[TheChairGuy]

Guys - please look a where you are posting all of this stuff on cables.

It's in the Audio by van Alstine forum   Frank has made his thoughts abundantly clear on cables and the like for decades, and he's entitled to his fully formed and informed opinions. This circle is an important extension of his business - please respect that fact (and, don't think I'm berating anyone - I've made poor judgements is manufacturer's circles before, too).  Really, this is just pollution to him.

Frank just PM me if you want this moved from your circle.  I believe this topic has every right to exist in Audio Central or Two Channel areas.

I saw earlier in the topic you said it was okay to run.....but you tell me if it has run too far now.

John / TCG (Global Moderator)

[TomW16]

Just to keep things in perspective within the AVA forum here.  Cables can and do measure differently.  Changes in dielectric, gauge, soldering technique, crimping technique, cable geometry (braiding, etc.) all can make a difference that is audible.  Fortunately, changes to cable design result in changes in the following measurements: inductance, capacitance and resistance (L,C,R).  By optimizing the wire for its intended purpose (interconnect vs. speaker cable) you you can minimize the audible effect that cabling can have on your sound system.

Tom

[Zheeeem]

Guys - please look a where you are posting all of this stuff on cables.

It's in the Audio by van Alstine forum   Frank has made his thoughts abundantly clear on cables and the like for decades, and he's entitled to his fully formed and informed opinions. This circle is an important extension of his business - please respect that fact (and, don't think I'm berating anyone - I've made poor judgements is manufacturer's circles before, too).  Really, this is just pollution to him.

Frank just PM me if you want this moved from your circle.  I believe this topic has every right to exist in Audio Central or Two Channel areas.

I saw earlier in the topic you said it was okay to run.....but you tell me if it has run too far now.

John / TCG (Global Moderator)

Just an observation here.  The original post, while (provocatively?) titled "Cables & interconnects" was actually more about the load sensitivity of electronics.  While threads falling into the "expensive cables are good/bad" debate may be better placed in 2-channel, I do think discussions of the influences of loads on the linearity of equipment (especially AVA equipment) actually fit here.  One of the great strengths of AVA stuff is its ability to drive all sorts of loads and stay linear.

Of course, it is a lot easier to post about favourite cables, or absurdly priced cables, or debate wierd cable "science" or whatever than to intelligently discuss load characteristics.  That's what (1) makes cable threads so boring and predictable and (2) makes me really miss the intelligent articulations Frank used to provide in Audio Basics.

[shep]

just for the historical record, this topic/argument has raged nonstop on various "forums" for nearly thirty years and doesn't show any sign of waning! I don't think there ever will be a right or a wrong. One man's meat is another's poison. What is unfortunate is how cupidity and gullability come into play... but most of us are sufficiently burned-in to know better. I remember many years ago attempting, with a few friends, to do blind testing. What we DID agree on was how very stressfull it was! we preferred in the end to hear what we heard and believe what we wanted to. The element of stress=expectation+anticipation, factors largely, but how do you quantify that into what should be dispassionate and objective? You can't. And so it will go on. Given how far we have come in terms of quality and understanding about what constitutes what we consider "good" i.e. pleasing to the senses, we must be doing something right. Harry Pearson remarked eons ago that the persuit of absolute sound, by which he meant recognizable and mutually agreed upon (well that is in itself a serious euphemism!) References, entailed a very long and steep learning curve. Personally I am of the believers. Meaning I have and do hear differences that I cannot account for, not having the education for it, in components like caps and resisters and yes, God help me, cables. I really wish I couldn't! It would make this "hobby" a lot easier and cheaper!

[Daygloworange]

It would make this "hobby" a lot easier and cheaper!

Even if there was an Alpha reference system that everyone agreed upon as ultimately accurate and sonically pleasing, then the debates would shift focus onto what sounded good or bad on the Alpha system.

Inevitably, human nature is such. But without it, we wouldn't have the need or desire to seek answers. Cause and effect. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Hence, science.

Cheers

[Steve Eddy]

Just to keep things in perspective within the AVA forum here.  Cables can and do measure differently.  Changes in dielectric, gauge, soldering technique, crimping technique, cable geometry (braiding, etc.) all can make a difference that is audible.

