Honestly, do you think Interconnects and Cables make a difference?

[Anonymous]

Ollie.:

Gerrardasnails:Craig M.:maybe try through some more revealing kit? i thought the same as you until recently, maybe you need to grow up and stop posting unnecessarily aggressive posts.
His kit is revealing enough. I don't think that the OP is doing anything more but incite a reaction and get a few people ruffled. If he thinks that interconnects and speaker cable make no difference, he's lucky. In my mind, I know that they do. Adding Chord Odyssey to my speakers lifted the level of quality obviously. And good balanced cables over budget RCAs like Crimson, Cobra 3 and VDH The Name showed a considerable improvement.

That's not true at all. I just don't like it when manufacturers tell us a load of lies.. So you're on for the blind test so?

Morning Ollie,

I tell you what I will challenge you to a hearing test if you want.

Do you think you could agree that there is a possibility......just a possiblility that your hearing may not be good enough to detect any changes?

Cheers Dude

D

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting discussion. I think the error we are making here is to assume that there is a "correct" answer to all this. We are posting on this forum because we are enthusiastic (maybe unhealthily so) about hifi and music reporduction. For many of us it is an important pleasure in our life. Gorgeous looking equipment and stands and big thick cables with shiny connectors are all part of the sensual enjoyment of the whole listening to music thing.

A blind test may or may not prove there is a difference, but i just wouldn't want to plug a rubbish plastic feeling cable into the back of my beautiful equipment.

We know that fine china doesn't really add to the flavour of fine food, but it all adds to the experience.

The only thing I have a real problem with is digital interconnects - it's ones and zeros! either they are there or they're not. By definition, you can't have a better quality one or zero.

David

 

[Anonymous]

It all depends on wether you think its all one big conspiracy theory by the hi fi community in general and you as a person are an onlooker who has never taken part.

If that is the case get a good dealer to lend you their sets of demo cables for a weekend and have a play.

If you think then it is a whole load of tosh and you cannot hear any difference in your system then buy bell wire and save yourself the money.

20 years ago I did just this and I found I could hear differences between all sorts of different cables . I put my money where my ears told me to .

2 years ago I repeated the whole exercise with the latest and newest cables on offer to see if cable technology had moved on a pace........I was stunned.......and I have to admit I spent £600 on new interconnects and speaker cables without a second thought. Interestingly I have gone through the same process with an isotek mains conditioner and mains leads with another spend of around £1k.

I hasten to add all these were bought after a long home dem and play and without me spending any money upfront and with the addition of my wife's excellent hearing and powers of rationalisation and retention on the puse strings.I can also add that some equipment over the years has been returned and no purchase made.

Placebo?.... sucker?.....whatever. I trust my own ears at home way above any oppinion I'm sad to say on here or in any magazine.

The only thing that is vital is for you to have a good relationship with a good hi fi dealer who will let you do this. Whatever decision you then come to is then based on you, your own equipment and your own surroundings. My hi fi system has been one of steady evolution and improvement and to date I have never lashed the cash on any item that has subsequently been sold shortly after for whatever reason......ebay is full of mistakes that fall into this category.

Alan.

 

[John Duncan]

madridpunch:By definition, you can't have a better quality one or zero.

Oh I dunno

 

[Alec]

Whatever happens today, you have given me soemthing to chuckle at.

Thanks John.

 

[John Duncan]

S'what I'm here for...

 

[Anonymous]

JohnDuncan:madridpunch:By definition, you can't have a better quality one or zero. Oh I dunno

Since you have displayed a picture of a one, I assume you are imply that hdmi video despite being digital can have a worse looking picture with a inferior hdmi cable. As Head of Technology Delivery, whathifi.com. would you care to explain how, or is your post just personal opinion. I think it is incorrect.

