Using Cables as Tone Controls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Ok. I go along with that statement :)

And on the same note, wouldn't you also agree that to keep differences to minimum, we should choose a cable with good specifications (regardless of listening to it) to achieve transparency?

---

And that is why all my cables are from well known reputable high quality MFGs.

And yours are????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

And yours are????

---

Actually, he answered that question earlier - Belden labeled as Blue Jeans. I, too have used Belden for decades. I bought some bulk 1505F for use in my office since I needed a particularly long run and use 1694A in the digital connection between Squeezebox and Manley DAC in the garage. Belden is good, but not exceptional.

He did not, however, answer your question concerning a system point of reference. Without one, he is unable to make any real comparisons. While my main system is nice, the system I use for reference is much better. :)

His assertion that cable technology is as old as the light bulb is pretty funny. Apparently, Smoke has absolutely no awareness of modern materials technology or advanced RF shielding techniques. He is falling back to the days of clueless non-experiential guys like Mtrycraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

He did not, however, answer your question concerning a system point of reference. Without one, he is unable to make any real comparisons.

His assertion that cable technology is as old as the light bulb is pretty funny. Apparently, Smoke has absolutely no awareness of modern materials technology or advanced RF shielding techniques. He is falling back to the days of clueless non-experiential guys like Mtrycraft.

---

That is the exact points I have been trying to make since he has decided to throw his Hat into that ring and be the Official AR Naysayer. I have no problem with someone jumping in who has actually experimented some, with gear that would resolve the differences, and saying that they could not hear a difference. It's the bookworm with absolutely NO practical experience or first hand knowledge starts telling us that the cables we purchased for specific reasons are defective.

You won't see me reviewing cables much if at all. Largely because they're system dependent so a cable or conditioner may do more or less for me than it would for you. So it's a bit of a pointless exercise. I have Tara Labs Prism 11 IC cables that were well reviewed back in the day. They really don't improve the sound over the cheap cable that came with my CD player. The Cambridge Audio CD 6 may not be the greatest but it was arguably the class leader in its day (or right there). If it is "better" it isn't better enough to pay 60 times the price for it over the $1 variety.

I heard an expensive MIT speaker cables versus cheap runs - the MIT sounded much different - much worse than than the cheap cable - but it did sound different!

MY AN J/Spe is a silver wired version where I had opportunity to directly compare to the lower priced copper version. The Silver version sounded much better in direct comparison especially in the upper mids and treble.

I liked Peter's idea (even if you don't like AN or Peter Q) the notion of wiring the entire audio chain with the same wire structure makes a lot of sense.

Logically - it doesn't make sense to have a system wired with many different cables trying to find some sort of match. In a mix and matched stereo with turntable, transport, DAC, preamp, power amp and loudspeakers - if all were from completely different makers you would have

turntable (internally wired with cable A and possibly the RCA cable to preamp being different - cable B)
Preamp is internally wired with cable C
You buy IC to power amp - Cable D
Power amp is internally wired with a different cable again - Cable E

You buy speaker cables - Cable F
They are connected to different cables in the speakers Cable G.
Transport has different cables again - Cable H
DAC had different cables - Cable I
Then you buy cables from transport to Dac (and the same ones going from DAC to preamp (2 sets of cable J)

That's 10 entirely different wires - theoretically with 10 different "sounds"

To me it's absurd - if we are going to believe that each cable sounds different then finding sonic bliss in that mess is not going to happen - unless of course we're going to say that the wires at best offer subtle differences. Changing out the speaker cable for Nordost might make it sound better but to me it's a band-aid.

What I liked about Peter's upper rig is that the entire chain from tone arm to speaker voice coil was silver wired with the same wires (smaller strands for the smaller components but the same material throughout. Including the windings on the transformers to the silver soldering material on the point to point wiring.

His top speakers are hard wired with his cable directly coupled (you can't change the speaker cables). You essentially go from the 10 different wires to 1 wire.

No one else does this.

What I have seen people do is re-wire their speakers to match their speaker cables and get a partnering IC from the same company with the same material.

IMV if the whole chain isn't one wire type then it's a matter of tone controls for cables trying to figure out which IC or speaker cable works best with the other TEN wires in the system. One expensive wire no matter how expensive I don't see being a panacea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

No one else does this.

---

Except of course for Sound Lab. While Dr. West doesn't market cabling himself, the backplates can be cabled with whatever cable you choose:

"The customer is invited to assist in choosing some of the critical parts, such as the type of internal conductors and speaker posts. The color of the framework and the type of grille treatment are other areas in which the customer may participate. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

His assertion that cable technology is as old as the light bulb is pretty funny. Apparently, Smoke has absolutely no awareness of modern materials technology or advanced RF shielding techniques.

