I found a very interesting article on expensive cables....

Actually what I'm suggesting is that in the strata of luxury goods there's not necessarily a positive correlation between price and performance. You could spend more for a CD player or cables and end up with lesser or equivalent sound in either case.

Marketers can take advantage of the fact that when we pay more we assume we're getting more and that assumption creates its own reality. They also understand that in luxury markets, many customers (whether they'll admit it or not) are actually looking to buy status. Performance can be secondary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Were the Tara Labs speaker connects? What gear were they connected to?

---

I am guessing this was a question for me. I was using all Tara Labs cables before I got the Synergistics. I had the Prism Bi-wire for speaks and several ICs including Original-"S", Quantum 4 or 5s, and several Prism ICs. I had the Quantums between Amp and Pre and S's between CD and pre.

I now have Synergistic Kaleidoscope ics between CD and pre and pre and amp with Signature II speaker cables. Yes there was a big difference between cabling.

Hyfi, I believe the OP said he had Tara Labs but he couldn't tell any difference over the zip cord. At least you could tell a difference between Tara and Synergistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

However the with high-end equipment, (as Kevio suggests, in this case at least), buying the $500 pair of cables might possibly provide your performance more than spending the same amount on an active component. Say a $3500 versus a $3000 amp.

---

Sorry Feanor, but I do not necessary agree with that statement.

You said you are going by assumption that more expensive cables provide better performance. But if we go by that assumption, then you also have to agree that expensive cable will also improve the sound of low and mid level system.

That is the reason I said your previous statement “people with entry or middle level systems, are better to spend their money elsewhere than on expensive cables” will not hold true if we go by above assumption. If more expensive cable can improve high end systems, it can also do the same for low and mid level systems. We can’t have it both ways :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevio

Actually what I'm suggesting is that in the strata of luxury goods there's not necessarily a positive correlation between price and performance. You could spend more for a CD player or cables and end up with lesser or equivalent sound in either case.

Marketers can take advantage of the fact that when we pay more we assume we're getting more and that assumption creates its own reality. They also understand that in luxury markets, many customers (whether they'll admit it or not) are actually looking to buy status. Performance can be secondary.

---

Excellent post. Lets hope Mr. P doesn't start calling you names too :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Sorry Feanor, but I do not necessary agree with that statement.

You said you are going by assumption that more expensive cables provide better performance. But if we go by that assumption, then you also have to agree that expensive cable will also improve the sound of low and mid level system.

That is the reason I said your previous statement “people with entry or middle level systems, are better to spend their money elsewhere than on expensive cables” will not hold true if we go by above assumption. If more expensive cable can improve high end systems, it can also do the same for low and mid level systems. We can’t have it both ways :)
...

---

Look, Smokey, (and Kevio), I never state any believe in a fixed relationship between price and performance. At best there is a loose correlation, and I'm not sure that this applies to cables at all.

Here is specifically what I'm conviced of:

• I hear no difference, certainly no significant differences, amoung decent quality cables I've heard; (these have been in the $30 to $300). In this regard I personally would be stupid to pay more that $30 in that range, depending on the length, etc.
• I'm included to believe that whatever differences there are amoung cables regardless of price, they are likely to be small. That is, the rule of diminishing returns will work with a vengence in the case of cables.

At best, cables are a minor tweak, (at worst they are jewellery). To keep things in perpective, if you are rich and can thus afford to spend money a lot of money on your hifi system, wasting it or not, then indulge yourself in expensive cables. If your a poor person, as I am relatively speaking, I say you're a fool to buy expensive cables.

Mr. Peabody evidently has extraordinary hear and can hear differences between say, Monoprice and Blue Jeans. Good for him, but I'll bet even he will admit that the differences are very small, especially compared to other components in general.