With HDMI. The signal is a waveform, with the receiver reading the peaks as 1s and the troughs as 0s. The transmitted data is protected by BCH error correction encoding, named after its developers Bose, Chauduri and Hocquenghem. This acts as a kind of integrity check and within its limits corrects any errors. If the bit error rate is within the encoding/decoding formats error correction range, it will not guess it will reproduce the missing data exactly correct. If the bit error rate is more than the formats error correction range it will be unable to correct the data, once data integrity is gone the effect is going to very noticeable, drop outs, sparkles and blocking or no picture. You either get perfect picture or teeter on the very narrow edge of the cliff with obviously terrible unwatchable, or fall off the cliff with no picture at all. One of the first things to fail is often the hdcp so no picture or failed handshake. There is no guessing, and no subtle improvement with less guessing.

It is not an analogue system. The errors are not more likely to occur in the sharp edges of video or high frequency of audio. There is no difference in the ones and zeros in the cable signal representing these details than any other details, the errors will be all over the place and the effects far from subtle.

Some may have nicer waveforms but it is irrelevant as long as the signal can be received and any errors are within the systems error correction threshold. The whole point in using 1s and 0s the top and bottom of a wave is it is very robust. The whole point of error correction systems is they do not guess they maintain data integrity even when some 1s and 0s are misread.

Hdmi 1.3 removed the restriction on overshooting, enabling products to use pre-emphasis to make the signal more robust and displays now have cable equalization circuits to enable them to better lock on to the signal, so are also more robust. This is not to say poor quality hdmi cables do not exist and cause problems especially on long cable runs, just that problems are very unlikely on short cable runs and when they occur not subtle.

There is no interpolative error correction on the video, so it is impossible for subtle improvements or differences between cables. On the audio interpolative error correction is permitted by the hdmi specification depending on an individual manufactures implementation of the technology. The reason for the difference is because uncorrected errors in video make a picture obviously flawed unwatchable, while uncorrected errors in audio will also be obviously they could include loud noise, which could damage audio equipment particularly speakers or scare the wits out of listeners.

 

[Anonymous]

So Knightout - to interpret. It's either a one or a zero, and if the quality is a bit dodgy, the error correction software will sort it out, and if it too bad for that then you lose the signal completely or it is very obvious.

I work in the field of lithography (making the machines that print circuits onto microchips) where we are dealing with analgue and digital electrics that have to position motors and control lenses within nano-metres, converting a 450V input into a nanometre position change is much more critical than any audio application. In this field there is no discussion about "better" cable. It is either good enough, or not. This is why digital cable comparisons confuse me.

I think objectively, the same is probably true for analogue audio cables, but as I said earlier, with audio it is about much more than the objective sounds - it is a whole realm of differing perceptions.

A photograph will normally be much more accurate in its representation of reality, but a painting brings so much more, it's art. Our hifi systems do not faithfully reproduce what is on the CD, otherwise (subject to room colouration) they would all sound the same. They all add their interpretation, that is why some of us love X and others wouldn't live without our Y (insert two appropriate brand names here).

The debate about cables making a difference is a nice distraction, but it really doesn't matter. Some people would ask why I would pay 2000 for a painting of my local village green, when I can take a photo and get a much "better" representation of it. What I am paying for is the artists interpretation, Much as I pay for those guys down in Salisbury to help me interpret my music collection.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Just to clarify, knightout, while JD is very much a hi-fi enthusiast, his role is the delivery of the web/online technology used to present this website. He's not a member of the magazine's review team.

 

[Anonymous]

maxheadroom:Placebo?.... sucker?.....whatever. I trust my own ears at home

It would help to learn a few basics about human perception.

1, we do not have an accurate memory of sound, so any samples heard without the possibility to switch immediately between one or more samples, will be worthless. What you'll compare is your processed memory of the sound; not the sound.

2, human hearing is selective. If you focus on a certain frequency range, a certain instrument, or melody line, that will affect your overall impression of the sound.

3, on the other side, we are absolutely unable to process any impressions independently of other impressions. In short, your expectations and prejudice will count. It's not a question of being objective or subjective. Our only chance is to be aware of our subjectiveness.

Acoustics should of course also be considered. Even a slight movement of speakers, or ears, might result in a difference in sound that is easily measured if the ears are replace by a mic.

