Hifi jim Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 A very sensible view of things Russ. Thanks for putting it all back into perspective. Now I can go enjoy some music... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcarlton Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedball Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Oh man, that's funny. The literature, where's the literature? Oh yeah, none came with the borrowed cables.............don't need any. [8] By the way Jim.............what is retail on those Nordost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 >They can't measure it and that's that. Hang on, chief. Some of us have said we can't HEAR it. You can, good on you. I have abilities you don't, and you have abilities I don't. I can tell one microphone from another on a top notch recording and occasionally the manufacturer...can you? I can tell how many there were and where they were placed, and occasionally where a musician has been moved from and to by a mixer. I don't question what you hear and my judgement that cables make no difference to ME is based on my experience, not measurements. My judgement that cables make a difference to YOU is based on your testimony, not measurements. Frankly, I rather doubt we have measurements capable of identifying microphones from a recording yet. Perhaps someday...and perhaps someday our science will be able to explain what you hear. Until then, I am good with taking your word for it. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 By the way Jim.............what is retail on those Nordost? $199 retail. The PBJs are $89. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hifi Jim, I think you just have to forget about the "non-belivers"........ Thanx, Russ That's hard to do when the naysayers urinate all over the threads. It is worth making an effort to leave them alone and try finding some who wish to help out, but invariably the audio version of "Godwins Law" (where as an internet discussion on cables, tubes, caps and wires proceeds the probability that someone will say "it's all bulls#it" reaches one) will be invoked. But I will say this: Had I listened to all of those naysayers, my systems would not be where they are. The naysayers have told me it didn't matter much what tubes I used in my Mac amps, what caps I used in my Mac amps, cables don't matter, and on and on (even that most good amps sound the same - Julian Hirsch lives again), and I disagree with all of them. I have sufficiently proven to my own ears that there are differences/drawbacks/benefits to most anything in the chain, especially when playing on the sonic magnifying glasses that Klipsch horn speakers are. But I really didn't know until I heard these things myself. Personal experience goes a long way. I don't think that makes me special, goldeneared or anything of the sort - just guilty of curiosity, I suppose. I AM becoming convinced that different listeners hear things and listen to/focus in on varying aspects of music, which may lead one to the "yes/no" side of these issues. This isn't "night and day" WRT wires/cabling - it's more "detail"/last 5%/system synergy kind of stuff, which many might not even care about. I would agree that the good solutions in this area need not be so expensive (especially cables/wiring), but no one is making anyone else buy them. That's capitalism, folks! I do tend to resist spending on boutique items until a sufficient body of evidence is gathered (or I get a free sample, hehe), and I'm always interested in lower cost substitutes for the boutique version when performance is substantially equal. For some things, there is no substitute: Mullard 5AR4, Philips and Tele 12AX7, and GEC KT66 will never be equaled or beaten. But I could just buy currently made versions of these.....the only differences is the wires, right? The trouble is in quantifying these things. Just because an engineer cannot measure or quantify these things is given as proof that there are no differences. I submit that we just don't know how to measure or quantify all of those differences. I'm not all that sure I NEED TO (although it would be nice for the benefit of lower cost substitutions). I don't decide how an amp sounds from a spec sheet. Nor would I accept such informations re: cables/caps/tubes as proof of how THEY sound. Stating that it must be engineering-wise quantifiable is like assuming you can hear an amp from a spec sheet. I also submit that double blind testing on much of this stuff is useless, especially on systems not familiar to the listeners. These changes are evaluated here over time - I would never attempt to do tests on a fast A/B basis. The idea here is to squeeze the last 5-10% out of a system, where the focus for ANY listener to a system unfamiliar to the listener will have that listener focusing in on the FIRST 90% of that system, no matter what you tell them about the cables. That's my "take" on it... Without the forum here, I would NOT know most of these things. If it were possible to have such as discussion without the interference we might actually find a way to SAVE some money and not offend people so much! It's not like the naysayers have to listen to them - one would think we were locking 'em up gitmo-style and making them admit on camera that there's a difference. Hey wait......now there's an idea Also to Russ: I appreciate the Cardas recommendation. Might be a bit spendy at retail, but might find a set to try used and see how that goes...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 All the great civilizations of history crumbled and fell because of their antagonistic factions arguing about their equivalent "cable thread". Brothers, there is a third way! - Forego using speaker cables entirely - just place your mono blocks adjacent to your crossovers and connect them directly. Now of course if you are not using mono blocks you are missing the true clarity and detail, separation, dimensional geometry, subtle nuances and.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 "Showing is proof, but proving is fear..." Gentle Giant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ69 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Audible Nectar, Very nicely stated, an excellent overview of this thread. Thanx, Russ P.S. Yes, the Cardas is a bit dear in price but the midrange sweetness/warmth is well worth it if you crave such things (I do). It might be too much for YOUR system, unless you were looking for much more tube sweeties? The cheaper Kimber Tonic or Timber will give a smaller taste (about a half step) if your system is already lush in the midrange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 All the great civilizations of history crumbled and fell because of their antagonistic factions arguing about their equivalent "cable thread". Brothers, there is a third way! - Forego using speaker cables entirely - just place your mono blocks adjacent to your crossovers and connect them directly. Now of course if you are not using mono blocks you are missing the true clarity and detail, separation, dimensional geometry, subtle nuances and.... Ah, the wisdom of Solomon. Half an amp, anyone? