Interesting thoughts about cables

[JohnMichael]

Sound? or Music?

This was the title of an "As We See It" in Stereophile magazine.

The point was not to debate cable brands, expense or design but cost did enter into it. We are not so much concerned about cost as perception.

The author of the article was meeting with an audio society. The goal was to listen to one of the best cables compared to a more affordable cable. The author chose three pieces of complex music that he knew well. One was Mahler's Symphony No. 2 "Resurrection" that I am listening to as I type.

The author was surprised that the Society chose the lesser of the cables. He having studied Mahler felt the budget cables simplified the music.

The discussion has begun regarding complex music and do some prefer a cable that will simplify the music or one that will let you hear the melody, counter melodies and all that make the music unoque. Oh and may also make the cable expensive.

Thoughts, ideas but no cable brand suggestions.

[Mr Peabody]

I personally want to hear all there is to hear and what the original recording was to sound like. I know we can never know what the performance sounded like without being there but hopefully you know what I mean.

We can't know for sure what they meant but I'm assuming by simplify there must have been detail missing, this seems to be opposed to what our goal is to be. If you want music simple why buy better gear? Especially, why buy better gear to dumby it down with sub par cables?

[blackraven]

Here is my issue with the author. He is giving his opinion on why the society liked the cheaper cables. What he should be asking and publishing is why the society preferred the cheaper cables. I can't possibly believe that audio people would choose the cheaper cable because it was leaving out nuances of the music and that it would sound better to their ears. So I am going to sit back and read the rebuttals.

[Smokey]

The discussion has begun regarding complex music and do some prefer a cable that will simplify the music or one that will let you hear the melody, counter melodies and all that make the music unoque.

I really think the answer is obvious if transparency is the goal

[JohnMichael]

I found it interesting that the members were listening to complex and unfamiliar music. Music more complex than the usual audition discs. The members had not studied the music as the presenter had.

Some of my favorite music I did not enjoy at first. Some music is more accessible than other music. I can only listen to so much new music at a time. I can understand choosing a cable that simplifies complicated music. Knowing the music and the balance between instruments he felt the more expensive cable kept the music in better balance and revealed all the nuances.

[Hyfi]

Seems to be similar to a Bud Light drinker who has been used to that taste for 30 years.

Pour them a goblet of Chimay, and most will not like it at all on the first try. Why? It's too complex and different. They would rather it tasted more like a Bud Light.

So here we have people used to listening to simple 3 chord progression music and where most of the instruments play the same notes while the drummer keeps the most simple beats. Then you play them a complicated pc of music where their untrained brain cannot follow all the separation of instruments playing different notes.

The cheaper cables probably mushed all the music together so most of the detail and separation was gone making it sound more like a Bud Light.

Case in point- Several years ago a neighbor of mine watched my house and mail while we were away. They keep Coors Light in the beermiester. When we returned from vacation, I gave him a nice bottle of Chimay. A few weeks later I asked him if he enjoyed the brew and he told me it was too different and he mixed it with a Yuengling. That was the last time I wasted a beer on him.

[blackraven]

How do we know that some of the members don't like Classical music? I would think that at least some of the members have very revealing systems. I would also like to know the price point of the more affordable cables. They could have been $50 cables or $250 cables.

[JohnMichael]

Yes, yes, yes

Seems to be similar to a Bud Light drinker who has been used to that taste for 30 years.

Pour them a goblet of Chimay, and most will not like it at all on the first try. Why? It's too complex and different. They would rather it tasted more like a Bud Light.

So here we have people used to listening to simple 3 chord progression music and where most of the instruments play the same notes while the drummer keeps the most simple beats. Then you play them a complicated pc of music where their untrained brain cannot follow all the separation of instruments playing different notes.

The cheaper cables probably mushed all the music together so most of the detail and separation was gone making it sound more like a Bud Light.

Case in point- Several years ago a neighbor of mine watched my house and mail while we were away. They keep Coors Light in the beermiester. When we returned from vacation, I gave him a nice bottle of Chimay. A few weeks later I asked him if he enjoyed the brew and he told me it was too different and he mixed it with a Yuengling. That was the last time I wasted a beer on him.

[JohnMichael]

How do we know that some of the members don't like Classical music? I would think that at least some of the members have very revealing systems. I would also like to know the price point of the more affordable cables. They could have been $50 cables or $250 cables.

To me it is about unfamiliar complex music more than anything else. I enjoy classical music but I am not educated in classical music. The presenter has studied Mahler and I enjoy Mahler. I wonder if I would have missed the intricacies the educated man was able to discern. I wonder what cable I would have chosen.