So, by raising from your chair to switch cables, you've done two things that makes any valid comparison impossible.

It would also help to distinct between physics and metaphysics, and the human perception between the two.

The physics of hi-fi cables are simple. Everything is measurable, and the values are generally outside what can possibly be audible; considered the cable and connections fulfill some basic criteria (which virtually any cable do -- while connections might be a weak spot) and the lengths don't exceeds hundreds of metres.

When people hear things that's not physically possible, one can take the three aspects listed above into consideration -- or one can turn towards metaphysics, and claim that there's phenomenons out there still not explained by science.

Then it would help if the believers could offer some kind of proof that they really, in a physical way, hear what they claim to hear. But like parapsychology, the mystical phenomenons can't be reproduced in a controlled environment.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Is it just me being lazy, or does anyone switch off with long technical posts? Genuine question!

 

[hammill]

FrankHarveyHiFi:

Is it just me being lazy, or does anyone switch off with long technical posts? Genuine question!

I am interested in how things may or may not work, so I try to understand them. Not everyone is, does not mean that they are lazy. After all, this is just for fun.

 

[jaxwired]

Fahnsen,

Great post (and, yes, I read it David, lol). I hear differences in cables. In fact, I hear consistent differences. However, I am open to the possibility that it is all self delusion. I really don't think it is self delusion because it just sounds so convincingly different and consistent. But, I think a wise person must admit the possiblity that we are being duped by our unreliable senses. It certaintly is disturbing at the very least that the audio community has never been able to provide blind testing that proves audio differences. I'm also not aware of any scientific data that shows measured differences in cables. Many manufacturers claim digital cables sound different (again, I'm a believer based on my own ears), but I've not seen any experimental data provided for this claim which should be easily gathered by simpliy comparing the ones and zeroes that pop out the business end of the cable.

Having said this, I have to reitererate that I absolutely do hear differences in cables, even digital cables. So to defend against the possiblity that I'm being duped, I simply choose not to spend silly money on cables.

Regarding the lack of scientific evidence, the only explanation I can think of is that there is something occuring that we currently do not have the equipment to measure.

Regarding the failure of A/B/X tests, the only explanation I can think of is that blind testing somehow restricts our ability to hear these differences. Anyone that has read the book "blink" by Gladwell understands how little we really know about how our brains work.

 

[John Duncan]

knightout:I assume you are implying that hdmi video despite being digital can have a worse looking picture with an inferior hdmi cable

No, I was doing something much more complex, which was Making A Joke. I will leave the assertion that HDMI cables have an effect on signals to those who have actually used one.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure that Fahnsen was saying he can't enjoy music without being analytical - more highlighting the issues with reported experiences of cable changes.

The problem with cable comparisons is that there's no consistency in comparisons whether you take an objectivist/subjectivist position. Most aren't measured/compared empirically, most aren't sucessfully/consistently differentiated subjectively in blind tests, and random subjective end-user/reviewer reports range from 'night and day differences' (a la 'blown away', lifted a veil etc) through 'minor change' to 'no difference at all'.

Personally I feel that I can distinguish between a £10-20 silver ic and a similarly priced copper I own, but I could not blindly (help from the other half here!) distinguish between a silver £20 and a silver £150 Chord I owned. Now I know my hearing (in terms of tonal differentiation and range) is good as that's been medically tested recently (family hearing issue history), so I can't blame my hearing. Nor can I blame the equipments as that's in a revealing 4.5k cd/amp/speaker combo.

However, unlike the 'anti-cable' brigade I can't get excited about other people spending their money however they'd like - I think evangelicalism in either direction isn't particularly effective.

 

[Anonymous]

I am so glad i left the gadget/equipment interest side of music behind me in my late teens. I could spend my paycheck and then some on stuff that looked and sounded high end.

Now i just enjoy the music, and as long as it doesnt sound like pure sheit im a happy camper, tap my feet and smile when i hear music that i like

 

[AL13N]

Let's assume cables do make a difference. Are the prices justified?