The differences heard in cables depends on the cable and gear. When going from a typical Monster RCA between my CJ preamp and power amps to my Siltech the difference was significant and well worth the money. When comparing Siltech to Transparent, both are good and it comes down to preference and system synergy. When comparing BJC to Transparent the difference is obvious but actually for a certain application I used the BJC, it is easier on the ears at extremely high volumes like in my work out room which is also still pretty live inspite of some cloth on the walls for damping. The BJC regardless of what they say on their website does roll off the highs especially compared to the higher priced cables I've compared them to like Transparent and Ixos.

As I once stated cables are no different than any other component, or product, price paid is never a guarantee it will equal performance.

I bought a very expensive set of Siltech speaker connects on special believing they would perform as well as my prior experience with Siltech. It was a different series. In the midrange they were very good but I was getting virtually no bottom end and the presentation was light and airy, having no impact or realism though. If I didn't have the ability to properly evaluate my system those cables would still be here, instead they went back and I replaced them with the New York series which in place I was very happy with.

Cables are something that people should try for themselves, if they can't hear a difference then don't spend the money but because they didn't hear a difference with their certain gear and the cables tried is no proof that differences do not exist.

I believe what Feanor is saying is that equipment with more resolution will better reveal a difference in cables, just as a better amp is better capable of taking advantage of a better CD player. A cable may improve sound some between a $500.00 CDP and a $500.00 receiver but the difference in the same cable should be more obvious between a $5k CDP and $5k amp. Prices are just for example and contrast. The "diminishing return" thing can be minimalized by buying within range of your gear. Just as some one wouldn't buy a $5k CDP to put on the front of a $500.00 receiver. If one spends $5k on an audio component it is foolish not to at least try a better cable to see if gains can be heard.

Just to relay another experience when I was comparing BJC to other RCA's, one of the brands were Ixos. I did not care for the sound of this set of Ixos, I can't make a blanket or generalization of all their stuff but I'd use the BJC hands down before the Ixos and I believe they cost quite a bit more. I found the Ixos to be unbalanced in sound with all the emphasis on the highs. There could be certain systems that need this boost and these sound fine, maybe. So spending money certainly does not guarantee always better results. And, I guess if some one can't hear any difference in cables it would be irresponsible to spend more money, wouldn't it.

Those who are holding fast to the "no difference" argument though can post links but have no real world experience comparing cables nor have ever owned more than a receiver or what might be considered 'high end" gear. Feanore is the exception that I know of. I'd have more respect for their opinion if they could actually convey some comparing experience. They are going solely on faith of what is written on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I wonder if you didn't hear a difference in cables or did it just not show up on your screen. Same with the amp, did the Parasound sound better or just look better on your screen?

And, you are wrong, Dynaudio certainly does not use ordinary wire on there Evidence series and I doubt on any.

dynaudio evidence

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloud...62/index1.html

---

No, I am not wrong. I said Evidence doesn't use silver cable; that doesn't mean they use bad cables. In that example, I am only saying there's no difference between Pear Cable Anjou that costs $7250 per foot vs Tara Labs Prism which costs only $2 a foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Then again there is the relative arguments that (1) more expensive cables are no more than proportionals to cost of the system as a whole, and (2) that the richer people who can afford the expensive system can also afford the expensive cables.

---

No, that statement is incorrect. I can put together a reasonably high end system for $15-20k but if you add some of the ridiculous cables such as Pear Cable or Tara Labs "The Zero" then that would make your $20k system cost $40k. I really don't see the point of that. If I have an extra $20K, I'd probably save it to buy another pair of Genesis 6.1 or a Krell Evo amp but not cables. Opportunity cost buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Hyfi, I believe the OP said he had Tara Labs but he couldn't tell any difference over the zip cord. At least you could tell a difference between Tara and Synergistic.

