Jump to content

Another opinion about cables...


Hifi jim

Recommended Posts

Amy says they are scheduled to get built this Friday April 24th. I wonder how long it takes the finish to dry?

My kg4s which I bought new in '90 have two dates on the back, the first is 7/23 and the second 8/08. Not sure if this is indicative of a start and finish date, but I hope yours move along quicker than that. I can't wait to read your impressions... pics too please!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some of the following is as much question as opinion...

Given the size of the conductive area of an RCA connector, I cannot see how oxidation or anything else would impact sound quality. Either the current passes or it does not. It might be intermittent, but it would either pass a complete signal or not. This is DEFINITELY the case with digital signals, and I believe it to be the case with electricity.

Digital signal transmission is inherently more immune to noise and signal amplitude anomalies than analog. That's one of digital's many advantages. Corrosion can and does occur on plugs of various types of used for analog interconnection including RCAs, as well as issues with the spring contacts in the chassis connectors. When the ground's contact is compromised this will generally show up as noise issues. When the signal contact loses integrity that will generally cause amplitude variations. These problems may result in intermittent or high resistance contact, thus affecting performance. Connectors used for loudspeaker interconnects pass much more current and seem to be show this type problem more frequently than those used in line level applications. Properly applied gold plating on both the plugs and chassis connectors can reduce these sorts of problems greatly.

Better designed and manufactured parts will exhibit fewer problems over time. However, one can purchase interconnect cables for less than $40 that are well made and will work as well as megabuck cables, even years down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pet peeve is if $50/foot cables brings you so closer to the original receording, wouldn't that presume that such expensive cables were used to make the original recording? Given the very long chain, I doubt that.

I've heard this point before psg, and here's my take. I'm sure most studios use nothing more than quality cables such as Belkin or something similar. Very good for what they are designed to do. Once the recording is made, the listener brings this recording home and plays it on his or hers system. If their system is a boom box, then they are very limited in what detail and other audio adjectives they can hear. If their system is a mid-fi system, they will hear much more than the boom box was capable of. And if they should be so lucky as to have some Klipschorns and maybe a full McIntosh system, they will hear even more right? My point being the playback system is the veil between the listener and the recording (the veil between the recording and the original event is another matter altogether but that is more about engineering than cables). Better cables are like most every other "better" component, the higher up you go the more information that is retrieved from any given recording. This is why poor recordings will often sound so horrible on better systems, and sometimes even worse on better cables.

Except that expensive cables can't recreate what isn't there. If the argument is that expensive cable filter out less detail than regular cables, then that detail was lost when regular cables were used for the recording. Likewise, if the recording were made using a mic with the frequency response and noise level of a boombox, then it wouldn't matter what we used to listen to it. It would always be garbage because it would also be too late the recover the lost information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that expensive cables can't recreate what isn't there.  If the argument is that expensive cable filter out less detail than regular cables, then that detail was lost when regular cables were used for the recording.  Likewise, if the recording were made using a mic with the frequency response and noise level of a boombox, then it wouldn't matter what we used to listen to it.  It would always be garbage because it would also be too late the recover the lost information.

It's not that expensive cables are creating what's not there, it's that they pass more information than zip cord. Which cables were used during the recording is of no consequence, as I explained earlier, the veil between the playback system and the cd, lp or whatever recording is different than the veil between the original event (the live or studio performance) vs. the recording. I'm not sure I can explain it better than that, perhaps someone with better descriptive qualities or a better understanding of the subject matter can give their opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I really like everything about the Nordost except the over emphasis of the highs.

The Kimber PBJ seemed to have a loose connection inside one of the brass fittings so I couldn't hear them. (darn) I really didn't want to open it up and take a look, maybe someone else?

I really appreciate the opportunity to hear the difference between the Nordost and my Blue Jeans cables. I never thought I would hear a difference but just like my 3 amps.....they have a sound all their own.

Where do I send them? Let me know.

Thanks Dude!..........Pat (Speedball)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like everything about the Nordost except the over emphasis of the highs.

