Audioquest "DBS" cables... huh?

[Islander]

Just exactly why, in light of the miles of wire between you and the power station, in light of the thousands of feet of wire in the recording studio, that one (1) meter of interconnect will change the sound in a meaningful, detectable way?

It won't, unless that cable is defective.

It appears that changes caused by cable swapping are something that need to be experienced to be believed. I used to think that the most important factor in a cable was low resistance, but my own experiences have shown me there's more to it than that.

Going from a $40 digital coax cable to a $60 one between my disc player and receiver made an audible difference. I can't say whether the super-pricy cables are worth it, but I'd think they would sound different from cheaper ones. Maybe they have better shielding, maybe those proprietary geometries make a difference.

As for speaker cable, I bought some Monster Z1-R Reference cable a few years back. It looked nice, with a sturdy skin, well-attached connectors, and so on, but made my system so unpleasant to listen to (odd, unnatural bass, veiled treble, etc.) that I returned it for a refund. I made the decision within a couple of days and ordered some other cable from an Internet dealer, but kept it connected until the new cable arrived. Even after a few weeks, the Z1-R cable still sounded bad, so "cable break-in" was not a factor in this instance.

The twisted-pair Karma Kable that I replaced it with was much more pleasant to my ears, as well as being less than half the price, so the "it cost more, so it sounds better" factor didn't come into play either.

[Hifi jim]

Just exactly why, in light of the miles of wire between you and the power station, in light of the thousands of feet of wire in the recording studio, that one (1) meter of interconnect will change the sound in a meaningful, detectable way?

It won't, unless that cable is defective.

It appears that changes caused by cable swapping are something that need to be experienced to be believed.  I used to think that the most important factor in a cable was low resistance, but my own experiences have shown me there's more to it than that.

Going from a $40 digital coax cable to a $60 one between my disc player and receiver made an audible difference.  I can't say whether the super-pricy cables are worth it, but I'd think they would sound different from cheaper ones.  Maybe they have better shielding, maybe those proprietary geometries make a difference.

As for speaker cable, I bought some Monster Z1-R Reference cable a few years back.  It looked nice, with a sturdy skin, well-attached connectors, and so on, but made my system so unpleasant to listen to (odd, unnatural bass, veiled treble, etc.) that I returned it for a refund.  I made the decision within a couple of days and ordered some other cable from an Internet dealer, but kept it connected until the new cable arrived.  Even after a few weeks, the Z1-R cable still sounded bad, so "cable break-in" was not a factor in this instance.

The twisted-pair Karma Kable that I replaced it with was much more pleasant to my ears, as well as being less than half the price, so the "it cost more, so it sounds better" factor didn't come into play either.

Thanks for the honest post Islander. It has been my experience that yes, even digital cables sound different. And anything Monster has always sounded as you described, "odd, unnatural bass, veiled treble". I was even disappointed with the Monster digital cables I tried for the same reasons. I think Monster uses too much shielding or insulation which can have an adverse affect on sound. Cable changes are certainly something that must be experienced to be believed as you stated. [Y]

[Hifi jim]

I am running modified Khorns, not for SPL. but mostly for time-alignment. I am using all balanced line level connections, no noise at all, no pre-amp. I know you're not gonna believe this, but there is absolutely no wiring change that I could make that would improve the sound of my system.

Just exactly why, in light of the miles of wire between you and the power station, in light of the thousands of feet of wire in the recording studio, that one (1) meter of interconnect will change the sound in a meaningful, detectable way?

It won't, unless that cable is defective.