---

I have to say Mr. Peabody is correct. I first bought some 12AWG generic cables from Home Depot to replace my 16AWG, "known to be crappy" monster cables. They did sound clearer and a little bit louder! Then, I went to get Tara Labs Prism terminated with audioquest banana jack. Honestly, I could not tell any difference beside the latter looks expensive : )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelgz

No, that statement is incorrect. ...but if you add some of the ridiculous cables

---

Such would hardly represent a proportional cost as Feanor worded.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelgz

No, that statement is incorrect. I can put together a reasonably high end system for $15-20k but if you add some of the ridiculous cables such as Pear Cable or Tara Labs "The Zero" then that would make your $20k system cost $40k. I really don't see the point of that. If I have an extra $20K, I'd probably save it to buy another pair of Genesis 6.1 or a Krell Evo amp but not cables. Opportunity cost buddy.

---

Uhmm ... I think you're agreeing with me. :crazy: (Or is it me with you?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

...
I believe what Feanor is saying is that equipment with more resolution will better reveal a difference in cables, just as a better amp is better capable of taking advantage of a better CD player. A cable may improve sound some between a $500.00 CDP and a $500.00 receiver but the difference in the same cable should be more obvious between a $5k CDP and $5k amp. Prices are just for example and contrast. The "diminishing return" thing can be minimalized by buying within range of your gear. Just as some one wouldn't buy a $5k CDP to put on the front of a $500.00 receiver. If one spends $5k on an audio component it is foolish not to at least try a better cable to see if gains can be heard.
...

---

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

...
Just to relay another experience when I was comparing BJC to other RCA's, one of the brands were Ixos. I did not care for the sound of this set of Ixos, I can't make a blanket or generalization of all their stuff but I'd use the BJC hands down before the Ixos and I believe they cost quite a bit more. I found the Ixos to be unbalanced in sound with all the emphasis on the highs.
...

---

Actually, I have a couple of pairs of Ixos. I'll swap them for the BJCs I'm using in my main system and decide whether I still hear no (noticable) difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

...
Those who are holding fast to the "no difference" argument though can post links but have no real world experience comparing cables nor have ever owned more than a receiver or what might be considered 'high end" gear. Feanore is the exception that I know of. I'd have more respect for their opinion if they could actually convey some comparing experience. They are going solely on faith of what is written on the internet.

---

Whether my gear is high-end is doubtful, but one thing I'll admit is that I am stone deaf about 10 kHz.

Mr. P's post (no. 86) has me wondering if cables, like other components, ought to be matched to the components to which they are linked....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelgz

I have to say Mr. Peabody is correct. I first bought some 12AWG generic cables from Home Depot to replace my 16AWG, "known to be crappy" monster cables. They did sound clearer and a little bit louder! Then, I went to get Tara Labs Prism terminated with audioquest banana jack. Honestly, I could not tell any difference beside the latter looks expensive : )

---

I used Tara Prism Bi-Wire cables for years and did enjoy the performance boost when they replaced Rat Shack wire.

I also am now enjoying how the Synergistic Research cables blow away the Tara Labs.

I do think bare wire or good spades give a better connection than banana plugs so maybe your losing something.

Actually though, when you biwire, it has been recommended that you use different gauge wire for highs and lows, thinner for highs so the Prism cables are just a 4 core solid wire that they terminate as a bi-wire or singles just doubled up.

The best thing I liked about the Prisms is how flexible and easy to route they are. The Synergistic cables are like trying to route re-bar behind your gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auricauricle

Mr. P's post (no. 86) has me wondering if cables, like other components, ought to be matched to the components to which they are linked....?

---

This is an accurate wonderment. However, there will be several cables that match each set of gear, not just "only this cable will work".

Before I got the current system I am using, I was there when the former owner swapped out PBJs and Kimber 8Tc speaker wire for the Synergistic ICs and Speaker cables with a jaw dropping effect.

It is a puzzlement, indeed!

Angelgz, when comparing cables do you listen to music in a "direct" mode of some type bypassing the processing? Your gear is good enough to show a difference in cables, not sure why you aren't picking that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Angelgz, when comparing cables do you listen to music in a "direct" mode of some type bypassing the processing? Your gear is good enough to show a difference in cables, not sure why you aren't picking that up.

