Interconnect from CD player to amp which best on budget ?

[Thompsonuxb]

I don't know what's their problem.

The problem is that you don't seem to understand many of the simple statements people make. You commonly use the expression "that makes no sense" so people then use analogy and comparison to try to get their point across but that seems to confuse the f**k out of you even more. Do you know why Matt started talking about clinical trials of Prozac and why I posted the optical illusion thing? It's not about derailing the thread at all.

Honestly, I don't know what to say to you.....

 

[matt49]

Honestly, I don't know what to say to you.....

That adds one more to the list of people whose posts you're unable to reply to. *sad*

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Honestly, I don't know what to say to you.....

That adds one more to the list of people whose posts you're unable to reply to.  *sad*

......wow.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Yes it is the pacific

Excellent choice, I have a pair, and sound no worse or better than the twice the price chord crimsons I also own. Best part is they have a good fit onto the terminals, whereas the Chords are somewhat loose, which is of concern.

Now that's interesting.

Your set is worth considerably more than mine (I think your amp alone covers the full cost of my whole rack including speakers).

And you hear no difference?

The Pacific retailed at £30 @ 1.5m back in the day, the Crimson which I also own was£35 @ 0.5m.

(Not a fan of the Crimson myself - bought them on a whim)

I can only say the OP now has two points of reference, regards how good the Pacific is.

Twist or stick....

 

[SteveR750]

Yes it is the pacific

Excellent choice, I have a pair, and sound no worse or better than the twice the price chord crimsons I also own. Best part is they have a good fit onto the terminals, whereas the Chords are somewhat loose, which is of concern.

Now that's interesting.

Your set is worth considerably more than mine (I think your amp alone covers the full cost of my whole rack including speakers).

And you hear no difference?

The Pacific retailed at £30 @ 1.5m back in the day, the Crimson which I also own was£35 @ 0.5m.

(Not a fan of the Crimson myself - bought them on a whim)

I can only say the OP now has two points of reference, regards how good the Pacific is.

Twist or stick....

There are no analogue cables before the power amp in my system. The observations were made with my Roksan amp and cambridge audio DAC. If I decided to connect an analogue device to the Hegel, I'd still use the CA phono leads.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Yes it is the pacific

Excellent choice, I have a pair, and sound no worse or better than the twice the price chord crimsons I also own. Best part is they have a good fit onto the terminals, whereas the Chords are somewhat loose, which is of concern.

Now that's interesting.

Your set is worth considerably more than mine (I think your amp alone covers the full cost of my whole rack including speakers).

And you hear no difference?

The Pacific retailed at £30 @ 1.5m back in the day, the Crimson which I also own was£35 @ 0.5m.

(Not a fan of the Crimson myself - bought them on a whim)

I can only say the OP now has two points of reference, regards how good the Pacific is.

Twist or stick....

There are no analogue cables before the power amp in my system. The observations were made with my Roksan amp and cambridge audio DAC. If I decided to connect an analogue device to the Hegel, I'd still use the CA phono leads.

I use a CDplayer connected by interconnects/coax.

I actually use the digital coax in on the amp from the player and use single legs of my cables.

I also use the analog inputs every now and then when I'm in the mood to tinker.

My findings are from the results gained by using the various cables.

On my amp the coax in sounds the best to my ears. The difference between digital and analog is subtle......but it makes a difference I actually appreciate - just like the interconnects.

If you have an analog source a CD player for example - in the name of research/science/the forum - plug it in and have a listen see if you can hear a difference between your interconnects.

Your amp and speakers.... I can't believe you won't hear differences.

Your amp has a DAC?

Do try both analog and coax

Let us know your findings, if you have a spare moment that is.

 

[SteveR750]

I use a CDplayer connected by interconnects/coax.

I actually use the digital coax in on the amp from the player and use single legs of my cables.

I also use the analog inputs every now and then when I'm in the mood to tinker.

My findings are from the results gained by using the various cables.

On my amp the coax in sounds the best to my ears. The difference between digital and analog is subtle......but it makes a difference I actually appreciate - just like the interconnects.

