Interesting thoughts about cables

[JohnMichael]

I have my computer repaired so I can copy and past the article instead of trying to paraphrase.

Music? Or Sound? | Stereophile.com

The demo seemed simple enough. A distributor proposed a session for the Bay Area Audiophile Society (BAAS) that would pit his relatively low-cost speaker cable against an ultra-expensive competing model named for a Norse god. We would listen to the music first with the high-priced spread, then with his cable, then discuss the differences. As far as the distributor was concerned, everyone would hear that the Nordic Emperor had no clothes.
When the first of two groups of BAAS members arrived, I played three complex selections that challenge a system far more than does the standard choice of female singer with small combo: the beginning of the first movement of Mahler's Symphony 2, from Iván Fischer's recording with the Budapest Festival Orchestra (SACD/CD, Channel Classics 23506; "R2D4," February 2007); mezzo-soprano Lorraine Hunt Lieberson's entire recording of Handel's "As with Rosy Steps the Morn Advancing," from her Handel Arias, with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment under Harry Bicket (SACD/CD, Avie 30; "R2D4, February 2005; November 2004); and a few tracks from the Charles Lloyd Quartet's Mirror (CD, ECM 2176; December 2010). We listened to all three selections consecutively, then switched cables.

To my ears, the differences between how the cables interacted with the music and equipment were clear. Beyond the sound's being exceedingly airy and open with the expensive cable, with more refined highs, tighter bass, and exceptional transparency, it let me hear music more organically, in ways that touched me deeper. But when several BAAS members said they either couldn't hear a difference, or preferred the lower-priced cable, I realized that they were having a major problem in perceiving unfamiliar, complex music that contained multiple ideas, piquant harmonies, and emotional shifts.

So I prefaced the second listening session with some tips: "When I play orchestral music such as Mahler's, one thing I listen for is the balance between instruments. You may hear a lot of powerful low energy from timpani, bass drum, cellos, and basses, but is that energy in correct musical proportion to the midrange and treble instruments? Can you clearly discern the pitches of the lowest sounds? When you listen to Hunt Lieberson accompanied by period instruments, are the instruments in balance with each other, and are they in correct proportion to the sound of the singer's voice? Are the timbres of the instruments true? Are you hearing all the overtones and subtle dynamic shifts you might hope to hear?

"Beyond all those specifics, when you take a deep breath and let the music flow over you, does what you hear make musical sense or does it seem unbalanced? Does the music move you, conveying the emotion you sense the composer intended to communicate? How does it make you feel?"

Nice try. After we'd listened to the Handel and had been pummeled by out-of-control mush masquerading as two period-instrument cellos and a double bass—indistinct sounds that overwhelmed both the 11 violins behind Hunt Lieberson and the sound of her voice—two audiophiles claimed that the lower-priced cable transmitted more, hence "better," bass. After the Mahler, I was dismayed to find some people preferring the lower-priced cable's brasher, less-refined presentation of the horns and strings, and an overall more limited palette of colors for this music. While there's no reason some cable can't bring the Norse god to his silver-clad knees, this claimant of that throne was clearly a pretender.

I couldn't figure out why so many people were missing obvious giveaways of inferior sound. Certainly the expensive cable's I-could-buy-a-house-for-this cost has made it a sitting target and stirred up resentment. If I had $100 for every cable distributor who has claimed that their cable can trounce the false god and make the world a better place for audiophiles and their recalcitrant spouses, I'd be in Europe right now, listening to Handel in the halls for which his music was intended, and hopping from one jazz club to another. But was the resentment so great that it had led people to plug their ears?

No, something more than cable envy was going on. Instead of blaming the listeners, I began to wonder if we who review equipment have unintentionally helped create a community of audiophiles who lack the ability to listen deeply. Might it be the case that, because we often spend the bulk of a review discussing certain musical elements to the exclusion of others, we give short shrift to how the totality of the musical experience affects us, and have thus led our readers astray?

True, we reviewers sometimes speak of a bass line, a singer's voice, or the much-vaunted "presence region" as if they were somehow separate and distinct from the rest of the music we hear. Pointing out specific musical elements and how a component re-creates them can be quite useful. But if we fail to make the musical connections—to put the pieces together—are we misinforming listeners who are not always able to embrace the entire gestalt of the musical experience?

To test my theory, I began to scan reviews, both in print and online. While I was delighted to encounter reviews that spoke of music as an organic whole—check out Stephen Mejias's monthly column, "The Entry Level," for many examples—I also found numerous examples like the following, paraphrased from an actual review: "The music I picked included one piece to test the sound of acoustic and electric guitars, a very different one to test the ability to handle delicate sounds while still maintaining bass authority and slam . . . and three other selections to evaluate bass performance."