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBryan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 All assumptions are an acknowledgement of ignorance... some will only make you look silly in the end but some can kill. That's why in the days before the computer, mathematicians and scientists always preferred chalk to run through an idea and while good engineers based their work on sound math and science. they still did their drawings in pencil. I read a paper about 'Psycho-acoustics' a while back and in one of the experiments, each member of the test group had their hearing tested and were then subjected to tones, music, etc. where the frequency had been cut off at the upper range that coincided with the individual's hearing test. They were then given the same course but without the frequency cut off. The members reported hearing more information, detail and clarity than before. The author theorized that while the subjects weren't physically able to hear the higher frequencies, they could hear the harmonics associated with those frequencies within their hearing range and their brain was able to fill in the information. In regard to cables, someone with an engineer''s mindset would be hard-pressed to look beyond the simple fact that its just electrons passing energy from one end of the cable to the other (we won't touch on quantum theory here) but my point is that there is more involved than can be spec'ed out on a piece of paper and the vast nature of our perceptions is beyond mechanical description - whether it's science or alchemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I am offended because I don't think Denon made cables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastlayne Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Do you know if the test subjects listened through headphones or from speakers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 >The author theorized that while the subjects weren't physically able to hear the higher frequencies, they could hear the harmonics associated with those frequencies within their hearing range and their brain was able to fill in the information. This has been the basis of my theory for years as to why many find analog and higher res digital more satisfying than CD. In my own case, my hearing is way down due to age, but I am still quite capable of competing with any young person in deteriming the quality of a source recording. A deeper issue here is "WHY?" Why is the presence of inaudible material that is actually more accurately described as muddling the audible frequences by phase interactions apparently perceived by most as "...more information, detail and clarity...?" It's a mystery shrouded in enigma...just like this cable issue. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 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. But you are missing my point. How did the detail get into the recording in the first place without those super expensive cables being used? Engineers can't compensate for and recreate lost detail from musical instruments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 >How did the detail get into the recording in the first place without those super expensive cables being used? Hmmm.... Quite a few folks on this forum think the detail gets into my location recordings just fine using my 100% genuine copper cableing at a princely 30 cents per foot. AAMOF, some even thing more gets in there than the "pros" get with their "arm.95" per foot stuff. It's about the ENGINEERING. 'tis a poor workman indeed who blames his tools. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I am offended because I don't think Denon made cables. It's worse than that! They make a $500 Ethernet cable! http://www.usa.denon.com/productdetails/3429.asp Edit: Here's the audiophile description: Denon's 1.5 meter (59 in.) proprietary ultra premium Denon Link cable was designed for the audio enthusiast. Made from high purity copper wire and high performance connection parts, the AK-DL1 will bring out all the nuances in digital audio reproduction from any of our Denon DVD players with the Denon Link feature connected to a Denon Link enabled Denon A/V receiver. The AK-DL1 employs high level tin-bearing alloy shielding not typically available in commercial cabling, to eliminate data loss caused by noise. Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer. Attention to detail when building this cable was used by employing high quality insulation and woven jacketing to reduce vibration and to add durability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 >How did the detail get into the recording in the first place without those super expensive cables being used? Hmmm.... Quite a few folks on this forum think the detail gets into my location recordings just fine using my 100% genuine copper cableing at a princely 30 cents per foot. Yet expensive cables are required to extract the same detail back out from the recording, according to some. My point exactly. Ah well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hifi jim Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 Yet expensive cables are required to extract the same detail back out from the recording, according to some. My point exactly. Ah well. Apples and oranges. As far as recording, I am only familiar with my own 2 and 4 track recordings that I made years ago while still playing in bands. Never did we use mega dollar cables. Playing those same recordings on my system now, there is an audible difference between speaker cables and interconnects. I'm not sure I can be much more clear than that. You need to realize that you are comparing two totally different systems. One recording, and one playback. Would high end cables change the sonics if used during the recording process? Maybe, I dunno, never tried, I have no idea if any engineers do. I feel there is no need obsessing over something that is totally out of my control, at this time I am only able to control the parameters of the playback system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastlayne Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Since there is no device that will give a % of accuracy you can say the recording is what it is and it will never sound better than what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.