If you have an analog source a CD player for example - in the name of research/science/the forum - plug it in and have a listen see if you can hear a difference between your interconnects.

Your amp and speakers.... I can't believe you won't hear differences.

Your amp has a DAC?

Do try both analog and coax

Let us know your findings, if you have a spare moment that is.

Main source is my PC, so no chance of that being connected via analogue. The DAC is built into the amp, so no analogue connections there. I have a blu ray player connected digitally using a toslink cable into the Hegel, thus bypassing the DAC in the former. Needless to say, it's sonically superior to the analogue connection route.

I've tried it many times in the past, and no, i couldn't honestly tell much difference, if there was it's so small as to not warrant faffing about with, and was probably my imagination anyway. I've never been a cable believer primarily because i can't hear any significant difference, and as a metallurgist it's difficult to see what you can do with them structurally that could have a sufficiently significant impact on it's electrical properties; and once people started making directional cables and talked about burning them in, it all got very silly, but we've been there before. By the way, I have experimented with jumper cables vs the brass jumpers that come fitted by the speaker manufacturers, and guess what, no benefit whatsoever that I can hear.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I use a CDplayer connected by interconnects/coax.

I actually use the digital coax in on the amp from the player and use single legs of my cables.

I also use the analog inputs every now and then when I'm in the mood to tinker.

My findings are from the results gained by using the various cables.

On my amp the coax in sounds the best to my ears. The difference between digital and analog is subtle......but it makes a difference I actually appreciate - just like the interconnects.

If you have an analog source a CD player for example - in the name of research/science/the forum - plug it in and have a listen see if you can hear a difference between your interconnects.

Your amp and speakers.... I can't believe you won't hear differences.

Your amp has a DAC?

Do try both analog and coax

Let us know your findings, if you have a spare moment that is.

Main source is my PC, so no chance of that being connected via analogue. The DAC is built into the amp, so no analogue connections there. I have a blu ray player connected digitally using a toslink cable into the Hegel, thus bypassing the DAC in the former. Needless to say, it's sonically superior to the analogue connection route.?

I've tried it many times in the past, and no, i couldn't honestly tell much difference, if there was it's so small as to not warrant faffing about with, and was probably my imagination anyway. I've never been a cable believer primarily because i can't hear any significant difference, and as a metallurgist it's difficult to see what you can do with them structurally that could have a sufficiently significant impact on it's electrical properties; and once people started making directional cables and talked about burning them in, it all got very silly, but we've been there before. By the way, I have experimented with jumper cables vs the brass jumpers that come fitted by the speaker manufacturers, and guess what, no benefit whatsoever that I can hear.

I've read the 160 has a good DAC.

But fair enough

I always bi-wire using A & B speaker outs - I won't open that can of worms though.

While I accept it's a faff, I'd still appreciate it if you compared your cables via the b-Ray digital coax out just for argument sake - your amps too good for you not to.

For the record optical on my amp was rubbish for stereo - good for movies though.

Go on, just use a single leg of your interconnects it's ok if we disagree.... :-D

 

[Laurens_B]

I use a CDplayer connected by interconnects/coax.

I actually use the digital coax in on the amp from the player and use single legs of my cables.

I also use the analog inputs every now and then when I'm in the mood to tinker.

My findings are from the results gained by using the various cables.

On my amp the coax in sounds the best to my ears. The difference between digital and analog is subtle......but it makes a difference I actually appreciate - just like the interconnects.

If you have an analog source a CD player for example - in the name of research/science/the forum - plug it in and have a listen see if you can hear a difference between your interconnects.

Your amp and speakers.... I can't believe you won't hear differences.

Your amp has a DAC?

Do try both analog and coax

Let us know your findings, if you have a spare moment that is.

Main source is my PC, so no chance of that being connected via analogue. The DAC is built into the amp, so no analogue connections there. I have a blu ray player connected digitally using a toslink cable into the Hegel, thus bypassing the DAC in the former. Needless to say, it's sonically superior to the analogue connection route.

