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

[margetti]

knightout:

Since you ask what explanation a skeptic might offer. I will give you one.

Easy unless you are a damn good poker player. Tells, you gave the game away that something was different about the hifi setup, without even realizing it. The reason why its double blind test, not just blind tests.

No, I think it had far more to do with the fact that the change of cable made a significant improvement!

 

[Alec]

hammill:I don't think that the argument is cables can't make a difference. Rather it is that getting human listeners to accurately decide whether there is a difference is extremely problematic and it does account for people hearing unlikely differences (between HDMI cables for example)

We could try rabbits.

 

[Anonymous]

al7478:

hammill:I don't think that the argument is cables can't make a difference. Rather it is that getting human listeners to accurately decide whether there is a difference is extremely problematic and it does account for people hearing unlikely differences (between HDMI cables for example)

We could try rabbits.
Or Bats

 

[Anonymous]

Well my Mission speaker manual says.
"In recent years much debate has taken place around the material quality and construction of loudspeaker cables. When using MISSION loudspeakers you should consider carefully the type of cable used with your system as this has a noticeable effect on the sound quality of the system.
We have carried out extensive research into the complex interface between loudspeakers and amplifiers. The results have enabled us to manufacture two high quality cables, one stranded and one solid core.
Both MISSION and CYRUS cables are clearly designated with + and - marks. Like all esoteric cables they are directional and we recommend that the M of MISSION and the S of CYRUS are nearest the amplifier, whilst the opposite end is toward the loudspeaker"

They must know lots about speakers, but oddly their extensive research into the complex relationship between amplifier and speaker did not reveal that speaker cable uses AC not DC. It can not possibly be directional. I would put it down to pandering to the customers, and not wanting to offend hifi dealers who make money selling extras.

If speaker cable is so critical why do professional speakers not have esoteric cables. They use 4-pole Neutrik Speakon, EP, XLR type connectors. The manuals do not recommend esoteric cables and experimentation, the speaker cables seem to be advertised simply by build quality, gauge, length and connector type. No mention of 99.999% purity copper or silver, or special treatments or gold platted connectors. Do the professionals not care about quality sound reproduction. If it is simply because these connector types are so superior to normal consumer banana plugs or spring terminals, that they do not need the extra performance offered by the esoteric cables. If this is the case would it not be better for speaker manufactures to use these types of connectors rather than recommend esoteric cables.

 

[Anonymous]

As I was getting my Uniti working last night, with streaming from my mac, a though occured...

If your digital interconnect can improve quality significantly (no interconnects on the Uniti so difficult to experiment) then can the quality of your wireless router also affect the music?

Now that many bits of HiFi kit are network enabled, it will only be a matter of time before someone brings out an "audiophile" router and ethernet cable.

Just a thought

D

 

[Anonymous]

madridpunch:

Now that many bits of HiFi kit are network enabled, it will only be a matter of time before someone brings out an "audiophile" router and ethernet cable.

AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable $500

http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp#

 

[The_Lhc]

madridpunch:If your digital interconnect can improve quality significantly (no interconnects on the Uniti so difficult to experiment) then can the quality of your wireless router also affect the music?

No. Why would it? The router doesn't have anything to do with "music" at any stage. Data, yes, but not music.

Just a thought

No offence but it's an ill-educated thought, one that I've explained at least twice here now and I'm not doing it again.

 

[Andrew Everard]

knightout:AK-DL1: Ultra Premium Denon Link Cable $500

Except while that cable may have RJ45s on each end, so I can see why you got confused, it's actually designed to carry digital audio between two components having Denon Link sockets, not function as an Ethernet cable.

I'm not getting drawn on the pros or cons of this particular cable, as I haven't heard it, but to quote it as an example of an 'audiophile Ethernet cable' is rather taking it out of context.

 

[Anonymous]

REMOVED BY MODS - inappropriate language

 

[Anonymous]

There is no diference in principle between the transport of "music" from a digital source (a CD transport for example) and a DAC and the transport of "data" (from a iTunes library for example) to a DAC over a wireless network.

If you are saying that the transport of digital music is the same as data transport and so the quality of cable is only important once the data becomes analogue "music" then I'm probably with you.

 

[MattSPL]

I got bored reading every post in this thread a while ago, but if it hasn't been mentioned, one of the reasons that cables do sound different is due to them having different types of insulation and some being screened and some not being screened.

An unscreened 79 strand copper wire for example is leaving itself open to airbourne RFI. So a screened cable will sound better that it, even if only for having reduced RFI due to the screening.