While swapping out one XLR for another will change the sound in my opinion, it won't be as drastic as changing RCA's. At 25 feet, RCA's would generate lots of noise that some designs would help eliminate. To say that "...there is absolutely no wiring change that I could make that would improve the sound of my system", well you're right I don't believe you and more I think that maybe a bit naive to make that generalization before ever experimenting with such change. I've made plenty of guesses at what a certain component might do in my system, but I've been wrong more often than not. Most times, I am pleasantly surprised at the performance of a new component, and would not believed the result if not for actually hearing it. The comparison between power lines and audio cables is invalid, as those are power lines and a like comparison would be power cords and power lines, but that is a different discussion. True there is a lot of wire in a recording studio, and the gear used to record something will affect the way the recording sounds. The system used to playback the recording will benefit from using whatever allows the most transparent window to the original recording, in other words cables may allow a clearer picture of the original event. However the original recording was made, be it with the best mics and cables or not, if it is then played on a system with incredible transparency and fidelity the original sound quality will then be realized. Think audiophile grade recordings vs. most pop recordings. Further, many guitarists have recently found that guitar cables have an affect on their tone and sound, and this has sprouted a new area for cable sales. Perhaps guitarists are deaf too.

[mikebse2a3]

Just my 2cents:

First let me say I will always invest the bulk of my money/time in the Loudspeaker and Room Treatment since I consider these the weakest links but everything matters in the chain from the recording to the listener IMHO.

My experience is heavy gauge cable's made of 100's or 1000's of strands of copper while good for bass lack clarity versus cable's using construction similar to some models like Kimber and Audioquest use.

One thing is for sure at least once or twice a year remove and clean the cable connections whatever you use.

I choose to make or use cables with high quality connectors(ie: types that make very solid contacts) and use basic good winding techniques and good materials (I have found teflon insulated wire works very good for me) with a reasonable equilivant gauge sizes for the needed application.

mike tn

[Don Richard]

Lots of misconceptions here:

To say that "...there is absolutely no wiring change that I could make that would improve the sound of my system", well you're right I don't believe you and more I think that maybe a bit naive to make that generalization before ever experimenting with such change.

When it comes to electronics as applied to audio I am a realist. That is the opposite of being naive, by definition. I have spent many hours ensuring that my system performs properly, and there are things that will be changed, but wiring won't be because no improvement is there to be had.

The comparison between power lines and audio cables is invalid, as those are power lines and a like comparison would be power cords and power lines, but that is a different discussion.

Dirty power will cause more auditory woes than speaker wire can. This definition includes powerline harmonics and radiated EMI.

The system used to playback the recording will benefit from using whatever allows the most transparent window to the original recording, in other words cables may allow a clearer picture of the original event.

The components that affect sound the most are speakers, the room, the source, and amplification. As long as the wires that connect the system together are not defective or undersized, or misapplied, they will not affect the sound enough to matter. At least not on my system.

Further, many guitarists have recently found that guitar cables have an affect on their tone and sound, and this has sprouted a new area for cable sales. Perhaps guitarists are deaf too.

Well, Peter Townshend, for one, is a guitarist who made himself deaf playing too loud. Guitars often are fed into tube amps with high impedance inputs and have cords 15 feet or longer connecting to the amp, Cable would make a difference here, but different guitarists may prefer different cables depending on what "their sound" is. Guitarists create sounds, sound systems reproduce sounds.

[Hifi jim]

Lots of misconceptions here:

To say that "...there is absolutely no wiring change that I could make that would improve the sound of my system", well you're right I don't believe you and more I think that maybe a bit naive to make that generalization before ever experimenting with such change.

When it comes to electronics as applied to audio I am a realist. That is the opposite of being naive, by definition. I have spent many hours ensuring that my system performs properly, and there are things that will be changed, but wiring won't be because no improvement is there to be had.

The comparison between power lines and audio cables is invalid, as those are power lines and a like comparison would be power cords and power lines, but that is a different discussion.

Dirty power will cause more auditory woes than speaker wire can. This definition includes powerline harmonics and radiated EMI.

The system used to playback the recording will benefit from using whatever allows the most transparent window to the original recording, in other words cables may allow a clearer picture of the original event.

The components that affect sound the most are speakers, the room, the source, and amplification. As long as the wires that connect the system together are not defective or undersized, or misapplied, they will not affect the sound enough to matter. At least not on my system.

Further, many guitarists have recently found that guitar cables have an affect on their tone and sound, and this has sprouted a new area for cable sales. Perhaps guitarists are deaf too.