I've tried it many times in the past, and no, i couldn't honestly tell much difference, if there was it's so small as to not warrant faffing about with, and was probably my imagination anyway. I've never been a cable believer primarily because i can't hear any significant difference, and as a metallurgist it's difficult to see what you can do with them structurally that could have a sufficiently significant impact on it's electrical properties; and once people started making directional cables and talked about burning them in, it all got very silly, but we've been there before. By the way, I have experimented with jumper cables vs the brass jumpers that come fitted by the speaker manufacturers, and guess what, no benefit whatsoever that I can hear.

I've read the 160 has a good DAC.

But fair enough

I always bi-wire using A & B speaker outs - I won't open that can of worms though.

While I accept it's a faff, I'd still appreciate it if you compared your cables via the b-Ray digital coax out just for argument sake - your amps too good for you not to.

For the record optical on my amp was rubbish for stereo - good for movies though.

Go on, just use a single leg of your interconnects it's ok if we disagree.... :-D

Interesting... movie audio is much more demanding than stereo.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I use a CDplayer connected by interconnects/coax.

I actually use the digital coax in on the amp from the player and use single legs of my cables.

I also use the analog inputs every now and then when I'm in the mood to tinker.

My findings are from the results gained by using the various cables.

On my amp the coax in sounds the best to my ears. The difference between digital and analog is subtle......but it makes a difference I actually appreciate - just like the interconnects.

If you have an analog source a CD player for example - in the name of research/science/the forum - plug it in and have a listen see if you can hear a difference between your interconnects.

Your amp and speakers.... I can't believe you won't hear differences.

Your amp has a DAC?

Do try both analog and coax

Let us know your findings, if you have a spare moment that is.

Main source is my PC, so no chance of that being connected via analogue. The DAC is built into the amp, so no analogue connections there. I have a blu ray player connected digitally using a toslink cable into the Hegel, thus bypassing the DAC in the former. Needless to say, it's sonically superior to the analogue connection route.?

I've tried it many times in the past, and no, i couldn't honestly tell much difference, if there was it's so small as to not warrant faffing about with, and was probably my imagination anyway. I've never been a cable believer primarily because i can't hear any significant difference, and as a metallurgist it's difficult to see what you can do with them structurally that could have a sufficiently significant impact on it's electrical properties; and once people started making directional cables and talked about burning them in, it all got very silly, but we've been there before. By the way, I have experimented with jumper cables vs the brass jumpers that come fitted by the speaker manufacturers, and guess what, no benefit whatsoever that I can hear.

I've read the 160 has a good DAC.

But fair enough

I always bi-wire using A & B speaker outs - I won't open that can of worms though.

While I accept it's a faff, I'd still appreciate it if you compared your cables via the b-Ray digital coax out just for argument sake - your amps too good for you not to.

For the record optical on my amp was rubbish for stereo - good for movies though.

Go on, just use a single leg of your interconnects it's ok if we disagree.... :-D

Interesting... movie audio is much more demanding than stereo.

I know.

I used the optical cable from my Xbox and was surprised by the playback.

Felt no need to purchase a 'better' optical cable though.

 

[SteveR750]

I use a CDplayer connected by interconnects/coax.

I actually use the digital coax in on the amp from the player and use single legs of my cables.

I also use the analog inputs every now and then when I'm in the mood to tinker.

My findings are from the results gained by using the various cables.

On my amp the coax in sounds the best to my ears. The difference between digital and analog is subtle......but it makes a difference I actually appreciate - just like the interconnects.

If you have an analog source a CD player for example - in the name of research/science/the forum - plug it in and have a listen see if you can hear a difference between your interconnects.

Your amp and speakers.... I can't believe you won't hear differences.

Your amp has a DAC?

Do try both analog and coax

Let us know your findings, if you have a spare moment that is.

Main source is my PC, so no chance of that being connected via analogue. The DAC is built into the amp, so no analogue connections there. I have a blu ray player connected digitally using a toslink cable into the Hegel, thus bypassing the DAC in the former. Needless to say, it's sonically superior to the analogue connection route.