If you look at the complex construction of some cables http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/xstream-premier-sc?cat=classics
Even though you may say a cable is a cable, this complex arrangement of the cable conductors and screening is what you pay for and what brings the benefits as much as anything else.

Id say this thread has broken all records at this stage so congratulations to the OP for that.

 

[Anonymous]

MattSPL:

Id say this thread has broken all records at this stage so congratulations to the OP for that.

I only started posting on the forum regularly in the last few days. I thought they all went on forever like this!

I agree about the screening comment.

D

 

[JoelSim]

What the naysayers are saying is never going to work for me, I've heard loads of differences with MY ears, not anyone else's.

It's true that not all cables have a positive difference, some even sound incredibly similar to other cables. But some are very positive and very different.

If you put the 6mm copper speaker cable that I've mentioned umpteen times now, against the QED Silver Anniversary XT then I would suggest that 100% of people would be able to tell which was playing 100% of the time. The reality of the testing procedure you would have to go through would make this test very hard to perform.

 

[Anonymous]

MattSPL:

I got bored reading every post in this thread a while ago, but if it hasn't been mentioned, one of the reasons that cables do sound different is due to them having different types of insulation and some being screened and some not being screened.

An unscreened 79 strand copper wire for example is leaving itself open to airbourne RFI. So a screened cable will sound better that it, even if only for having reduced RFI due to the screening.

If you look at the complex construction of some cables http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/xstream-premier-sc?cat=classics
Even though you may say a cable is a cable, this complex arrangement of the cable conductors and screening is what you pay for and what brings the benefits as much as anything else.

Id say this thread has broken all records at this stage so congratulations to the OP for that.

The link you give is for a power cord. We are talking about cables not filters any existing RFI in the mains cable would still be present. If for some reason the last meter of cable in your room is subjected to a lot of RFI, like you live next to a transmitter tower, then a shielded power cable costs <£10. Personally I rely on the power supply components of my hifi equipment to remove any RFI. The conversion from AC to DC done in the power supply stage should eliminate all or most RFI in the power supply. Good amplifiers are designed to have quiet power supply by using filtering and regulating the dc rails. If the main supply has so much RFI it gets past the power supply stage and has an audible effect I would suspect either the hifi equipment is very badly designed or you have grounds for complaint to the utility company. Ground loops and ground noise seem to be a much more common problem with power supply.

I agree RFI can be a problem but I think it is much more likely to effect components if it is getting in via line-level inter connectors.

I do use shielded cables for my satellite system, because the LNB > Receiver frequency range is the same as used by some cordless phones, and occasionally caused by some other things like electric Emerson heaters.

 

[MattSPL]

knightout:MattSPL:

I got bored reading every post in this thread a while ago, but if it hasn't been mentioned, one of the reasons that cables do sound different is due to them having different types of insulation and some being screened and some not being screened.

An unscreened 79 strand copper wire for example is leaving itself open to airbourne RFI. So a screened cable will sound better that it, even if only for having reduced RFI due to the screening.

If you look at the complex construction of some cables http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/xstream-premier-sc?cat=classics
Even though you may say a cable is a cable, this complex arrangement of the cable conductors and screening is what you pay for and what brings the benefits as much as anything else.

Id say this thread has broken all records at this stage so congratulations to the OP for that.

The link you give is for a power cord. We are talking about cables not filters any existing RFI in the mains cable would still be present. If for some reason the last meter of cable in your room is subjected to a lot of RFI, like you live next to a transmitter tower, then a shielded power cable costs <£10. Personally I rely on the power supply components of my hifi equipment to remove any RFI. The conversion from AC to DC done in the power supply stage should eliminate all or most RFI in the power supply. Good amplifiers are designed to have quiet power supply by using filtering and regulating the dc rails. If the main supply has so much RFI it gets past the power supply stage and has an audible effect I would suspect either the hifi equipment is very badly designed or you have grounds for complaint to the utility company. Ground loops and ground noise seem to be a much more common problem with power supply.

I agree RFI can be a problem but I think it is much more likely to effect components if it is getting in via line-level inter connectors.

I do use shielded cables for my satellite system, because the LNB > Receiver frequency range is the same as used by some cordless phones, and occasionally caused by some other things like electric Emerson heaters.

Yes i did post a link to a power cord, mainly just to show complex cable construction. But the cable i posted has a ferrite impregnated sheath around it, and its proven that ferrite filters RFI from the mains, thats why computers power cords have ferrite rings on them. So its not just to block airbourne RFI. If amplifiers and electrical components have adequate filtering as you say, then why do computers and their monitors need these ferrite rings on their power cords?

