do speaker cables make a difference???

[Thomas_A]

1. I'm going to end this argument once and for all:

2. WHO CARES!!!

3. If you hear a difference or not, why try to convince someone otherwise?

4. Let's talk about something else: I believe in Jesus...

1. At last! 25 years of debate is over.
2. Who cares? Who do you think cares? Isn't it obvious?
3. Why not?
4. Who?

[Peter_Klim]

1. At last! 25 years of debate is over.
2. Who cares? Who do you think cares? Isn't it obvious?
3. Why not?
4. Who?

1 - I wish it were.
2 - People who like to debate.
3 - Because no one is going to change the other persons mind.
4- "God so loved the world
That He gave His one and only Son (Jesus),
That whosoever believes in Him
Will not perish but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

[mtrycraft]

3 - Because no one is going to change the other persons mind.

I guess then you haven't read DMK's message where his mind was changed?
And the countless private mails and ones who never post?
You just cannot claim what you are claiming.

4- "God so loved the world
That He gave His one and only Son (Jesus),
That whosoever believes in Him
Will not perish but have everlasting life." - John 3:16


OK, that is what that passage has to say. And? It must be so? Based on one book? That book prooves itself?
Or, there is external evidence? Good luck, enjoy your faith.

[markw]

"God so loved the world That He gave His one and only Son (Jesus),
That whosoever believes in Him Will not perish but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

Good thought, Peter. Hang in there. You're not alone.

[Feanor]

the answer is a positive YES....

I think there are differences between cables too. I've heard them though I can't prove that to anyone, not even myself. Nevertheless I'm reasonably convinced.

There are measurable differences between cables so why should there not be be audible differences as well? Some cable makers, (too few), publish electrical parameters for their speakers, (resistance, inductance, capacitance). You might expect that a cable with high inductance / low capacitance would emphasize bass. Maybe you could use zip cord + an inductor to achieve the same effect or maybe not: it would depend on the overall result. In any case, lots of people claim they can hear difference between similarly spec'e capacitors and inductors.

Proof is a difficult think. As RGA points out, DBT (double blind testing) cannot prove the negative proposition that there is no difference between A and B. Tobacco companies long claimed that there was no proof that tabacco caused disease: stricly speaking they were right. But we -- and they -- really knew better.

[skeptic]

"There are measurable differences between cables so why should there not be be audible differences as well?"

Sometimes measureable differences are so slight as to be below the threshold of hearing of most people. Furthermore, whether these differences show up audibly and exactly how these differences manifest themselves subjectively depends on what equipment they are connected to. They become part of a network, they don't exist in a vacuum.

"As RGA points out, DBT (double blind testing) cannot prove the negative proposition that there is no difference between A and B."

I am sorry to say as is often the case, I have to disagree with RGA's statement. Even in Cable Asylum's discussion of its anti DBT rule, they acknowledge that DBTs are the ONLY way to determine if small audible differences between components exist. To be perfectly honest, most DBTs of audio equipment are probably not run fairly. The first thing anyone running such a test should do is screen the participants to determine their hearing accuity. No point in buying expensive cables (or anything else expensive in audio equipment) if you are hearing impaired. If the slight differences do exist, the first step would be to find out if the people with the sharpest ears can hear them. Then they can test and discuss the implications for the rest of us.

I am always astonished that so many people who advocate the purchase and use of expensive audio cables because of differences in linear electrical properties such as capacitance and inductance don't understand that all they are doing is changing the frequency response of their sound systems, yet would reject the use of tone controls or equalizers which perform exactly the same function in almost exactly the same way except that they do it cheaply, reliably, predictably, and controllably.

[E-Stat]

I am always astonished that so many people who advocate the purchase and use of expensive audio cables because of differences in linear electrical properties such as capacitance and inductance don't understand that all they are doing is changing the frequency response of their sound systems, yet would reject the use of tone controls or equalizers which perform exactly the same function in almost exactly the same way except that they do it cheaply, reliably, predictably, and controllably.

The difference lies entirely with "almost exactly" I find prevention of an audio anomaly far superior to correction after the fact, especially when the "cure" involves the introduction of an otherwise superfluous complex circuit. Remember Occam's Razor? Adding an active tone control stage to "reboost" the upper frequency rolloff experienced when using high capacitance cables between my attenuators and power amp is not an elegant solution. BTW, using cables of known capacitance is also reliable, predictable, and controllable. I'll concede only the "cheaply". It all depends upon how many IC chips you want in your signal path and how much resolution you wish to sacrifice.

rw

[skeptic]

How about using a bass boost and a treble cut for your phonograph cartridge to compensate for the treble boost and bass cut in the recording? That's what the RIAA curve and microgroove recording is all about. How many gain stages did you say there were in that monster 48 channel recording console, the master tape deck, the remastering deck, and in the cutter console? 30? 50?