 

Well, Peter Townshend, for one, is a guitarist who made himself deaf playing too loud. Guitars often are fed into tube amps with high impedance inputs and have cords 15 feet or longer connecting to the amp, Cable would make a difference here, but different guitarists may prefer different cables depending on what "their sound" is. Guitarists create sounds, sound systems reproduce sounds.

 

 

Okay Don I was wrong. You are both stubborn and naive. [] []

[DrWho]

While swapping out one XLR for another will change the sound in my opinion, it won't be as drastic as changing RCA's. At 25 feet, RCA's would generate lots of noise that some designs would help eliminate.

[bs]

The system used to playback the recording will benefit from using whatever allows the most transparent window to the original recording, in other words cables may allow a clearer picture of the original event. However the original recording was made, be it with the best mics and cables or not, if it is then played on a system with incredible transparency and fidelity the original sound quality will then be realized.

I agree that what happened in the studio is irrelevant in light of the playback system needing to be as transparent as possible...

However, if I get mud flung onto the window of my car while driving, I can usually identify the mud...In other words, I don't just notice that it's harder to see the road, but I can tell that there is mud on my window....and I can differentiate the mud from the rain and from the snow, etc...

So with that in mind, can you identify the brand, model, and length of your wire by listening? Or do you have to look at the wire first in order to identify it?

I don't expect a reply, but I think you might learn something if you got someone to swap out some of your cables without you knowing....and then have you come back and identify when that change was made and maybe even what cable it was changed to. If cables really have their own sound, then this should be a piece of cake. I do this all the time with speakers and amplifiers and acoustic treatments, etc....but never can I identify a cable change (when appropriate cables are being compared).

And no, you don't have to prove to me or anyone else that you can indeed hear a difference. In fact, I'm convinced that you DO hear a difference, but I might argue that it's only because your frame of reference is changing....frame of reference being that you "see" the cable. Get rid of the visual aid and I am absolutely convinced that you can't hear a difference. Why am I convinced? Because I've already been there before and have also discovered enough science to describe when it stops mattering to my ears....and we all know my ears are better than yours [] (that's tongue in cheeck just in case the inflection didn't show up).

Now if you can hear a difference without a visual aid, then maybe we're getting somewhere. But if you're not going to prove it to yourself, then I've got no interest to discuss it further. I also might as well just throw the "have you tried it?" card right back at ya...

What's the worst that could happen? You discover that you don't need to spend thousands on cables? That's an awful lot of music that could be purchased instead []

Further, many guitarists have recently found that guitar cables have an affect on their tone and sound, and this has sprouted a new area for cable sales. Perhaps guitarists are deaf too.

A passive pickup has a very large output impedance....it wouldn't be too difficult to find a wire with enough parasitic impedance to alter the sound.

[Hifi jim]

So with that in mind, can you identify the brand, model, and length of your wire by listening? Or do you have to look at the wire first in order to identify it?

I don't expect a reply

Well here is your unexpected reply DrWho. Yes, I sometimes [] can identify the brand and model of cables I own vs. other cables I own.

Now if you can hear a difference without a visual aid, then maybe we're getting somewhere. But if you're not going to prove it to yourself, then I've got no interest to discuss it further. I also might as well just throw the "have you tried it?" card right back at ya...

I've usually used a cd player, or dvd player with multiple analog outputs for interconnect comparisons. Switching between inputs on my preamp over a few months I'd sometimes forget which cable was which, until something very familiar was played and then I could pick out the sound of a drum, or bass or the acoustics of the venue might be better revealed with one cable or another. To me they were easily identifiable on familiar passages. Depending on the cables used, I might prefer one altogether, or I might just prefer one for certain recordings. Some cables were nearly indistinguishable on some music, and then their subtle differences would be revealed over time. Last year I was using a Sony DVP-NS999ES which is an SACD/CD/DVD player with both a multichannel output and a two channel output. Using Nordost Blue Heavens on one output and Kimber PBJs on another showed rather stark differences, as opposed to the Kimber Timbre and PBJ which as expected had a similar house sound. Using a simple setup like this you could try it too, since you can't throw back the "have you tried it?" card now. [] []

[DrWho]

So what happens if I can come back with a cable that measurements say should sound identical, but it costs 10x less....think you'll be able to tell then? []

I think we need to have a shootout sometime - maybe at the next Pilgrimage? (If there ever will be another one).