---

Actually most of my electronics are hooked up to the HDMI port or the optical on the Rotel Processor. I don't use any analog device despite some people believe that analog musics are more "true". So I don't think that's "direct".

I also do notice a difference but I only when the Gauge is different on the speaker wire. The interconnects didn't make a difference at all. I used to have monster cable interconnects and a regular 5 dollar HDMI cable. I replaced them with audioquest and did not notice a difference. However, the TOSlink optical cable did make a significant difference, because I was using a $10 radioshack cable and it was too long!

Ah, that explains a lot. I've had some occasional differences in digital cable but I was talking about analog where the difference seems to be more noticeable. Using digital the processor's internal DAC will always be doing the playback and you probably won't notice much difference in players, possibly some in cables, but again, not like an analog cable

Whether an analog or digital connection is best for music depends on which DAC and analog circuits are the best, inside the processor or the source player. If just using a DVD player or something then digital would even be better because the Rotel's DAC is better. If wanting to put enough money into a CD player with great sound then analog is best simply because the CD player will perform better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelgz

However, the TOSlink optical cable did make a significant difference, because I was using a $10 radioshack cable and it was too long!

---

I had read that a digital cable was preferred over optical by Audiophiles so I bought one from BJC and it is better than the several optical I have. The two digital cables I purchased from Monoprice, although the premium sounds better than the standard, are not good at all.

Cables matter more in analog especially if you are introducing more than 60dB+ of gain from the source.

cartridges => tonearm cable => SUT/Phono Pre=>...... any cabling attempts beyond that seems worthless if you don't start off correctly. With that said, components affect sound more than cables. Upgrade anyone?

JRA

Oh yeah, that and digital stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audio amateur

The fuel ratings in France (like most other countries I've been to aside USA) are 95, 98 & sometimes 100. I'm not quite sure why this is higher than in the US. Me thinks the octane in US & French petrol is no different, and I am mostly right, as I've just done a wiki search. US 91 is equivalent to Euro 95.

---

Because the US uses the AKI (Anti Knock Index), and Europe use the RON (Research Octane Number), there is also the MON (Motor Octane Number).

Just what I always wanted in an audio forum, all I didn't know I need to know about gasoline. :)

As far as cables go, there's a lot of opportunist out there, and very little to no proof that a $1000+ per meter cable is any better outside of aesthetics than the $3 per roll Monoprice cable. I have no problem with someone paying a million dollars if they want for cables, it's people with their the voodoo claims to sucker people into paying for over priced hoopla with zero evidence to back up anything other than the silver tongue of some "golden ear" reviewer with a vest interest blathering on about how "chocolatey", or "3 dimensional" some cable made their system sound, that are annoying. None of them seem willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Cabling has standards and specs for a reason. It does make a difference, so NOT going on the cheap in smart. By the same token, "free enterprise" will for sure "Take It to the Limit" one more time. They can really twist facts around like used car salesmen till you can easily be convinced to spend 50% of your gear $$ on cabling. So all the above is true, right !?

Any of you guys tried coat hangers?

consumerist.com/2008/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatmeworry

Any of you guys tried coat hangers?

---

Yes! The wood ones have a very acoustic sound.

I totally agree ,especially with speaker wires,although the longer the run the heavier the gauge should be, but these people that show me their Arc Welding cables they bought for running their speakers --- ???? Could have used that money elsewhere. I beleive the most important pieces in an audio system is the signal source(and the low power signal lines in it.) and the speakers.

I think I will stand in the middle with this one. I think a person needs to buy the best cables and interconnects that they can afford with the equipment they have and not go overboard and spend on cable what they spent on equipment. There is a difference in sound quality with cables but If you have a $10,000 system then it does not make sense to spend more on cables.