I must have missed something. When was this finally proved?

se

[TomW16]

Just to keep things in perspective within the AVA forum here.  Cables can and do measure differently.  Changes in dielectric, gauge, soldering technique, crimping technique, cable geometry (braiding, etc.) all can make a difference that is audible.

I must have missed something. When was this finally proved?

se

Hey Steve,

I am certainly not an authority on cable design but my point was that different construction techniques can change the electrical parameters of the cable.  These changes will be reflected in changes in L,C and/or R and as long as these values are known, you can gloss over all of the fancy design and manufacture claims, which may indeed be valid  .

Tom

[TomW16]

I think another reason why this cable debate rages on is that people do not agree on what the ultimate goal of their Hi-Fi system is.  I believe that the AVA opinion, which I share, is that the signal should pass through to the speakers with as little alteration as possible.  Others feel, which is completely valid, that the ultimate sound they hear must sound "good" even if the sound is slightly altered from the original signal.  The right interconnect could soften the sound slightly and make a harsh sounding recording sound "better".

Tom

[Steve Eddy]

I am certainly not an authority on cable design but my point was that different construction techniques can change the electrical parameters of the cable.  These changes will be reflected in changes in L,C and/or R and as long as these values are known, you can gloss over all of the fancy design and manufacture claims, which may indeed be valid  .

Well there's no doubt that different constructions, etc. can produce different electrical parameters. It was the "difference that is audible" part that caught my attention.

Certainly one could produce a cable with electrical parameters sufficiently "bad" to inarguably produce actual audible differences. But the question is, is the range of electrical parameters among typical cables sufficient to produce actual audible differences? So far I have yet to see this proven to be true. Of course that doesn't mean that it's not ultimately true, or that it can't possibly be true. Only that I have yet to see it proven to be true.

se

[Zheeeem]

I believe that the AVA opinion, which I share, is that the signal should pass through to the speakers with as little alteration as possible.  Others feel, which is completely valid, that the ultimate sound they hear must sound "good" even if the sound is slightly altered from the original signal.  The right interconnect could soften the sound slightly and make a harsh sounding recording sound "better".

With properly engineered electronics, wires operating within "normal" RCL parameters just are not going to make any difference.  It is only when you start getting into bizarre loads, load sensitive electronics, or wires with excess capacitance (or unshielded, or otherwise possessing design flaws), that you will start actually hearing things.

Softening sound - assuming a wire could actually do such a thing - would, technically speaking, be more correctly called "adding distortion".  What you are suggesting is to apply one form of distortion to counteract another one.  This is an impossible situation.  How will you ever know how the distortion contained in the wire is the right one to cancel the distortion in your electronics???  Alas, there is no magic in wires; the only meaningful measurements are RCL.

If you are hearing things with your wires, you probably need new electronics (or the wires are defective in some way).  Anyhow, AVA electronics are really excellent at driving all sorts of loads.

[TomW16]

I am certainly not an authority on cable design but my point was that different construction techniques can change the electrical parameters of the cable.  These changes will be reflected in changes in L,C and/or R and as long as these values are known, you can gloss over all of the fancy design and manufacture claims, which may indeed be valid  .

Well there's no doubt that different constructions, etc. can produce different electrical parameters. It was the "difference that is audible" part that caught my attention.

Certainly one could produce a cable with electrical parameters sufficiently "bad" to inarguably produce actual audible differences. But the question is, is the range of electrical parameters among typical cables sufficient to produce actual audible differences? So far I have yet to see this proven to be true. Of course that doesn't mean that it's not ultimately true, or that it can't possibly be true. Only that I have yet to see it proven to be true.

se

Hey Steve,

I agree that with well designed electronics (such as AVA equipment since we're in this forum) it is difficult to obtain sufficiently bad cable parameters to obtain an audible difference through a cable swap.  It is, however, relatively easy to find that cables can make an audible difference with passive preamps or tube electronics.  Where the confusion and debate often takes place is around the cable (one reviewer can hear a difference and another cannot) when in fact it is the component impedances that dictate whether a cable can make an audible difference.