[LeRoy]

The cheaper cables probably mushed all the music together so most of the detail and separation was gone making it sound more like a Bud Light.

Case in point- Several years ago a neighbor of mine watched my house and mail while we were away. They keep Coors Light in the beermiester. When we returned from vacation, I gave him a nice bottle of Chimay. A few weeks later I asked him if he enjoyed the brew and he told me it was too different and he mixed it with a Yuengling. That was the last time I wasted a beer on him.

Ah, Hyfi, nicely put. No need to waste Maredous 10, Kwak, or Chocolate Stouts on those you live for bud light. My brother-in-law is like your neighbor. All my BIL cares about is how "high and how low" can his system go. About a year ago I bought a complete wire set from Blue Jeans just to get him away from all the various gauges of vampire wire and red/white stock I.C's. In the end it did not matter that I bought him BJ cable because the result for him was the system now goes higher and lower and let's have another bud light.

I've been enjoying fine craft beer for the last 35 years and my BIL still won't touch it. Oh well! I think I will keep my craft beer and craft cables to myself and away from him...lol

The Flying Saucer Draught Emporium - www.beerknurd.com

[Smokey]

The cheaper cables probably mushed all the music together so most of the detail and separation was gone making it sound more like a Bud Light.

Is that the description of a cable or vacum hose

Objectivity, your sentence is impossible to describe.

[Mr Peabody]

Boy, mention beer around a bunch of guys and look what happens, LOL

[Hyfi]

Is that the description of a cable or vacum hose

Objectivity, your sentence is impossible to describe.

Go back to reading White Papers and never trying different cables for yourself.

[Feanor]

Sound? or Music?

This was the title of an "As We See It" in Stereophile magazine.

The point was not to debate cable brands, expense or design but cost did enter into it. We are not so much concerned about cost as perception.

The author of the article was meeting with an audio society. The goal was to listen to one of the best cables compared to a more affordable cable. The author chose three pieces of complex music that he knew well. One was Mahler's Symphony No. 2 "Resurrection" that I am listening to as I type.

The author was surprised that the Society chose the lesser of the cables. He having studied Mahler felt the budget cables simplified the music.

The discussion has begun regarding complex music and do some prefer a cable that will simplify the music or one that will let you hear the melody, counter melodies and all that make the music unoque. Oh and may also make the cable expensive.

Thoughts, ideas but no cable brand suggestions.

A bit of a straw man approach, seems to me. What does "simplify the music" mean? What are "cheaper" cables?

First, I'll say I'm not of the "cables all sound the same" school -- cables have measurably different physical characteristics and therefore might sound different. In my experience with low and medium priced cables the differences are small, however, and it remains my opinion & advice that people on a budget ought to allocate most of there money to other components -- that is, having equipped themselves with decent, professional grade cables, (Blue Jeans Cables as an example).

Secondly, people do like to modify the music in various ways. Some people like 128kbps MP3 files because they sound smooth. Some people like to filter their music through the medium of vinyl; others through a chain of high distortion tube amplification; (not that all tube equipment is high distortion, but some is and some people like that).

Personally I listen to complex music all the time and prefer to hear the nuances. OK, so what is an expensive cable? One costing $100/pr? $250? $1000? Recently I got a new DAC that cost me $450 (plus shipping, etc.); (I could have had it for $350 w/o USB). This new DAC made to most significant difference, (i.e. overall improvement), to my system that I've heard in a long time -- far more difference than I expected. Would a $350 pair of cables make such a difference? I'm skeptical but open minded: anybody want to lend me a pair to put up against my Blue Jeans? (I'm not going to buy any on spec.)

[Hyfi]

I did not buy them, but they came with the package of gear I got for cheap. I have Synergistic ICs that did cost $350 a pair when new. They are significantly better than my assortment of Tara Labs ICs that range from $35 to $100....in my system. Sorry I won't lend them out because everytime I try a different cable, it does not last the night and the SRs go right back in.

[Mr Peabody]

I personally feel Paul Speltz of Anticable hit the nail on the head when explaining what the effect of dielectric has on the sound. Any one using BJC and wanting to move up I highly recommend the next step, and maybe your last, be to Anticable. I even see some companies try now to isolate the wire from the dielectric, I believe it was Wire World. The fact that I want to hear every nuance keeps me using Anticable, some of the more expensive cables I tried have various effects and some may find them desirable but the most pristine is the AC. I have tried a fair share of brands, they all have their pitch but my findings uphold Paul's theory to my ears. The AC are cheaper than what I paid for my Siltech, much cheaper than the different levels of Clarus I've tried, including the top, and probably on par with the Tributaries in price since I have the Reference. I don't even get so much as a discount from AC I just like to share my experience with things I find work really well, in my opinion. The AC are my true preference. I'm using the more expensive Siltech in my 2nd system.