And back to the speaker cables, Ps audio use screening on their speaker cables http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/xstream-speaker-cables1?cat=classics
as do many other cable manufacturers. This somewhat justifies their extra cost compared to 79 strand copper cable.

I know some cables are stupid money that i wouldn't consider paying but thats when i found Ps audio. The RRP for their top products is sometimes crazy money but when they replace them with a new model they are available for very reasonable money and outperform anything ive heard at any cost, especially the Premier sc power cords.

 

[Anonymous]

JoelSim:

If you put the 6mm copper speaker cable that I've mentioned umpteen times now, against the QED Silver Anniversary XT then I would suggest that 100% of people would be able to tell which was playing 100% of the time. The reality of the testing procedure you would have to go through would make this test very hard to perform.

From what I have read speaker cable that is flat with many independently insulated wires per conductor is best, followed by multi strand cable and last comes two thick wires. With these wires adding up to be equivalent to at least AWG18 to AWG12 depending on speaker impedance and cable length, just to be safe. The benefits being a more linear frequency response, which effects high frequencies volume most. But how much effect they have is dependent on cable length and amplifier and speaker characteristics. With the effect being described as subtle at best.

A 6mm copper wire is 10AWG gauge (lower gauge = larger diameter) so should be more than adequate for speaker cable. QED Silver Anniversary XT neglects to detail its resistance, induction or capacitance, but is 5 x 16 x 0.1mm = 8mm silver. 8mm vs 6mm so lower resistance and silver is lower resistance than copper. Low resistance is the most important aspect of speaker cable. Lower resistance allows more of the amplifiers power to be energize the speakers voice coil, the effect depending on speaker impedance which varies with the frequency of sound it is trying to produce. The effect of the cables structure also could like many independently insulated wires vs multi strand have a measurable effect. Odd induction or capacitance characteristics could also possibly effect sound quality.

If both cables are the same length, and are new, not suffering from lots of oxidation especially at the connectors, and the speakers are level matched for the test I would not expect to hear any difference. But since the electrical properties of QED Silver Anniversary XT are pretty much an unknown you never know.

 

[Bodfish]

 

[PJPro]

PJPro:knightout, I'd like to congratulate you on your posts in this thread. For me, they represent a reasoned, rational and thoughtful approach to the debate. Great reading.
And I can't help but admire your tenacity

 

[Anonymous]

MattSPL:

An unscreened 79 strand copper wire for example is leaving itself open to airbourne RFI. So a screened cable will sound better that it, even if only for having reduced RFI due to the screening.

Yes i did post a link to a power cord, mainly just to show complex cable construction. But the cable i posted has a ferrite impregnated sheath around it, and its proven that ferrite filters RFI from the mains, thats why computers power cords have ferrite rings on them. So its not just to block airbourne RFI. If amplifiers and electrical components have adequate filtering as you say, then why do computers and their monitors need these ferrite rings on their power cords?

And back to the speaker cables, Ps audio use screening on their speaker cables http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/xstream-speaker-cables1?cat=classics
as do many other cable manufacturers. This somewhat justifies their extra cost compared to 79 strand copper cable.

I know some cables are stupid money that i wouldn't consider paying but thats when i found Ps audio. The RRP for their top products is sometimes crazy money but when they replace them with a new model they are available for very reasonable money and outperform anything ive heard at any cost, especially the Premier sc power cords.

Yes I agree that ferrite filters RFI and so has a measurable and possibly worthwhile effect. But ferrite coils and beads cost <£3 to add to a power cord and a RFI shielded power cords which I would expect uses ferrite <£10 . So I do not think it justifies much of the increased price of esoteric cables.

 

[MattSPL]

knightout:MattSPL:

An unscreened 79 strand copper wire for example is leaving itself open to airbourne RFI. So a screened cable will sound better that it, even if only for having reduced RFI due to the screening.

Yes i did post a link to a power cord, mainly just to show complex cable construction. But the cable i posted has a ferrite impregnated sheath around it, and its proven that ferrite filters RFI from the mains, thats why computers power cords have ferrite rings on them. So its not just to block airbourne RFI. If amplifiers and electrical components have adequate filtering as you say, then why do computers and their monitors need these ferrite rings on their power cords?

And back to the speaker cables, Ps audio use screening on their speaker cables http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/description/xstream-speaker-cables1?cat=classics
as do many other cable manufacturers. This somewhat justifies their extra cost compared to 79 strand copper cable.