Tom

[TomW16]

Softening sound - assuming a wire could actually do such a thing - would, technically speaking, be more correctly called "adding distortion".

Hi Zheeeem,

I don't remember all of the math but with a sufficiently high capacitance interconnect and a passive preamp or tube electronics, you could fairly easily begin to roll off the high frequencies in the audible range and thereby create a more mellow sound.  I don't know if I would call this distortion but I wouldn't call it faithful to the original signal either.   To some listeners, this may sound better and I wouldn't argue with someone's preference.

Tom

[Steve Eddy]

I think another reason why this cable debate rages on is that people do not agree on what the ultimate goal of their Hi-Fi system is.  I believe that the AVA opinion, which I share, is that the signal should pass through to the speakers with as little alteration as possible.  Others feel, which is completely valid, that the ultimate sound they hear must sound "good" even if the sound is slightly altered from the original signal.

I guess I would belong to the latter group. For me, the ultimate goal of my audio system is to give me pleasure and enjoyment. And since that pleasure and enjoyment comes largely (though not exclusively) from sound, then yes, it must sound good to me. To put it another way, I don't serve the audio system. The audio system serves me. Which is why I can never quite fathom the position of the former, who, from my perspective, are serving their audio systems.

Music serves the composer. The instrument serves the musician. Microphones and other recording and playback equipment serves the recording and mastering engineers. Why then, once this point has been reached, are the tables suddenly turned and instead of our audio systems serving us, we must somehow serve our audio systems?

I mean, if at the end of the day, what comes out of your audio system doesn't "sound good" to you, what on earth is the point?

se

[TomW16]

I think another reason why this cable debate rages on is that people do not agree on what the ultimate goal of their Hi-Fi system is.  I believe that the AVA opinion, which I share, is that the signal should pass through to the speakers with as little alteration as possible.  Others feel, which is completely valid, that the ultimate sound they hear must sound "good" even if the sound is slightly altered from the original signal.

I guess I would belong to the latter group. For me, the ultimate goal of my audio system is to give me pleasure and enjoyment. And since that pleasure and enjoyment comes largely (though not exclusively) from sound, then yes, it must sound good to me. To put it another way, I don't serve the audio system. The audio system serves me. Which is why I can never quite fathom the position of the former, who, from my perspective, are serving their audio systems.

Music serves the composer. The instrument serves the musician. Microphones and other recording and playback equipment serves the recording and mastering engineers. Why then, once this point has been reached, are the tables suddenly turned and instead of our audio systems serving us, we must somehow serve our audio systems?

I mean, if at the end of the day, what comes out of your audio system doesn't "sound good" to you, what on earth is the point?

se

Steve I completely and whole heartedly agree that at the end of the day, if the audio system doesn't sound good then what is the point.  If we can produce a high-fidelity audio system that doesn't change the signal (or at least minimizes the changes) and the music was recorded well and it sounds good to me, that is what I am after and AVA equipment does this for me.

There is nothing wrong with flavoring music to suit people's taste but I think that we are moving away from the fidelity part in high-fidelity.  Accuracy we can measure.  Better is a bit more subjective.

Tom

[Steve Eddy]

I don't remember all of the math but with a sufficiently high capacitance interconnect and a passive preamp or tube electronics, you could fairly easily begin to roll off the high frequencies in the audible range and thereby create a more mellow sound.  I don't know if I would call this distortion but I wouldn't call it faithful to the original signal either.   To some listeners, this may sound better and I wouldn't argue with someone's preference.

So are you saying that your preference has nothing to do with sound, but rather of faithfulness to the original signal?

Let's think about that for a moment.

What exactly is the "original signal"? The signal of the recording itself? Let's say that you have an objectively perfect audio system which can play a recording without any alternation to the signal whatsoever. This would give you absolute faithfulness to the signal of the recording and you will have achieved your goal.

But then I would ask, was the system used to make that recording also objectively perfect? Since such a perfect system only exists in the perfect world I made up for this example, the answer would have to be "no" for all recordings made in the real world over the past 100+ years.