I wonder if the cables discussed in the article were the same brand? I also have found switching cables has an immediate effect on me, I react to the change, it takes time listening and then going back to my reference. It was like that when I tried Wire World, which I still like a lot just not as well as my AC, but at first switch I was pretty excited about the WW, then after a couple days I put mine back in and I could pick up on why I preferred the AC and things stood out that I didn't like as much about the WW.

One other experience was when I tried a new Tributaries, I think the 6, it was less expensive but had a sound character I really liked, sort of an excitement to it, however, it was inferior to the AC, but maybe some one might like the Trib to stick with that character. I'd also like to note that Frenchmon didn't like the Trib 6 from the get go. So different strokes...... and all that

[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.

[LeRoy]

This new DAC made to most significant difference, (i.e. overall improvement), to my system that I've heard in a long time -- far more difference than I expected. Would a $350 pair of cables make such a difference? I'm skeptical but open minded: anybody want to lend me a pair to put up against my Blue Jeans? (I'm not going to buy any on spec.)

Bill, I agree that the source, DAC, CDP, etc., makes the most significant and most audible difference in the audio chain. Somewhat recently a friend loaned me his new Vincent DAC-1 and even though I found it hard to accept the clicking relay issue there was no denying once past that issue the SQ on the DAC is/was truly outstanding.

But here's the thing, in the system set up I was using Toslink, Analog I.C's, 2 WW power cords, and 2 Signal cable power cords. Utilizing the HHB CDR-850 as a transport, Vincent DAC, Qinpu integrated, Dali Ikon 2, and my fancy speaker wire. Simply by changing the order of which PC went to a particular piece of electronics and leaving everything else alone I could get 4 very distinct presentations. The price of the cabling or pc was made irrelevant since the result I liked the best was based on the sequence of the PC placement and the corresponding IC or toslink on the unit it was paired with. One presentation was just awful, one was crappy, one was listenable, and one was just the ticket ---the one that knocked my socks off.

Last night I took my G.F. DAC-11 to my local audio dealer's home for a listen. My buddy likes to make his own cables so he recently made a coax (WW or VDL) with JPS locking terminals. His home made cable is a match with the G.F. but not with his Benchmark DAC. On the other hand, my Darwin Cable Coax is a match with the Benchmark but the Darwin does not match up well with the G.F. DAC and Belles amplification. The Darwin does match up well with my Parasound amps and GF DAC.

I could go on and on about my cable swapping/matching discoveries but will spare all of you the horror. In the end, for me at least, the cable applies the finishing touch on the musical presentation.

Correction: I did use the Qinpu Integrated with the Vincent, however, the Qinpu does not have a removable power cord. I mostly used the Parasound Zamp and Zpre with the Vincent and all the cable and power cord matching that followed that config.

[Feanor]

...

But here's the thing, in the system set up I was using Toslink, Analog I.C's, 2 WW power cords, and 2 Signal cable power cords. Utilizing the HHB CDR-850 as a transport, Vincent DAC, Qinpu integrated, Dali Ikon 2, and my fancy speaker wire. Simply by changing the order of which PC went to a particular piece of electronics and leaving everything else alone I could get 4 very distinct presentations. The price of the cabling or pc was made irrelevant since the result I liked the best was based on the sequence of the PC placement and the corresponding IC or toslink on the unit it was paired with. One presentation was just awful, one was crappy, one was listenable, and one was just the ticket ---the one that knocked my socks off.
....

It's easy for me to believe differences due to PC hookup: I've heard them myself. For a start there can be a big difference between a S/PDIF and USB connection to a given DAC; in the case of my newest, Schiit Bifrost DAC the difference is small, (maybe imaginary(?)). In the case of some of my earlier DACs the difference is huge. But bear in mind the PC audio typically has many variables.

Interestingly, Schiit Audio advocates the S/PDIF is inherently superior. But in my case the USB sounds a tiny bit better. But hey! I could be biased by the fact that I paid $100 extra for the USB facility. Still, a plausible explanation is that the very long, 30 foot S/PDIF cable I was using is injecting some jitter, whereas my asynchronous USB connection (which is also over a cable of only 15 foot) causes less. Yes! I do intend to try a shorter S/PDIF cable to see if there is an improvement. BTW, the S/PDIF is from Blue Jeans; the USB is el Cheapo.