Btw, I believe there is still a million dollar offer out there for being able to hear differences between wire...can't remember the guy's name, but he put together a website welcoming golden-ears to come prove to him they can hear a difference....award being $1 million in cash. I can't seem to find the website right now, but I know some other guys have seen it - maybe they remember?

[Hifi jim]

So what happens if I can come back with a cable that measurements say should sound identical, but it costs 10x less....think you'll be able to tell then?

It has always been my contention that there's more than measurements to cables, or any component for that matter. Two amps may have identical specs but be made by two different manufacturers in two different factories. Will they sound the same? Doubtful. To hold the scrutiny of any component strictly to specs is to exam only the mathematical element and completely ignore the physical or more importantly, auditory aspect. There's a reason audio manufacturers, including cable companies, have listening rooms.

[Coytee]

but it costs 10x less

Surely you had some math?

It can't cost 10x less... something can cost 10x MORE but not less.

$5.00 x 10=$50 for the more expensive item

$50x10 can't equal less...

You mean to say it costs 1/10th

Ya, I know what you mean, so call me retentive.

If you earn $100,000 and someone offers you 10x less, if you worked for free, would that not be "100%" (or 1x) less? So, if you are working for 10x less then you'd be paying them to work for them, no?

[]

(is it bad form to hijack a hijacked thread? [])

[Don Richard]

And there lies the whole mystery as to why some hear it, and some don't.

Not the "whole mystery". Audio information is transitory in nature, thus defying comparison. With a TV picture it is easy to compare two sets side-by side to check for differences. Photos can be taken for future comparison. Wines can be tasted and compared, but when a sound is gone it's gone. That's why some folks can say they hear differences between cables, and why they say "you can't know what I'm hearing. How dare you be so presumptious to suggest otherwise". And as far as that goes, they are correct. Yet, when blind tested, the favored cable described with gushing praise cannot be reliably identified. So then the rhetoric about blind testing being flawed starts up. What a canard!

There are a few things possibly going on here. First, human hearing changes from day to day and even hour to hour with respect to hearing thresholds and sensitivities to certain sounds. Second, auditory memory is also transitory and such memories are not always reliable, especially when dealing with subtle differences. Third, different people have different sonic references. Musicians may listen to a song and think about things like "what key is it in? What tempo?" Technical people may focus on frequency balance, noise, distortion and the like. Ordinary folks either "like the song" or not. Many can listen from more than one perspective.

So different people can listen to the same sounds and hear differently, for whatever reason. However, when a person says they prefer a certain wine but cannot identify that wine in a blind test, or consistently misidentifies the wine, are they qualified wine tasters and should we trust their assessment? Not me.

[DrWho]

The ability to hear differences in various
parts of an audio system is related to how much resolution that system
is capable of delivering. Here again, we have a measurement problem.
Classical measurements - the ones engineers love to run because they
know how - don't really address this apparent resolution issue at all.
And yet, just a reasonably experienced listener who has owned a variety
of amplifier types can hear this resolution and clarity issue easily.
If you have a low-res system, you won't hear the differences between
much of anything.

Have you ever gone to any of these
audio festivals? The "resolution" if you can even call it that is
appalling at best...yet you'll still see people parading around about
the quality of their cable when the entire brass section is missing
from the piece because their speakers suck. In fact, it's the majority
of "refined" listeners with their "refined" playback systems that makes
me absolutely ashamed to call myself an audiophile and run the risk of
association with the nonsense. There is no refinement in mediocracy, no
matter how loud the subjectivists demand otherwise.

And as I
mentioned earlier, there are absolutely times when cables can make a
difference...heck, I will even say that I've heard even dramatic
differences between cable, but I've never heard differences between
"working" cables. Like Don says, noboday has shown any reliable
positive in an ABX (or at least not that I know of). Jim's experiences
(if he's not full of crap) are the closest I've ever read actually, but
I still have my sincere doubts.