I've tried it many times in the past, and no, i couldn't honestly tell much difference, if there was it's so small as to not warrant faffing about with, and was probably my imagination anyway. I've never been a cable believer primarily because i can't hear any significant difference, and as a metallurgist it's difficult to see what you can do with them structurally that could have a sufficiently significant impact on it's electrical properties; and once people started making directional cables and talked about burning them in, it all got very silly, but we've been there before. By the way, I have experimented with jumper cables vs the brass jumpers that come fitted by the speaker manufacturers, and guess what, no benefit whatsoever that I can hear.

I've read the 160 has a good DAC.

But fair enough

I always bi-wire using A & B speaker outs - I won't open that can of worms though.

While I accept it's a faff, I'd still appreciate it if you compared your cables via the b-Ray digital coax out just for argument sake - your amps too good for you not to.

For the record optical on my amp was rubbish for stereo - good for movies though.

Go on, just use a single leg of your interconnects it's ok if we disagree.... :-D

Interesting... movie audio is much more demanding than stereo.

I know.

I used the optical cable from my Xbox and was surprised by the playback.

Felt no need to purchase a 'better' optical cable though.

Why not? Have you tried others? If you have, and conclude there is no difference / there is difference, but if you just "feel" there is no need, then you're rather dismissing your other "observations" with equal incoherence.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

?

I use a CDplayer connected by interconnects/coax.

I actually use the digital coax in on the amp from the player and use single legs of my cables.

I also use the analog inputs every now and then when I'm in the mood to tinker.

My findings are from the results gained by using the various cables.

On my amp the coax in sounds the best to my ears. The difference between digital and analog is subtle......but it makes a difference I actually appreciate - just like the interconnects.

If you have an analog source a CD player for example - in the name of research/science/the forum - plug it in and have a listen see if you can hear a difference between your interconnects.

Your amp and speakers.... I can't believe you won't hear differences.

Your amp has a DAC?

Do try both analog and coax

Let us know your findings, if you have a spare moment that is.

Main source is my PC, so no chance of that being connected via analogue. The DAC is built into the amp, so no analogue connections there. I have a blu ray player connected digitally using a toslink cable into the Hegel, thus bypassing the DAC in the former. Needless to say, it's sonically superior to the analogue connection route.?

I've tried it many times in the past, and no, i couldn't honestly tell much difference, if there was it's so small as to not warrant faffing about with, and was probably my imagination anyway. I've never been a cable believer primarily because i can't hear any significant difference, and as a metallurgist it's difficult to see what you can do with them structurally that could have a sufficiently significant impact on it's electrical properties; and once people started making directional cables and talked about burning them in, it all got very silly, but we've been there before. By the way, I have experimented with jumper cables vs the brass jumpers that come fitted by the speaker manufacturers, and guess what, no benefit whatsoever that I can hear.

I've read the 160 has a good DAC.

But fair enough

I always bi-wire using A & B speaker outs - I won't open that can of worms though.

While I accept it's a faff, I'd still appreciate it if you compared your cables via the b-Ray digital coax out just for argument sake - your amps too good for you not to.

For the record optical on my amp was rubbish for stereo - good for movies though.

Go on, just use a single leg of your interconnects it's ok if we disagree.... :-D

Interesting... movie audio is much more demanding than stereo.

I know.

I used the optical cable from my Xbox and was surprised by the playback.

Felt no need to purchase a 'better' optical cable though.

Why not? Have you tried others? If you have, and conclude there is no difference / there is difference, but if you just "feel" there is no need, then you're rather dismissing your other "observations" with equal incoherence.

Lol......

It's a fair cop copper.

I don't use soft sources and the results I get with coax are really good.

Just not curious enough to bother with optical.

 

[lindsayt]

Lol.....

I must be winning.

Look, it's no big deal - I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Like I said have a listen for yourself in your own system within your budget. If you hear no difference - it's ok, honestly it is.

If you hear an improvement that's also good.

Like I said you don't have to break the bank or sell a kidney.

.

There is so much wisdom in this post, that I think it should be the first, last and only thing to be said on any debate as to whether cables make a significant difference or not.