Hi Pat, thanks for posting your findings. I agree. Between my Oppo player and Yamaha AVR the Blue Heavens definitely sound lean and as you say over emphasized in the highs. The PBJs were a bit bland by comparison, and the Kimber Timbre which I'm using now seemed the perfect fit. OTH, between an old Pioneer cd player and a Harman Kardon HK 930 the Blue Heavens seemed the perfect fit adding life and speed to the system. The models above the Blue Heavens add more bass and presence and balance the high end better. All their cables have incredibly fast transients which the vintage Pioneer/HK system appreciated. Sorry that you didn't get to try the PBJs as I'm sure you would have noticed some other differences, and as you say "they have a sound all their own". Well, any takers? Pat was last on my list and I can't seem to find anyone willing to give these a whirl. Price of shipping gives you a trial with the Blue Heavens and broken Kimber PBJs [:)] If any members are interested, please let me know. If no one bites Pat, I'll pm my info to you in a day or two. Thanks, Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, I agree with everything you said. My assumption in the quote is that the cables are in good shape. When I buy cables, I usually get gold plate and good build quality, right at twice the price of yer basic Rat Shack. However, it's still just copper. When it comes to speaker cable, I use a gauge with several times the peak capacity.

I believe those practices result in passing the signal, which is all I expect from cables.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that expensive cables can't recreate what isn't there. If the argument is that expensive cable filter out less detail than regular cables, then that detail was lost when regular cables were used for the recording. Likewise, if the recording were made using a mic with the frequency response and noise level of a boombox, then it wouldn't matter what we used to listen to it. It would always be garbage because it would also be too late the recover the lost information.

It's not that expensive cables are creating what's not there, it's that they pass more information than zip cord. Which cables were used during the recording is of no consequence, as I explained earlier, the veil between the playback system and the cd, lp or whatever recording is different than the veil between the original event (the live or studio performance) vs. the recording. I'm not sure I can explain it better than that, perhaps someone with better descriptive qualities or a better understanding of the subject matter can give their opinion.

Well then we disagree. If the cables used in playback are so important, then the cables used in recording cannot be of no consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the cables used in playback are so important, then the cables used in recording cannot be of no consequence.

Psg, let me try to explain it this way. If a singer were recorded onto a simple 2 track recorder with a built in microphone thus negating the need for any cables to be used in the recording process, and that 2 track tape is taken and played on a boom box, some loss of fidelity is expected because of the nature of the playback equipment. Take that tape and play it in a decent car system, and more of the recording is exposed in comparison to the boom box. Now, take that same tape and play it on a home system, and still further details are revealed. The home system will have more soundstage information than the boom box, right? That is what I feel cables add more of, in addition to some other aspects previously discussed. Now, I'm not saying a home system without expensive cables sounds like a boom box, not at all. I'm just trying to show the relative insignificance of cables in the recording vs. cables in playback. In this example, no cables were used to record the event, yet different cables used on the playback system will have a different sonic signature. Some cables are very good at revealing subtle soundstage information that is not present on ordinary zip cord, but of course this is dependent on room acoustics and the resolution of the system itself. Hope this helps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a singer were recorded onto a simple 2 track recorder with a built in microphone thus negating the need for any cables to be used in the recording process,

I'm not sure I quite agree with that abstraction....

Any piece of audio electronics has multiple circuits inside the unit and those circuits are being connected with traces on a PCB. There is really no fundamental difference between the traces on the PCB and an interconnect going between two pieces of gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that expensive cables are creating what's not there, it's that they pass more information than zip cord.

Complete, total, and utter nonsense. 12 gauge copper wire will pass any audio signal that man can hear to a loudspeaker. More information? It seems to me that you could use more information yourself concerning the electrical properties of conductors. The only veil that I can discern is between your perception of the facts and reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that expensive cables can't recreate what isn't there. If the argument is that expensive cable filter out less detail than regular cables, then that detail was lost when regular cables were used for the recording. Likewise, if the recording were made using a mic with the frequency response and noise level of a boombox, then it wouldn't matter what we used to listen to it. It would always be garbage because it would also be too late the recover the lost information.

It's not that expensive cables are creating what's not there, it's that they pass more information than zip cord. Which cables were used during the recording is of no consequence, as I explained earlier, the veil between the playback system and the cd, lp or whatever recording is different than the veil between the original event (the live or studio performance) vs. the recording. I'm not sure I can explain it better than that, perhaps someone with better descriptive qualities or a better understanding of the subject matter can give their opinion.

Well then we disagree. If the cables used in playback are so important, then the cables used in recording cannot be of no consequence.