I know some cables are stupid money that i wouldn't consider paying but thats when i found Ps audio. The RRP for their top products is sometimes crazy money but when they replace them with a new model they are available for very reasonable money and outperform anything ive heard at any cost, especially the Premier sc power cords.

Yes I agree that ferrite filters RFI and so has a measurable and possibly worthwhile effect. But ferrite coils and beads cost <£3 to add to a power cord and a RFI shielded power cords which I would expect uses ferrite <£10 . So I do not think it justifies much of the increased price of esoteric cables.

I realise that some cables are very expensive and its hard to justify the price, especially if you dont hear or believe they make a difference, but the power cord i linked is a little more than a standard cable with a ferrite ring on it.

Cables in general are expensive to make, not just because of their copper/silver content but because of their construction. You have to take in to account the R&D costs and the machine to construct the cable. Then when you have cable using the single crystal copper, there is only 1 machine in the world that can produce this.

 

[Anonymous]

MattSPL:

I realise that some cables are very expensive and its hard to justify the price, especially if you dont hear or believe they make a difference, but the power cord i linked is a little more than a standard cable with a ferrite ring on it.

Cables in general are expensive to make, not just because of their copper/silver content but because of their construction. You have to take in to account the R&D costs and the machine to construct the cable. Then when you have cable using the single crystal copper, there is only 1 machine in the world that can produce this.

I have nothing against cables of superior design and performance. I just do not take in faith the unsubstantiated claims of some manufactures.

I like R&D that can prove improved performance, with data from sensor readings or demonstrate improvements in double blind tests, rather than purely relying on me to hear or believe in the difference. Sadly I do not trust the impartiality of my sense of hearing and I leave belief without evidence for religion.

It is improved performance that is the focus of the marketing. Design alone can not justify the price. The design has to provide tangible benefits. If it does not it is jewelry.

You have two products one a cheap simple design the other a expensive complex design. If the expensive complex design can prove improved performance it maybe worthwhile for those willing to pay the extra. If it can not prove improved performance the only thing that makes it a superior design is the higher price it can command.

 

[JoelSim]

knightout:JoelSim:
If you put the 6mm copper speaker cable that I've mentioned umpteen times now, against the QED Silver Anniversary XT then I would suggest that 100% of people would be able to tell which was playing 100% of the time. The reality of the testing procedure you would have to go through would make this test very hard to perform.

From what I have read speaker cable that is flat with many independently insulated wires per conductor is best, followed by multi strand cable and last comes two thick wires. With these wires adding up to be equivalent to at least AWG18 to AWG12 depending on speaker impedance and cable length, just to be safe. The benefits being a more linear frequency response, which effects high frequencies volume most. But how much effect they have is dependent on cable length and amplifier and speaker characteristics. With the effect being described as subtle at best.

A 6mm copper wire is 10AWG gauge (lower gauge = larger diameter) so should be more than adequate for speaker cable. QED Silver Anniversary XT neglects to detail its resistance, induction or capacitance, but is 5 x 16 x 0.1mm = 8mm silver. 8mm vs 6mm so lower resistance and silver is lower resistance than copper. Low resistance is the most important aspect of speaker cable. Lower resistance allows more of the amplifiers power to be energize the speakers voice coil, the effect depending on speaker impedance which varies with the frequency of sound it is trying to produce. The effect of the cables structure also could like many independently insulated wires vs multi strand have a measurable effect. Odd induction or capacitance characteristics could also possibly effect sound quality.

If both cables are the same length, and are new, not suffering from lots of oxidation especially at the connectors, and the speakers are level matched for the test I would not expect to hear any difference. But since the electrical properties of QED Silver Anniversary XT are pretty much an unknown you never know.

Er the 6mm copper was 6mm thick, the QED very thin, about 2mm I would imagine. And how different they made the same system sound.

 

[Anonymous]

So what IS your argument?
That all wires are now the same, even if they sound different? That means they're not the same.
Which is the whole point of the discussion. The original poster asserted all wires sounded the same - regardless of cost. But then thought that a cd player would be 'obviously better because it cost way more'.
You defended him on the basis that a CD player has moving parts
So you're saying more expensive means 'better' when there's moving parts, but not when there isn't.
Have you ever bought a watch?

 

[John Duncan]

Dom Tych:Have you ever bought a watch?

Oh don't get Joel started on watches...

 

[Anonymous]

JohnDuncan:Dom Tych:Have you ever bought a watch? Oh don't get Joel started on watches... Bought my wife a reverso for her birthday, lots of moving parts, faaaantastic