The same ethos could be applied to these "which is better" debates:

Vinyl or CD

Active or Passive speakers

Sealed box or ported speakers

Solid state vs valve amplifiers

Class A vs class A/B vs class D vs class A/D amplifiers

Acitve or passive pre-amplifiers / volume controls

2 way vs 3 way vs 1 way vs 4 way vs 5 way speakers

High res or CD digital formats

belt drive vs idler vs direct drive turntables

Conventional cones and domes vs panel speakers vs compression drivers and horns vs hybrids

Go listen for yourselves and make up your own minds.

 

[andyjm]

Lol.....

I must be winning.

Look, it's no big deal - I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Like I said have a listen for yourself in your own system within your budget. If you hear no difference - it's ok, honestly it is.

If you hear an improvement that's also good.

Like I said you don't have to break the bank or sell a kidney.

.

There is so much wisdom in this post, that I think it should be the first, last and only thing to be said on any debate as to whether cables make a significant difference or not.

The same ethos could be applied to these "which is better" debates:

Vinyl or CD

Active or Passive speakers

Sealed box or ported speakers

Solid state vs valve amplifiers

Class A vs class A/B vs class D vs class A/D amplifiers

Acitve or passive pre-amplifiers / volume controls

2 way vs 3 way vs 1 way vs 4 way vs 5 way speakers

High res or CD digital formats

belt drive vs idler vs direct drive turntables

Conventional cones and domes vs panel speakers vs compression drivers and horns vs hybrids

Go listen for yourselves and make up your own minds.

Well, in the strange world that is subjective HiFi, then I am sure the above makes perfect sense. If it sounds different to me, it is therefore different - even if it doesn't sound different to anyone else.

If however you design this stuff for a living, and need it to sound good for all potential buyers, then a good place to start is to measure the performance of the component in question.

 

[SteveR750]

Lol.....

I must be winning.

Look, it's no big deal - I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Like I said have a listen for yourself in your own system within your budget. If you hear no difference - it's ok, honestly it is.

If you hear an improvement that's also good.

Like I said you don't have to break the bank or sell a kidney.

.

There is so much wisdom in this post, that I think it should be the first, last and only thing to be said on any debate as to whether cables make a significant difference or not.

The same ethos could be applied to these "which is better" debates:

Vinyl or CD

Active or Passive speakers

Sealed box or ported speakers

Solid state vs valve amplifiers

Class A vs class A/B vs class D vs class A/D amplifiers

Acitve or passive pre-amplifiers / volume controls

2 way vs 3 way vs 1 way vs 4 way vs 5 way speakers

High res or CD digital formats

belt drive vs idler vs direct drive turntables

Conventional cones and domes vs panel speakers vs compression drivers and horns vs hybrids

Go listen for yourselves and make up your own minds.

Hardly a new argument though. Flat earthers have been around for some time now. Nothing wrong with it in the context of hi-fi, but so long as any advice profered is identified as purely subjective so that anyone seeking advice (ref Cno's thread on important criteria) from the forum can assimilate it appropriately.

That said, surely a record producer decides subjectively how he or she would like to present the artists to you. Most pop/rock bands that have been recording for 10 years or more have quite marked differences in their signature sound, especially if they use different producers for different albums. On that basis, arguably the whole thing is a sham from the start, and perhaps all we should concern ourselves about is minimising distortion. Maybe tonal palette is irrelevant, as so much manipulation goes on during the recording process to make the "truth" irrelevant. Maybe we can just DSP / Anti-mode / EQ our way to aural nirvana after all!

 

[Gazzip]

FWIW I think that there is a fundamental miscommunication going on here between the believer and the non-believer. The non-believer constantly refers back to the basics principles of electrical conductivity as evidence that different correctly sized and terminated low oxygen copper cable cannot have an effect of sound quality. The believer references their personal experience with different cables as evidence that audible differences do exist. But are these viewpoints/arguments actually related?

The Trev C’s of this world are of course completely right. Any correctly sized and terminated low oxygen copper cable will sound the same as the next. It is a matter of scientific fact. However, what if it is the very fact that exotic aftersales cables are not “correctly” sized/terminated/materialed that is causing these detectably audible differences? Such an affect would of course be a degradation. A reduction in signal quality from that provided by a correctly sized and terminated low oxygen copper cable, but does that really matter?