Though all the details have been posted, it might be well for you guys to follow the links in the "Challenge" thread recently and compare the two recordings, one done with very expensive everything, including cables, and the other not. If you want to be "blind," go to the original post first.

Challenge

The final analysis was posted a couple of weeks ago as a separate thread.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some truthful info on the cable issue:

http://www.verber.com/mark/ce/cables.html

There's a lot more out there, but this piece is written by an engineer with nothing to sell, just an interest in the truth. Here's the last paragraph of his essay:

I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.

Best regards,
John Dunlavy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some truthful info on the cable issue:

http://www.verber.com/mark/ce/cables.html

There's a lot more out there, but this piece is written by an engineer with nothing to sell, just an interest in the truth. Here's the last paragraph of his essay:

I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.

Best regards,
John Dunlavy

Two things about that article. It was published in 1996 and the author said then: "are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom!"

So according to his experience, up to the time of publication in 1996, experienced listeners could consistently hear a significant audible difference between cables, however seldom. If those were the pioneers of the truly improved cables, has the industry grown to provide more consumers an "audible difference"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete, total, and utter nonsense. 12 gauge copper wire will pass any audio signal that man can hear to a loudspeaker. More information? It seems to me that you could use more information yourself concerning the electrical properties of conductors. The only veil that I can discern is between your perception of the facts and reality.

Lets agree to disagree then Don. It seems Russ, Pat and myself have all heard the differences between cables, so either we're all nuts, deaf, or hold stock in cable companies. I won't argue the electrical properties and the science behind it, I don't know enough to do so. I trust my ears. I'm not sure why the naysayers are so hung up on this. They don't seem to question the differences between amps (which 30 years ago, was argued much the same way cables are today), or preamps or cd players and speakers, but if a difference is heard between cables then it's [bs]? I'm at loss really. Are there not sonic differences between equipment racks? Vibration isolation? Power cords? Every thing affects the signal one way or another as it's passed, and therefore is audible if the system, room and listener are capable. Use your ears Don. Go to a show that has a Nordost demo, and listen to different cables on the same system, maybe you'll share the experience that many others have had... maybe you won't. If not, great one less thing for you to worry about, for the rest of us this is an interesting subject that we wish to pursue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So according to his experience, up to the time of publication in 1996, experienced listeners could consistently hear a significant audible difference between cables, however seldom. If those were the pioneers of the truly improved cables, has the industry grown to provide more consumers an "audible difference"?

What has happened since 1996 is that cable manufacturers have been buying advertising in the audiophool periodicals and the editors/writers of these publications have been promoting these pieces of wire as audio components, which they absolutely are not. And people who do not know any better buy into this crap. Wire is about as passive as anything gets at audible frequencies. Not you or anyone else can reliably tell any difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has happened since 1996 is that cable manufacturers have been buying advertising in the audiophool periodicals and the editors/writers of these publications have been promoting these pieces of wire as audio components, which they absolutely are not.

Here comes the conspiracy theories again.

Not you or anyone else can reliably tell any difference.

If you are referring to blind testing, we all know that is a test of audible memory of which humans have very poor skills. Of all the senses, the one humans remember the most reliably is smell. Many listeners have failed to tell the difference between speakers on blind tests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any piece of audio electronics has multiple circuits inside the unit and those circuits are being connected with traces on a PCB. There is really no fundamental difference between the traces on the PCB and an interconnect going between two pieces of gear.

Well yes Mike, but I think you've missed my point that the fidelity of the recording process is a different animal than the fidelity of the playback system. Apples and oranges. We all have great recordings, and we all have bad recordings. Those are results of engineering. This is the fidelity of the recording. Playing those recordings on systems of different resolving power (again boom box vs. home system as a simple example), exhibit different details. This is the fidelity of the playback system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there an interview with Ray Kimber in a recent Stereophile that he said basically "cables are different" and "cables can sound different" though I noticed that is where it was left. There wasn't any better/best terms used because it is a personal perspective and very much a system synergy one. A set of cables that may sound screechy on some systems that are already tilted up might work magic on a darker sounding system.

It is all got to do with the complete package.

I am using silver etp speaker cables right now but I would likely find that many standard 100% copper wires would sound darker and not to my liking. The voicing of the system was with those silver wires.

Just put it all together and for the last 5% play with cables if you think your equipment is where it needs to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...