Also BTW, pundits say that S/PDIF cable ought to be no shorter than 1.5 m (5 ft.) nor longer than 12-15 ft. to minimized jitter. Meanwhile the USB standard is a maximum of 15 feet.

[Feanor]

A concern I have with cables & interconnects is that there are so many different designs and design philosophies. Moreover, I suspect that cables & interconnects selection is even more dependant on the up- and downstream components than other components are.

This is likely to make the selection process long and potentially expensive. If in the end the differences are relatively small, (icing on the cake at best), then one must question whether the result is worth the frustration.

[JohnMichael]

The title of the article was Music or Sound and I think if we get too hung up on cables we miss the point.

I remember when I first began listening to classical music. I have had no formal musical education. The first was Mussorgsky's "Pictures At An Exhibition" and I enjoyed it due to the repetitive theme. Something familiar kept returning to hold my attention. Many years later my tastes and appreciation for more styles of classical music has evolved.

As my tastes have grown it became important to upgrade my system. I wanted the nuances. In the beginning some music could put me into sensory overload so I liked simply themed music. Sometimes listening to a top of the line system was not satisfying and now I wonder if it gave me more than I could handle. I remember that system and now I know it was giving me more music than sound.

I know in the past I have chosen sound over music but today I am enjoying the music. Of course the quest continues for more music.

[Feanor]

The title of the article was Music or Sound and I think if we get too hung up on cables we miss the point.

I remember when I first began listening to classical music. I have had no formal musical education. The first was Mussorgsky's "Pictures At An Exhibition" and I enjoyed it due to the repetitive theme. Something familiar kept returning to hold my attention. Many years later my tastes and appreciation for more styles of classical music has evolved.

As my tastes have grown it became important to upgrade my system. I wanted the nuances. In the beginning some music could put me into sensory overload so I liked simply themed music. Sometimes listening to a top of the line system was not satisfying and now I wonder if it gave me more than I could handle. I remember that system and now I know it was giving me more music than sound.

I know in the past I have chosen sound over music but today I am enjoying the music. Of course the quest continues for more music.

I certainly agree that complex music can urge you to upgrade!! No disrespecting, though, audiophiles never get around to listening to anything but rock or other forms of amplified music.

But with "simple" music you aren't concerned whether those voices are the sopranos or the altos, or whether you're is listening to a violin or viola, or whether can make out the actual words in a large-scale choral work.

Another thing about complex music is that the quality of the recording is also made more critical -- sometimes better equipment seems mostly to reveal how mediocre or downright bad a particular recording is.

[Mr Peabody]

Now Feanor, that's a wild general statement about audiophiles that just isn't true, and I suspect just the opposite. When ever I go to audio events I usually have to ask for something with more energy to be played. I listen to a wide variety of music including Classical. Amongst other instruments, I like listening to drums to see how a system does. As a side note this is an area Krell excels in, IMO.

Cables, like any component in your chain, has to have synergy within the system. Cables can be a worthy upgrade and rather significant in instances. I couldn't live with the degradation of going back to stock or even BJC.

JM, the title is "Sound or Music" but it seems the point was more to the depth of listening. I've known a few people who love music but don't care that much about the quality. One guy is a huge collector, burns a lot of music from LP to CD, pops and all, he don't care what it sounds like. After recording what he wants he gets rid of the LP. Another friend who collected music didn't care about sound, he blew a woofer and just replaced it with something from the Radio Shack sale table, there was even a gap between driver and cabinet. I nicknamed him the anti-audiophile . Maybe they don't count in this discussion as they are music lovers but not audiophiles. It's interesting that a group calling themselves an audio group would choose the bass sound with less detail, it's almost like kids with there car stereo, you hear a boom but can't depict at all what is making it, in other words there's noise but it doesn't resemble music. I think that's the writer's point can so called audiophiles discern gear that brings them closer to a true music reproduction. Although I think with a chosen reference there can be a concensus of what music reproduction is but this can also be subjective. For instance, I would consider a symphony or acoustic Jazz in a club a good reference but if some one was like Feanor stated and only had a reference of Rock venues there reference is going to be different, skewed in my opinion in judging audio gear.

I certainly agree that complex music can urge you to
upgrade!! No disrespecting, though, audiophiles never get around to listening to anything but rock or other forms of amplified music.

But with "simple" music you aren't concerned whether those voices are the sopranos or the altos, or whether you're is listening to a violin or viola, or whether can make out the actual words in a large-scale choral work.

Another thing about complex music is that the quality of the recording is also made more critical -- sometimes better equipment seems mostly to reveal how mediocre or downright bad a particular recording is.