I currently run an Audio Research front end to my system. It is not hifi and it is not accurate. It is mid 20th Century technology that was surpassed by its Solid State brethren many years ago. It does however sound wonderful and (to my ears) better than any SS electronics I have heard which on paper has technologically usurped it. Why is this? I believe it is because sometimes perfection can be improved upon.

I have previously owned Bryston and Chord Electronics front ends and they, especially the latter, are Hifi. They are accurate. They are also (to my ears) difficult to listen to. Sometimes too much to engage with and other times completely unengaging. Hi fidelity and accuracy do not necessarily translate in to musicality.

So here’s my point: Perhaps exotic after sales cables are actually designed to degrade the sound a little. To take some of the harshness out of the “HiFi” signal. Is there anything wrong with that? I don’t think there is.

If you crave absolutely accuracy and the highest fidelity in your music then go for the correctly sized and terminated low oxygen copper cable because Trev C et al are completely correct about that. If however you prefer a little jam in porridge then why not dabble in the dark arts and take the proverbial edges off…..

 

[chartsandmodels]

Along with being a land of varied cultures and religions, India is a land of varied dance forms as well. Nearly every state in India boasts of its own separate folk dance. From classical to modern dance forms, India has got everything. Charts and Models has tried to depicts the dance forms of India in its true colors.

http://chartsandmodels.com/

 

[chartsandmodels]

Charts and Models provide various charts on miscellaneous topics. You may choose from a varied range of options as per your requirements and rule your class!

http://chartsandmodels.com/

 

[lindsayt]

Gazzip, if your Audio Research kit sounds better to your ears, there's a reasonable chance it would measure better than the solid state kit you've compared it against in some respects, if the right measurements were made.

Personally I rate my ears over any measuring equipment or measurements ever made. If other people rate measurements higher than my ears then it's not my problem and it's none of my business. Other people can say and think whatever they want.

And I would very gently urge everyone reading this to trust their own ears over anything and everything that anyone else says.

 

[CnoEvil]

Personally I rate my ears over any measuring equipment or measurements ever made. If other people rate measurements higher than my ears then it's not my problem and it's none of my business. Other people can say and think whatever they want.

And I would very gently urge everyone reading this to trust their own ears over anything and everything that anyone else says.

IMO. It comes down to the primary purpose of Hifi, which is first and foremost, the reproduction of music (presumably for enjoyment). The appreciation/enjoyment of music, is as subjective as the appreciation/enjoyment of Art, or anything that involves taste. By all means, be aware of the measurements, but always make the final selection through listening....so I agree.

 

[SteveR750]

Personally I rate my ears over any measuring equipment or measurements ever made. If other people rate measurements higher than my ears then it's not my problem and it's none of my business. Other people can say and think whatever they want.

And I would very gently urge everyone reading this to trust their own ears over anything and everything that anyone else says.

IMO. It comes down to the primary purpose of Hifi, which is first and foremost, the reproduction of music (presumably for enjoyment). The appreciation/enjoyment of music, is as subjective as the appreciation/enjoyment of Art, or anything that involves taste. By all means, be aware of the measurements, but always make the final selection through listening....so I agree.

+1. It's only a hobby, and a highly subjective one at that. That is something to embrace, not belittle.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Steve1979 wrote It's only a hobby, and a highly subjective one at that. That is something to embrace, not belittle.

I agree about not being rude but the forums will also be boring without the trev's on here.

 

[Cockroach]

I agree about not being rude but the forums will also be boring without the trev's on here.

I disagree. I'm an occasional poster, but a longtime follower of the forum. It is nowhere near as interesting, enjoyable and fun as it used to be. I think that's down to two things: 1) the "new" style and unusability of the forum has driven many longtime interesting people away, and 2) TrevC, who I suspect has done the same. Maybe a bit harsh, but it's all IMO.

 

[drummerman]

Hifi has to be pretty

 

[steve_1979]

Steve1979 wrote It's only a hobby, and a highly subjective one at that. That is something to embrace, not belittle.

I agree about not being rude but the forums will also be boring without the trev's on here.

Haha! I stolen your praise SteveR750 and you're not having it back.