There's nothing wrong with the latter approach. Most reviewers have, or ought to have, favorite recordings that they use to evaluate such attributes. But when all we talk about is the sound of specific sonic elements, rather than how the entire musical experience makes us feel, I fear that we ultimately lead readers astray. We contribute to the schooling, not the education, of a generation of audiophiles who focus on individual fragments of the sonic experience instead of receiving music as an organic whole. Or, as the conductor Sir Thomas Beecham once described his countrymen, "The English may not like music—but they absolutely love the noise it makes."

The wonder of the audiophile experience is the ability of a sound system to communicate the entire musical gestalt: the sum total of a work's ideas, emotions, and spiritual truths as expressed by and embodied in tone, rhythm, pitch, and artistic inspiration. As reviewers, that's what we must strive to convey each time we critique a cable, a black box, a loudspeaker, or the like. Unless we discuss how what we hear moves us in ways that transcend the sum total of its parts, we do our readers a disservice, and fail to give the music we love its full due.

[Mr Peabody]

Wow! I can't tell you how sincerely enlightening that is and I have to totally agree, it explains so much. Like the dispute I had on another board whether equipment can or cannot convey "musicality". I don't want to sound like I'm boasting but I hear like the writer, and this explains why many times people don't understand what I'm saying or hear the same way, or things I do. When I listen to new gear I sometimes make comments as to the sound, I have had comments to the effect "just relax and listen to the music", but what I hear I just notice, I don't put some type of effort into it, or some how get less enjoyment from the music, I'm not even sure how I acquired the ability, or did I always have it. I mean, why couldn't the group hear what the writer did even after the clues?

There were some big trades when going from Krell to Conrad Johnson but I fell in love with what it did, and I only mention this because nobody else but me appreciated the CJ sound who heard my system, of course, I was the only one that counted there, but it was a bit discouraging at times. Well, I have to say HarleyG seemed to like the CJ alright. I think where I'm at now gives me what I had in both systems to some extent.

I have to say as well that I'm not perfect and sometimes emotion can cloud judgment as in my short time with Zu speakers. I think hear they were exciting at first and gave me what I was looking for but over time I knew we weren't made for each other. Just like in my prior post, it takes a bit of time to learn what a cable does for a system, you have to get past that initial spark from the change that was made to the system.

[Feanor]

I have my computer repaired so I can copy and past the article instead of trying to paraphrase.

Music? Or Sound? | Stereophile.com
....

What am I to make of all this?

In the first place I completely agree with the author's description of what to listen for in reproduction. Maybe that's because my steady diet is complex music of the type referred to, (including Mahler). In particular I listen intensely for what I call "separation" of instruments & voices from each other. I.e., not just the separate identification of the those elements but also their separation in space, their distinct imaging & placement. The other aspects as mentioned by the author are relevant to me too of course. Accordingly I'm a candidate for any upgrade will improve the sonic qualities in question, including speaker cables and interconnects.

One instance is recent improvement that I made is a Schiit Bifrost DAC. Two important sonic aspects in particular are improved by this device well beyond my expectation: (1) the separation and palpability, i.e. seeming tangible quality or simply reality, of the several instruments and/or voices, and (2) more lively dynamics, (a.k.a. PRaT), which improves all percussion instruments including piano.

But secondly we, (or at least I), also have to consider the mundane aspect of the author's listening experiment. The "named for a Norse god" cables are most probably Nordost's Odin Supreme Reference speaker cables. Consider that (a) they have a stellar reputation, and (b) they are very expensive indeed. I will never own Nordost Odin's because a pair costs a few multiples of the total cost of my system. Meanwhile in my own listening experience with speaker cables and interconnects -- admittedly restricted to low to low-mid priced stuff -- is that I hear no noticeable difference between them.

For instance presently I'm using older Nordost Flatline Gold cables; they are non-bi-wire and cost about $250 when I bought them years ago. But for a while, (during the interval that I also owned the Flatlines), I was using bi-wired 14 ga. cable like the Canare 4S11 available from Blue Jeans Cable @ $1.35/ft, (see HERE). This latter arrangement cost me under $50 including banana plug connectors. I notice absolutely no difference between Nordost Flatlines and the 14 ga. Similarly I hear no noticeable differences among the Kimber, Ixos, QED, and Monster interconnects I've owned and still use, and my Blue Jeans interconnects at 1/4 to 1/3 the price.

I'd be a much easier sell on the subject of better cables and interconnects if I'd already had positive results listening to different makes & models.