So let's say that the monitors used to produce a particular recording had a bit of a rising top end. To help amoeliorate that, the engineer might apply some equalization to cut the high frequencies a bit. Play this recording back on your perfect system. Certainly you're being 100% faithful to the signal of the recording, but the high frequencies are now a bit muted.

To put it another way, a less than perfect recording system imposes a certain transfer function on the signals being fed into it. Those making a recording with such a system employ their craft to get the sound they want from that system. Which means that the recording itself is in a sense the inverse of the transfer function of the system used to produce it.

se

[Daygloworange]

I guess I would belong to the latter group. For me, the ultimate goal of my audio system is to give me pleasure and enjoyment. And since that pleasure and enjoyment comes largely (though not exclusively) from sound, then yes, it must sound good to me. To put it another way, I don't serve the audio system. The audio system serves me. Which is why I can never quite fathom the position of the former, who, from my perspective, are serving their audio systems.

Steve Eddy,

I would belong to the former group. My personal goals are that I want my audio to faithfully reproduce the recording. Primarily because I am using my gear in a recording situation. I want the least audio coloration from the playback system as possible.

Ironically, it's so I can hear better the differences in colored things, particularly microphones, mic placement, phase anomolies , eq manipulations, and so on.

I can't at the end of the day, go home and listen to a system that exhibits, or imparts coloration, or softens the sound, etc.... It would make me nuts.

So, I guess it boils down to your personal philosophy, and your agenda. There are people who enjoy a clinical sound, not necessarily for the same reasons I would, and there are people who enjoy a sound that's based on personal preference ( extended highs, extended lows, up front, laid back, soft, lush, punchy, etc...)

I'm also a guitar player who plays vintage gear and love the imperfections and idiosyncracies they impart.

In recording, the rules are.....there are no rules. If it sounds good, it is good. Period. Same with the music itself. If it sounds good, it is good. Period.

Enjoy the music.

Just my two cents.

Cheers

[Steve Eddy]

There is nothing wrong with flavoring music to suit people's taste but I think that we are moving away from the fidelity part in high-fidelity.  Accuracy we can measure.  Better is a bit more subjective.

You say that almost as if "subjective" is a bad word. But it's all subjective to one degree or another, from the making of an instrument, to the writing of music, to the performing of the music, to the placement of microphones, and so on down the line. "Subjective" is our individuality, or uniqueness, our diversity. I just don't understand why it should suddenly come to a grinding halt once the pits have been etched or the grooves have been cut.

Perhaps it's because I was a child of the 60s. To me, "high-fidelity" just seems a bit too rigidly conformist.

Ah well. Guess I'll just smoke a bowl and go to bed. 

se

[Daygloworange]

So are you saying that your preference has nothing to do with sound, but rather of faithfulness to the original signal?

My personal preferences has everything to do with the sound being as faithful as possible in reproducing the signal on the stereo recording, yes.

But, I agree that there is no perfect . Starting right from the microphone. The first pick up point. There is no such thing as a faithful, flat response mic that picks up sound like a humans ear does.

So essentially, I want to faithfully hear the imperfections of the first pick up point. I don't want the imperfections to be skewed, for better or worse by the audio playback system. ( ie: amp, cable, speakers )

Of course this all becomes a chicken and egg thing all too easy, but I think you get what I mean.

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

There is nothing wrong with flavoring music to suit people's taste 

Absolutely not.

but I think that we are moving away from the fidelity part in high-fidelity.

How so?

[TomW16]

There is nothing wrong with flavoring music to suit people's taste 

Absolutely not.

but I think that we are moving away from the fidelity part in high-fidelity.

How so?

Hi Daygloworange,

If we take the definition of fidelity to mean "accuracy with which an electronic system reproduces the sound or image of its input signal" (hyperdictionary.com) then any audio system that changes the input signal moves further away from the goal of fidelity. 

Perfect systems do not exist and never will but that shouldn't mean that engineers and audio designers should stop striving to achieve more and more accurate equipment. 

Audio designers who choose to voice their components can have very pleasing sounding units but the goal is not 100% accuracy.

Tom