Nevertheless, I'm totally
open-minded enough for a shootout. I've kept my ears healthy and I
listen to more live acoustic music than recorded music so I would
really expect to be able to hear a difference on a "resolving enough"
system...dunno what that would entail specifically, but I'd wager I've
listened to a lot of them...

[Hifi jim]

Have you ever gone to any of these

audio festivals? The "resolution" if you can even call it that is

appalling at best...yet you'll still see people parading around about

the quality of their cable when the entire brass section is missing

from the piece because their speakers suck.

Many of the demonstrations done at audio shows are in hotel rooms or conference rooms where system setup is far from perfect. It wouldn't be unusual to hear a lousy presentation of a genuinely good product, and if you read any of the audio mags coverage of shows they constantly complain about the acoustics of the rooms.

Like Don says, noboday has shown any reliable

positive in an ABX (or at least not that I know of).

Again, blind tests have proven inconclusive with amplifiers and even speakers.

Jim's experiences

(if he's not full of crap) are the closest I've ever read actually, but

I still have my sincere doubts.

Plenty of experiences and reviews online. Read any review of most any cable and the experiences will read very similar to my own.

[sheltie dave]

Where to begin?

I had the fortune to work up at Argonne National Labs a year ago, and fell in with some audiophile type physicists who could afford to buy, and laugh at, anything they wanted. Some of the truisms they liked to point out included..

-It is possible to measure differences in cables; you only need to design the testing properly to measure difference. Once you achieved a certain level of standard production quality, the only difference was whether a certain interconnect or cable accentuated a speaker/component's good feature(s), or stressed a bad feature. Most cables stress wallets best of all.

-Any company that offered cryogenic treatments probably had a good marketing strategy, and a very healthy appetite for profit. Crygenic treatments for stereo components are ridiculous beyond belief, as the process does nothing at an atomic level to remove interstitial point defects OR better order the chemical/electron bonding pattern that make copper and silver the elements they are.

Most all these people who argue about the electric properties have no concept of the sub-atomic behaviour of electrons.

Most audiophools I have seen locally who spend more than $500 on a set of speaker cables or patch cords have a preamp with a remote control.

[Don Richard]

As for blind AB testing---- you can end up in the basement real fast. If A-B is no different, then B-C is no different, then C-D is no different, then D-E is no different and so on down the line finding "no difference." Guess what? Pretty soon you have talked yourself into Z which is a total piece of crap and a long ways from A. AB testing is fundamentally flawed by the simplist logical problem, to wit: when B comes around, A no longer exists, and when A reappears B is history. Yes sure, IF ONLY you could pull a memory out of your head and examine it detail!

If you have a measurement - - state what it is. If in your own experience you can't hear differences, then that is your personal tale. If all you have is AB testing as an argument, that's just a gimmick.

Here is an excellent paper on the subject concerning tests an audio professional ran in an effort to correlate ABX amplifier testing with subjective evaluation. It explains the ABX tests that he ran, how they were set up, and conclusions:

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/what_is_the_sound_of_one_amp_clipping/P0/

One really needs to put some science into evaluating things. Disparaging the scientific method and dismissing it's results because they are not what one wants to hear is to deny reality.

[Don Richard]

Disparaging? No. Describing the inadequacy of a technique, measurement or procedure is PART OF the scientific process.

Then what specific problems are there with Moulton's methods? He compares A to B, A to C, A to D, etc. There is no A to B, B to C, and C to D as you have suggested. Introduction of such specious arguments are what makes me think that you are trying to disparage a scientifically run evaluation.

[nola]

I would love to learn more about the folks at the Argonne lab. Med school doc here. Also involved with PET scanning and radio isotopes. Email or PM me, thx.

Interesting discussion here. No flames intended by me here now.

When I tested my various amps in late summer, it lead me to believe that my 20 and 30 yr old xovers were "todt", "mort", dead.