---

Yes, advanced RF shielding techniques using 150 year old Maxwell's equation laws :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Yes, advanced RF shielding techniques using 150 year old Maxwell's equation laws :D

---

Despite that, the industry has no qualitative metric for this important quality. I had a really funny exchange with Montrous Mike and Zapped by Jitter on this topic:

Funny thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Belden's technology has been greatly improved upon elsewhere.

---

So has McDonald's.

Funny? Shirley you jest..

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Funny?

---

I always find the speculations of non-experiential theorists funny. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Shirley you jest.

---

And...

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0A5t5_O8hdA?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0A5t5_O8hdA?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

I always find the speculations of non-experiential theorists funny. :)

---

Uh oh...polysyllabic..I'm in trouble now..

btw...I am experienced..got the bandaids ta prove it..

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Despite that, the industry has no qualitative metric for this important quality. I had a really funny exchange with Montrous Mike and Zapped by Jitter on this topic:

Funny thread


So has McDonald's.

---

Pithy and sarcastic...a double threat guy!!! :biggrin5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Happy Camper

A question was brought up in a recent article that maybe it's the component that's defective for a cable to have an impact on it's performance. There may be some truth to that.

---

May be some truth in that?

It is an accurate statement with respect to IC's and PC's.

Where was this article, I'd like to peruse it.

j

ps..my goodness, I've been a member on this site longer than everyone else in the thread..you guys are all newbies!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

j

ps..my goodness, I've been a member on this site longer than everyone else in the thread..you guys are all newbies!!!

---

No, the dates were reset at some point. I am close to 15 years now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

No, the dates were reset at some point. I am close to 15 years now

---

Nope, nope, nope...not buyin it...can't hear ya.

I'm oldest...I know that for a fact...read it on a forum..:biggrin5:

Very odd, why was my date not reset?

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jneutron

Nope, nope, nope...not buyin it...can't hear ya.

I'm oldest...I know that for a fact...read it on a forum..:biggrin5:

Very odd, why was my date not reset?

j

---

You're a newbie compared to me. -Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLZapped

You're a newbie compared to me. -Bruce

---

Bumping an almost two year old thread. Nothing new to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

Bumping an almost two year old thread. Nothing new to talk about.

---

This is a bump:

...



I replied. Besides, I haven't been here in that long. Sheesh.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frenchmon

Smokey...answer me this question please. I have a Marantz AVR. When I use silver interconnects, the sound becomes brighter with more extended high frequencies and less bottom end . When I use copper on that same AVR, the sound is more neutral. The same happens with those same cables on my Musical Fidelity CDP. Would you say the interconnects changed the sound? OR am I just imagining things?

---

Could someone say Placebo effect, and/or just getting used to a different effect that cable "could" place on the sound?

Here is the problem I have with this whole argument. In order to hear the effects of cabling, one has to completely eliminate the problems with the room, overall system synergy - and/or have signal chain that can reveal the minute difference in the presence of room nodes and modes. 95% percent of the rooms in normal homes(when the background/ambient noise is included) don't have the resolution to do this. So, at this level of detail, we are arguing majors versus minors. For most, it is all theory, but no achievable performance at that level.

In most rooms there is a 12-48db difference in signal levels in the room at certain frequencies. Can cabling introduce that kind of discrepancy? No. So what do you tackle? New cables, or addressing room acoustics?

The answer is what is most audible - and that is not the cable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLZapped

This is a bump:

...



I replied. Besides, I haven't been here in that long. Sheesh.....

---

I understand but since you were back I wondered if anything was new?

I tend not to get too concerned with cabling as I primarily look for sturdy construction and low noise. I don't have the patience to really audition and compare a bunch of different interconnects but i do like reading about others' experiences. During my limited experiments i haven't heard too much difference between similarly priced cables but I don't doubt they can make an audible difference in some cases.

Nothing has changed for me, I still use the Groneberg ICs between my OPPO93 and Rotel Receiver. I have since changed out the speakers in this system, except for my outdoor speakers which is about all this gets used for. I swapped out my known bright JM Labs with a crappy little pair of Polk speakers. The JMs are now in a much better setup and getting used along with a Hafler945 pre and Stratos Amp with another OPPO93 doing double duty for HT and CD playback.

Aside from cable theory, just like how MFGs have a House Sound for Amps, Speakers, or whatever they sell, Cable MFGs do the same thing.

I am enjoying my Cardas Parsec IC's. They have broken in and are sounding great after 50-60 hours of use. It could be that I am just getting use to them but they do have a slightly warmer edge to them and have cut down on some sibilance compared to my BJC's. I may drop in the BJC's back in just to see if there really is a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

I am enjoying my Cardas Parsec IC's. They have broken in and are sounding great after 50-60 hours of use. It could be that I am just getting use to them but they do have a slightly warmer edge to them and have cut down on some sibilance compared to my BJC's. I may drop in the BJC's back in just to see if there really is a difference.