[E-Stat]

How about using a bass boost and a treble cut for your phonograph cartridge to compensate for the treble boost and bass cut in the recording?

Perhaps you need brushing up on the definition of "superfluous".

BTW, the RIAA example is the exact opposite of the scenario I described. Do you think the sonics of LPs would be as good if it were the highs that were initially cut and later boosted? You will get nothing but agreement from me concerning the cumulative sins of gaggles of ICs and gain stages used in most studio recordings. I greatly prefer the sonics of minimally miked and signal-simple recordings. That philosophy most certainly carries over downstream to my music system as well. I have yet to meet a perfect gain stage.

rw

[skeptic]

"I have yet to meet a perfect gain stage."

Perhaps you should go back to an Edison wax cylinder phonograph. They had NO gain stages. Ony one microphone. And they used horns. RGA and Benil's favorite.

[E-Stat]

"Perhaps you should go back to an Edison wax cylinder phonograph. They had NO gain stages.

Or, choice "B", eliminate UNNECESSARY circuitry designed to fix preventable problems.

rw

[skeptic]

Or C, rely on 75 years of advances in electronic and electrical engineering that has helped transforme the world of outdoor plumbing, horse drawn carriages, telegraphs, crackly old telephones, wooden bi-planes, and medicine show remedies into the space age, the computer age, genetic cloning, the internet age. Why not try the best technology has to offer instead of rejecting all of it the way some people do. You can't power an electrostatic speaker system with an SET and gas and oil heat beat woodburing stoves and fireplaces for comfort every time. It's also nice not to have to go out to the well for water every day. If your electrostatic speaker has a high end that rolls off, why not try a professional equalizer to boost it back up. It's the same kind the recording engineers who made 98 percent of the recordings you listen to used when they made them and you will get exactly what you need, not a drop more or a drop less.

[E-Stat]

If your electrostatic speaker has a high end that rolls off, why not try a professional equalizer to boost it back up. It's the same kind the recording engineers who made 98 percent of the recordings you listen to used when they made them and you will get exactly what you need, not a drop more or a drop less.

In your sweeping historical saga, you completely missed the point. I guess it is my fault that I thought you understood what I meant when I talked of an HF rolloff when using attenuators directly to amplifiers in lieu of a preamp. Lemme help you out here.

When you have a source like a CDP driving a power amp directly through a relatively high impedance attenuator (eliminating the superfluous line stage, i.e. unnecessary, not needed, redundant, not required, non-essential), then capacitance comes into play as a possible source of high frequency rolloff. The way to PREVENT any roll off is to minimize the capacitance through the use of short and unfortunately, more expensive cables. As opposed to introducing an otherwise unnecessary tone control stage to counter the effect after the fact. My speakers have nothing to do with this phenomena. They measure +/- 2 db from 28-20khz. The result is greater resolution and improved soundstaging.

rw

[skeptic]

If you put your CDP half the distance to the power amp, you can have twice the capacitance per foot and still come out with the same overall capacitance. Of course that capacitance won't equal a hill of beans difference if the CDP output is an emmitter follower or dare I say it, a cathode follower if it is a tube CDP. Of course, the higher the input impedence of the amp, the less difference the capacitance makes anyway. Why not get a power amp or a CDP with a volume control of its own and then you can eliminate that expensive "passive preamp" altogether. Hey, how about a power amp with a CDP built in two inches away.

[E-Stat]

If you put your CDP half the distance to the power amp, you can have twice the capacitance per foot and still come out with the same overall capacitance.

Because it is impractical. The IC run from CDP to attenuator is 0.5 meter and from attenuator to amps is one meter as is. Since the one meter run doesn't reach the preamp, I have separate 2 meter ICs going from pre to power for when I use vinyl. Audio Research preamp on top, DIY attenuators in middle and GamuT CDP on bottom. Boy it sure is dusty back there!

Why not get a power amp or a CDP with a volume control of its own and then you can eliminate that expensive "passive preamp" altogether.

Great suggestion. Do tell me of an amp that is as good as my VTLs with some. I know of better CDPs with gain controls, but the least expensive runs about $5k more.

Hey, how about a power amp with a CDP built in two inches away.

Physical impossibility using tube monoblocks.

rw

[DMK]

3 - Because no one is going to change the other persons mind.

I guess then you haven't read DMK's message where his mind was changed?
And the countless private mails and ones who never post?
You just cannot claim what you are claiming.

4- "God so loved the world
That He gave His one and only Son (Jesus),
That whosoever believes in Him
Will not perish but have everlasting life." - John 3:16


OK, that is what that passage has to say. And? It must be so? Based on one book? That book prooves itself?
Or, there is external evidence? Good luck, enjoy your faith.