I remember when usb cables were strictly for the computer market. Even then there were different quality/prices, but nothing huge. It was good enough for everyone, even mobile professionals in video production and DJs etc.

Then the audiophile world gets hold of it and we have usb cables costing three figures. It's this price factor of cable upgrades that worries me.

 

[Anonymous]

Reminds me of the Jonny Greenwood interview with the New Yorker...

JG: We had a few complaints that the MP3s of our last record wasn't
encoded at a high enough rate. Some even suggested we should have used
FLACs, but if you even know what one of those is, and have strong
opinions on them, you're already lost to the world of high fidelity and
have probably spent far too much money on your speaker-stands.

SFJ: Do you think any of the MP3 generation-ten- to twenty-five-year-olds-want a higher quality experience?

JG: No. That comes later. It's those thirty-something men who lurk
in hi-fi shops, discussing signal purity and oxygen-free cables and
FLACs. I should know-I was very nearly one of them.

 

[JoelSim]

Being honest as the OP asked, if you can't hear the differences between something like Silver Anniversary XT and 6mm OFC copper and Kimber 4tc speaker cables then perhaps you would be better off with a speaker dock and MP3 player than a hifi.

I find it amazing, having heard many many cables with the same components that anyone can perceive there isn't a difference.

The remedy for this is to put a small glug of olive oil in your ear, cover it with cotton wool for half an hour, then remove it along with the earwax that it's melted.

Then try your test again.

As for the 'is it worth it?' scenario...yes it can be. If you have an Aiwa mini system and decide to purchase some Nordost Valhalla then obviously it's not a great upgrade. The same cable with a reference system of dcs Scarlatti and Kef Muons then yes please.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:Just to clarify, knightout, while JD is very much a hi-fi enthusiast, his role is the delivery of the web/online technology used to present this website. He's not a member of the magazine's review team.

Tut Tut Andrew. You have shatterd the illusion.

I was convinced JD was the Head Honcho of What Hi-Fi, and everyone in the WHF offices saluted as he passed by.

Now, my picture of Dear JD is the guy in the overalls who carries the new kit from the delivery van to the offices and demo rooms - but never get a chance to listen or tap at a keyboard.

Serenity

PS This is the best thread / read on this site I've had since I've re-started scanning over it again.

Keep up the good work, I enjoy it most when the knives come out.

 

[timwileman]

JohnDuncan:knightout:I assume you are implying that hdmi video despite being digital can have a worse looking picture with an inferior hdmi cable

No, I was doing something much more complex, which was Making A Joke. I will leave the assertion that HDMI cables have an effect on signals to those who have actually used one.

for shame JD, you should know better... using complex ideas like 'humor' tut tut....

 

[JoelSim]

bobbyg81:

I personally think that cables make a little difference but people tend to go way overboard in their description of the the differences.This just plays into the hands of non believers.Its the exact same with racks.

I think Joel once said in a thread that although the differences were small he was happy to spend for that small improvement.

To me that sums it up.

Yes that's right. The Nordost Shiva I put on my CDP made a small difference to the overall air in the sound and in detail. The whole thing became a touch more atmospheric. And it cost me £74. That's much less than a component upgrade would have cost to give me a similar improvement.

Likewise I didn't like the QED Silver Anniversary XTs on my ProAcs, neither did I like the 6mm copper, chalk and cheese. I wanted something with the detail of the QEDs but without the lack of welly and associated brightness.

 

[batonwielder]

I hear the differences in cables all too easily, whether it's due to the material, geometry, gauge, length, shielding, or termination, to undermine the value of using a decent set of cables. Anything is a variable for the difference in the sound, but that also includes the angle of your head tilt, size of your Eustachian tube, or room temperature and humidity.

I think the industry has gone too far on exploiting what was supposed to be basically an accessory to the system. The tougher and possibly better version of what should already have been supplied with the system should not cost as much as or more than someone's yearly salary.

 

[John Duncan]

Serenity:everyone in the WHF offices saluted as he passed by

Well that's what I think those hand signals are?

 

[Anonymous]

What else could they be?