---

My uneducated bet is that a Cardas cable will sound different than a BJ cable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

My uneducated bet is that a Cardas cable will sound different than a BJ cable.

---

The BJC's seem to have a little deeper bass but the Cardas has a little more detail and a more pleasing sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

The BJC's seem to have a little deeper bass but the Cardas has a little more detail and a more pleasing sound.

---

Ahhhh, it's all in your head :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Could someone say Placebo effect, and/or just getting used to a different effect that cable "could" place on the sound?

Here is the problem I have with this whole argument. In order to hear the effects of cabling, one has to completely eliminate the problems with the room, overall system synergy - and/or have signal chain that can reveal the minute difference in the presence of room nodes and modes. 95% percent of the rooms in normal homes(when the background/ambient noise is included) don't have the resolution to do this. So, at this level of detail, we are arguing majors versus minors. For most, it is all theory, but no achievable performance at that level.

In most rooms there is a 12-48db difference in signal levels in the room at certain frequencies. Can cabling introduce that kind of discrepancy? No. So what do you tackle? New cables, or addressing room acoustics?

The answer is what is most audible - and that is not the cable.

---

I have to disagree with you on this one. Regardless what your room is doing to the sound if you are very familiar with the sound it is easy to discern the differences in cables. Two sets of IC's that emphasized the upper frequencies were silver and copper plated with silver. At first I thought how open and extended only to become irritating.

I have always wondered if a two channel system with no sound processing will enable someone to hear the differences in cables easier than in a multichannel system. Of course I also prefer solid core cables over stranded wires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

I have to disagree with you on this one. Regardless what your room is doing to the sound if you are very familiar with the sound it is easy to discern the differences in cables. Two sets of IC's that emphasized the upper frequencies were silver and copper plated with silver. At first I thought how open and extended only to become irritating.

I have always wondered if a two channel system with no sound processing will enable someone to hear the differences in cables easier than in a multichannel system. Of course I also prefer solid core cables over stranded wires.

---

Sorry JM, don't buy your statement at all. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has been able to identify the difference between two cables in un-sited listening test. NOBODY!! They have done demo's many times at AES. Most listening tests up to this point have been sited, and the measured difference so small that room resonances, reflection patterns, Reverberation times, and various other acoustical issues would far dominate our listening than the cables themselves. How do you separate the room, the cable, the recording, and the characteristics of the speakers themselves when the room is the loudest component in the system? You can't. It is well known that a great recording can be neutered by poor room/speaker interaction, and that makes your statement rather subjective than objective.

I know how strong the Placebo effect is, and apparently so do many researchers as well. If you WANT it to sound different, it usually will.

Lastly, the object of IC's is to pass the signal with little or no damage. If a cable is emphasizing anything and it is audible, then the cable is not going to meet that objective. It is nothing more than a tone control, much like tube amps and preamps are. If I move a reflective or absorptive piece of furniture in the room, that will obviously change our perception of sound quality more than cable will both measurably, and audibly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

It is nothing more than a tone control, much like tube amps and preamps are.

---

Wow, after all this time, we finally agree on something. Did ya happen to notice the Title of this thread?

Thread: Using Cables as Tone Controls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Sorry JM, don't buy your statement at all. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has been able to identify the difference between two cables in un-sited listening test. NOBODY!! They have done demo's many times at AES. Most listening tests up to this point have been sited, and the measured difference so small that room resonances, reflection patterns, Reverberation times, and various other acoustical issues would far dominate our listening than the cables themselves. How do you separate the room, the cable, the recording, and the characteristics of the speakers themselves when the room is the loudest component in the system? You can't.

---

Also add to the mix that memory will be our reference point when comparing cables as to what we heared and currently comparing to. That unperdictable variable (our memory) alone make test result questionable.

The only way to eliminate memory variable in the test would be to do instantaneous switching between cables so listener don't have rely on their memory to compare cables. The test results would be more valid :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

...
I know how strong the Placebo effect is, and apparently so do many researchers as well. If you WANT it to sound different, it usually will.

Lastly, the object of IC's is to pass the signal with little or no damage. If a cable is emphasizing anything and it is audible, then the cable is not going to meet that objective. It is nothing more than a tone control, much like tube amps and preamps are. If I move a reflective or absorptive piece of furniture in the room, that will obviously change our perception of sound quality more than cable will both measurably, and audibly.

---

Well some would say (and have said) that it's fine to use i/cs for tone control. For my part, I use a digital equalizer plug-in in my computer music player; it works brilliantly and it's free.