Mtry, in fairness, the posts by yourself and like-minded others really didn't change my mind. They did, however, give me the impetus to test cables myself. As you know, I heard no differences but I'm still not prepared to state unequivocally that the cables that come with Pioneer receivers are completely transparent. That doesn't stop me from poking a little harmless fun at cable believers, though.

As for the biblical passage, I'll always remember one thing my father said. He was a minister before he retired. He said "there are precious few atheists in a foxhole and even fewer in an intensive care ward." That proves nothing, of course but in his experience, even the disbelievers in those wards pray like crazy...just in case!

[Monstrous Mike]

He said "there are precious few atheists in a foxhole and even fewer in an intensive care ward."

My father always said: "Never share a foxhole with a guy who is braver than you are".

[DMK]

My father always said: "Never share a foxhole with a guy who is braver than you are".

Nor crazier!

On the topic of cables and, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the poster who is also the guitarist who said if cables sounded different, you'd have noticed it with guitar cables? If you are (and this may sound stupid in light of the above) what's a good guitar cable that reduces hum? I just bought my son a guitar and amp at his request and we get horrible hum! Is there a cable you've used that reduces or eliminates this? Thanks.

[ToddB]

The difference is that I qualify my comments with respect to the system involved. You make unsupported blanket claims. Which is indeed valid for the majority of folks asking what cable they should use with their Onkyo receiver.

rw

Not necessarily, since I've had these speaker cables:

14 AWG zip cord
XLO ER-14
Kimber Kable KWIK-16
Kimber Kable 4PR

and these interconnects:

Radio Shack Gold
XLO Twinax Plus
Kimber Kable Tonik

in this system:

Onkyo TX-8211 receiver
Sony CDP-XE500 CD player
Paradigm Titan or Mini Monitor speakers
Paradigm PDR-8 or PDR-12 subwoofer

and it was easy enough to hear differences between the cables, even at this low level of resolution.

[ToddB]

Nor crazier!

On the topic of cables and, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the poster who is also the guitarist who said if cables sounded different, you'd have noticed it with guitar cables? If you are (and this may sound stupid in light of the above) what's a good guitar cable that reduces hum? I just bought my son a guitar and amp at his request and we get horrible hum! Is there a cable you've used that reduces or eliminates this? Thanks.

You might check out Evidence Audio's guitar cables and see if they help with your problem. Their website is here: http://www.evidenceaudio.com/

[E-Stat]

... and it was easy enough to hear differences between the cables, even at this low level of resolution.

Didn't mean to slight your system, but I was taking a conservative approach for the theorists and parrots here who don't get it.

rw

[Norm Strong]

An impressive looking setup E-Stat. What is that little box with two knobs just below the preamp?

[E-Stat]

An impressive looking setup E-Stat. What is that little box with two knobs just below the preamp?

Thanks, Norm.

It is a Para-Metal enclosure with a pair of DACT CT-2 stepped attenuators for use with the CDP. I rather like its passing resemblance to the Levinson JC-2. While my Audio Research SP-9MKIII is a nice preamp, it's line stage shrinks the soundstage and reduces resolution as compared with not using it at all. I use the preamp for my vinyl source only for where its high gain is useful with a MC cartridge.

Similarly, I use a $15 DIY Radio Shack parts-sourced attenuator box in my garage system between a Pioneer PD-54 and a Threshold Stasis 3 amp driving a pair of second gen Advents. It uses another pair of spare ARC knobs that ironically cost more than the attenuator itself!

rw

[RobotCzar]

If you're not on the fence you're wrong. Fact = no one has proven an audible difference with DBT's --- FACT = DBTs are not the answer in psychological testing. Therefore, both sides will never solve the issue because both sides do not understand psychological testing or validity. One side uses no science to back up their claim and the other side uses science ineptly to discredit the other. A DBT in its very definition cannot prove A=B no matter how they want to weasal around it that is a fact.

Thus you better be on the fence.

What is the source of your misinformation? DBT is the ONLY scientifically acceptable way to test perception. No scientific test can "proove" anything, but it certainly is useful in determining that people can't generally distinguish cables (IC or speaker). They, like the base note writer, SAY they can, but they simply can't when levels are matched and they don't know which is which by looking.

[ToddB]

Didn't mean to slight your system, but I was taking a conservative approach for the theorists and parrots here who don't get it.

rw

I know, I just didn't want anyone thinking that they had to resign themselves to using crappy cables because their gear isn't good enough. I've replaced cables in a system that consisted of a mass market and low cost receiver and CD player, and 15-20 year old Pioneer full-range speakers, and the improvements over the old cables were still audible and worthwhile. What's great is that non-audiophiles who've heard these systems before and after the cable changes have also been able to hear the improvements with the new cables. I guess nobody had ever told them that they weren't allowed to hear any audible improvements from just a cable change.