My methodology: I tested about 4 amps, SS, PP tube x 2 and SET tube. SPLs between 85-100+ dB, more or less.

I orig tried using diff amps in mono to each of my Khorns. That was a mistake. Either due to room issues or diffs in each Khorn there was a definite diff between spkrs.

So plan B, using the Khorn on my left I retested the amps fresh. I squared my body to that Khorn to keep perceived sound level equal to each ear. - Ear fatigue can be a prob - and yes, WE ALL perceive sound a bit diff than others, prob due to diffs in anatomy around our ears and that they are biologic, not electronic systms.

Sources: Barry White, Steely Dan on vinyl with Bellari tube preamp - used gain/vol to adj system volume. Or I used some CDs or FM via my preamp processor.

I used the left output RCA jack from the pre/pro (or bellari for vinyl tests), ran rca cable to near the amps, used a y splitter for rca, and had 2 mono Lt rcas -1 to each Lt input for each amp to be tested. Yes, I know, that will reduce the output voltage.

From the amps, using fresh 14g Philips spkr wire from Home Depot I twisted and / or alligator clamped the neg leads from the amps to each other and the neg wire to the spkr. The + wire to the spkr had a radio shack type alligator clamp on it. I would touch it to the amp output + positive wires, 1 at a time. They were only an inch or so apart. So by moving my hand or wrist (in a particular and common motion) just a bit I could easily switch between the output of any amps tested. I usually listened for 5-30 sec then moved my hand to touch the other amp hot lead. On CD, I could "rewind a bit" too.

That was the best methodology I could muster. And yes, I knew which amps were being compared. I wish to repeat my testing later this year after my Heritage spkrs are fixed up. Still debating whether to hust replace caps or do whole new X overs, like the ALKs, or the guys with new equiv AA, just all new parts, etc. Yup, part of it is the cost issue, but I am willing to do DIY ALKs.

The sound from the amps was about the same. My conclusion: bad caps on the xovers, but waiting to fix them (as I have 4 million other projects that are more pressing currently and it's Mardi Gras time here). I am ok with sould for now, but look forward to the improvements to come.

My 2 cents on fancy cables: I am not aware of the Pros using them when they record in studio; but pls post if I am wrong about this. Then again, rockers lke the Stones, etc, prob don't have much hearing left..... The monitor spkrs in studio are NOT meant to reproduce sound the way home use spkrs do. I do not understand the whys or hows of that, but M&K spkr users are always quick to point this out. Maybe diff connectors and cables have diff levels of ?impedance, ?conductance. Maybe the dielectric coatings between pos and neg leads can effect these parameters too. But I am not any kind of electrical guru. Maybe if there is an audio engineer on the froum, they could address this a bit more. In medicine there is a well known palcebo effect. In other words a patient feels better after using a "sugar" pill. Perhaps there is 1 in audio too.

Happy Mardi Gras ALL (MG is this coming Tues; huge weekend now in NOLA, come on down)

[Don Richard]

I made no reference whatsoever to "Moulton." And, although I didn't go back and re-read the entire thread, I don't think there was any previous mention of "Moulton" or the link you posted.

My post was regarding the conclusions people often draw from AB type testing. This kind of experimentation has limited meaning. It is often mistaken to have universal meaning. I mean, it is absolutely "true" that many people can not reliably indentify subtle differences in these experiments when they are run. That's all it means - nothing more. I've no argument with that at all. That's what that particular experimental process often shows. I don't take that to mean that such differences do not exist, or that such differences may not find preference and discovery by other means.

As for specious arguments - nope. I wasn't rebutting or responding to anything regarding "Moulton," because that had never been brought up. I simply made a case for a thought experiment where you walk the dog backwards through a process of AB non-differentiation and end up far away.

I am a great believer in science, and science demands an open mind above all else.

Dave Moulton's paper discusses differences that were heard in ABX testing and efforts to correlate that with measured data. His methodology addresses concerns you expressed concerning ABX. He did no "thought experiments", his were real experiments.

[Don Richard]

And properly designed and run ABX evaluations lead one to the truth. Nothing new there, either.