CDs heck you might even stop thinking about buying new cables and kick back and enjoy some tunes..With the cables you may hear a difference.Again refer to the audio lab as why..

[piece-it pete]

Seems to me that you were the one that brought up the subject of frequency extension in the first place, which doesn't need a lab, elaborate equipment/software, or bias controls that are outside the expertise of an average hobbyist to measure -- a $40 Radio Shack SPL meter and a bass heavy DVD will do the job just fine. For markw to say that a cable does not address frequency extension and explain some basic reasons why IMO hardly constitutes "using the pretense of "science" to mock or abuse a person, their experiences, or opinions." He's disagreeing with you and explaining why.



This is another part of the rules that you are enforcing:

"1. First and foremost, be civil and respectful at all times:"

Even though markw's last remark might have been somewhat off color and crass, accusing him of perpetuating a "toxic waste dump" and laying past issues from this board at his feet is not exactly a "civil and respectful" response either.

Bango man! I'm with you here, Wooch.

Pete

[Woochifer]

You've already established that you have very selective reading comprehension when it suits you, so I'll make this as simple as possible.

Thank you for refraining from making personal insults and attacks, Mr. Moderator.


The relevant portion of the posting policy is this:

"refrain from bothering those who wish to talk about their listening experiences"

You might notice that the relevant portion of chicoaudio's question that started this thread is this:

"because some argue that the sound quality difference between cables is minimal. What do you think?"

And here's another relevant portion of the posting policy that supports markw's response:

That said, we recognize that technical discussions are often a relevant aspect of discussion, and don't wish to ban it outright.

markw's response pretty directly relates to the question at hand because it supports his opinion that sound quality differences between cables are minimal. The original poster brought that up, and so did markw, how does adding a technical angle to the discussion (that had nothing to do with DBT, ABX, or lab measurements BTW) constitute a violation of posting rules?


I shared with chicoaudio my listening experience and what I think about it. markw then saw fit to respond directly to my post and kindly inform me that my hearing was wrong. I guess markw assumed that he was doing me a favor by presuming to hear for me, which makes me wonder if he would also presume to do my tasting, smelling, seeing, and touching for me as well.

And you accuse me of having selective reading comprehension? Interpreting his remarks as a personal attack about your hearing is quite a logical stretch. Further exaggerating his comments to "presume to do my tasting, smelling, seeing, and touching for me as well" I thought was the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that the new policy was supposed to eliminate.

markw is simply noting the bandwidth needed to carry a low frequency signal. My listenings support his contention, but because my posts referred to listenings and his referred to technical measurements, my posts were allowed to stand as is and his were marked for deletion? If I had posted the results from my cable measurements, would that also earmark my posts for deletion?


But ridiculing my comments about what I heard is an attack upon both my hearing and my veracity, and is an insult that the posting policy thankfully says no longer has to be tolerated.

I hardly view disagreeing and supporting an argument as some sort of insult or attack upon your hearing and your veracity.


Well, if the pointy black boot with the big brass buckle fits...

1. First and foremost, be civil and respectful at all times:


This is the last time that I will entertain comments about moderating policy or moderating decisions in this thread. chicoaudio, I apologize for the clutter that's accumulated here. The moderators are in the process of reversing a long-standing problem at this site, and the people who've taken part in creating and perpetuating that problem are not very happy about the effort.

Well, I see problems as well, and they seem to be growing rather than reversing with the moderating approach that's been demonstrated on this thread. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems to be an emerging theme. I hope I'm wrong about this.