I've tried to maintain an open mind on cables for many years and have occasionally tried different makes. However none have made any noticeable difference for me. Believers take note: I don't say that cables can't sound different, only that I haven't hear significant differences among those I've tried.

Some makes of cable incorporate filter networks, e.g. MIT, Transparent, Siltech, (which aren't among those I've tried). It makes sense that they might sound different. A member here has graciously offered to lend me a pair; I'm enthusiastic to listen and I'll keep an open mind.

But as for placebo effect, hell yes! If it weren't for all the earnest testimonials for 'Brilliant Pebbles', 'Clever Little Clocks', etc., Machina Dynamica would have been run out of business years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Also add to the mix that memory will be our reference point when comparing cables as to what we heared and currently comparing to. That unperdictable variable (our memory) alone make test result questionable.

The only way to eliminate memory variable in the test would be to do instantaneous switching between cables so listener don't have rely on their memory to compare cables. The test results would be more valid :)

---

I was just in another conversation about that Smokey.

I was thinking, why cannot one setup a recording device and two mics and play a song with cable A. Switch to cable B and play/record again.

Then take the two recordings and sync the playback with a switching device as you suggested. I also thought about doing 4 recordings, 2 with A and 2 with B.

Then someone else would keep hitting the switch and see if the listener can just hear any differences. It just doesn't sound like it should be that hard of a test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Also add to the mix that memory will be our reference point when comparing cables as to what we heared and currently comparing to. That unperdictable variable (our memory) alone make test result questionable.

The only way to eliminate memory variable in the test would be to do instantaneous switching between cables so listener don't have rely on their memory to compare cables. The test results would be more valid :)

---

This has already been done using a ABX switching device at AES. Nobody could guess which cable was which using that device.

I am going to tell you why using IC as a tone control is just plain dumb(even mentioning it is as well).

Your tone control cable may sound good with one recording, and lousy with another. Since there is no way to control the effect of the cable(look ma, no knobs), it is not something that is compatible with all recordings. A cable that is bright(defective) will make recordings that are bright, brighter thereby making it unlistenable rather than just noticeably altered. Cables that are dark sounding will do the same thing to darker more diffused recordings.

Note to moderators. When you start erasing or editing comments, don't be surprised when people stop posting and visiting the site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Note to moderators. When you start erasing or editing comments, don't be surprised when people stop posting and visiting the site.

---

When posts are becoming more insulting than valuable not visiting would be a good thing. When your insults far outweigh contributions it is time to bid ado.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Note to moderators. When you start erasing or editing comments, don't be surprised when people stop posting and visiting the site.

---

And if we allow members to insult or attack other members it has the same effect.

I think that personal attacks are far more dangerous to the future of this site than a few edits to keep things cordial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

I was just in another conversation about that Smokey.

I was thinking, why cannot one setup a recording device and two mics and play a song with cable A. Switch to cable B and play/record again.

Then take the two recordings and sync the playback with a switching device as you suggested. I also thought about doing 4 recordings, 2 with A and 2 with B.

Then someone else would keep hitting the switch and see if the listener can just hear any differences. It just doesn't sound like it should be that hard of a test.

---

That would certainly eliminate the memory factor. Another method might be to use two high quality switches at each end of components to switch between cables :)

Quote:

---

Your tone control cable may sound good with one recording, and lousy with another. Since there is no way to control the effect of the cable(look ma, no knobs), it is not something that is compatible with all recordings. A cable that is bright(defective) will make recordings that are bright, brighter thereby making it unlistenable rather than just noticeably altered. Cables that are dark sounding will do the same thing to darker more diffused recordings.

---

I agree :)

As long as the concept of "best cables are soundless" is not undrestood, we will be on slippery slopes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

And if we allow members to insult or attack other members it has the same effect.

I think that personal attacks are far more dangerous to the future of this site than a few edits to keep things cordial.

---

i agree entirely with this policy. This better than deleting entire posts or banning people who do make really contributions.

It might be a good idea if the editing moderator were to insert an indicator where an edit was made e.g. <... mod edit ...>.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

i agree entirely with this policy. This better than deleting entire posts or banning people who do make really contributions.

It might be a good idea if the editing moderator were to insert an indicator where an edit was made e.g. <... mod edit ...>.

---

If we delete or edit a post, the system automatically leaves a note on the post saying that it was Deleted by or Edited by the name of the Mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

That would certainly eliminate the memory factor. Another method might be to use two high quality switches at each end of components to switch between cables :)

---

I am not as worried about which cable is which, just if there are differences that can be detected. That is usually the root of the argument, that there is no difference between cables (that do not include active parts).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

If we delete or edit a post, the system automatically leaves a note on the post saying that it was Deleted by or Edited by the name of the Mod.

---

Oh sorry. Good to know; hadn't noticed.