Looking for general advice re interconnects

[eclecticmonkey]

Hi all! I'm not looking for specific advice or recommendations here as this is a very subjective area. What I wanted to do was put out what I'm thinking and am interested in viewpoints, and ultimately I'll have to decide.

I have heard several different sets of kit over the last few weeks as I'm building up a system from scratch, I won't give specifics but my question is: having heard kit with interconnect a, if I buy said kit, I'm contemplating buying a higher grade internconnect from the same manufacturer, my thinking being that if I liked the sound of the system with the moderately priced one, upgrading it can't be a bad thing as theoretically it should give an improvement? The one I've heard was good and whilst cost is only one factor, working on the priciple of spending roughly 10% on cabling, the one I heard cost much less than that so there's room for manouevre.

Any thoughts/contributions welcome, as I said, it's the general principle I'm looking at rather than which specific bit of kit. I don't want to get too hung up on it,at the end of the day I just want to listen to music through as good a system as I can, but whilst I'm setting up from scratch, I figure I may as well do it right rather than wondering if something is a potential weak link in the chain.

 

[BenLaw]

Why is there a principle of spending 10% on cabling?

 

[eclecticmonkey]

I'm sure I read that somewhere once. And again, I guess it's subjective.

 

[BenLaw]

It logically relies on another 'principle' that more expensive necessarily equals better. Will a £100 interconnect definitely be better than a £50 one? If you think the answer might be no, then some reliance on independent thought may be in order, rather than trusting a 'principle' you read somewhere.

Fwiw I would guess my cabling cost about 1% of the rest of the gear.

 

[CnoEvil]

You will be told that I/Cs can't make a difference; and you will be told they definitely can.....so my advice is to get in touch with a dealer / cable company who will let you experiment for yourself.

Be aware of expectation bias when testing, and take it into account.

If you then don't believe in the benefit, get well made copper cables which are very cheap. If you do hear the benefit, don't spend more than would bring a bigger gain, by spending it elsewhere in the system (maybe that's where the 10% suggestion comes from).

Brands I rate are Telurium Q, Vertere, Linn and Atlas.

 

[BigH]

Yes Ive seen 10% mentioned before, I think its a rough guide and I tend to agree if you start spending over 10% you are probably not spending your money wisely, for instance you probably be better spending the money on the speakers than interconnects, many people can't hear the difference anyway.

Do not buy any unless you can return them for a full refund, try them out for a while and then switch back to your originals and see if you can hear the difference and then decide if they are worth the difference in price.

 

[davedotco]

You will be told that I/Cs can't make a difference; and you will be told they definitely can.....so my advice is to get in touch with a dealer / cable company who will let you experiment for yourself.

Be aware of expectation bias when testing, and take it into account.

If you then don't believe in the benefit, get well made copper cables which are very cheap. If you do hear the benefit, don't spend more than would bring a bigger gain, by spending it elsewhere in the system (maybe that's where the 10% suggestion comes from).

Brands I rate are Telurium Q, Vertere, Linn and Atlas.

Errr, you can't, that's the point. (unless properly trained apparently)

While cable differences may well exist they are small and in most cases are level related, some cables are deliberately 'voiced' to sound clear, often by a slight lift in the presence region.

Very small increases in level, either across the band or over specific frequencies will not be perceived as a change in volume but as an improvement in clarity, thus making that cable sound 'better'.

Ask the dealer to set up your chosen system with the cables he thinks are most suited, then after listening ask him to try a second set at about 50 - 60% of the cost of the first set. Do the cheaper set second and see what you think.

The suggestion that cables should make up 10% of the system cost clearly came from a cable company.....

 

[BigH]

The suggestion that cables should make up 10% of the system cost clearly came from a cable company.....

I think it is upto 10%, not 10%.

 

[CnoEvil]

Errr, you can't, that's the point. (unless properly trained apparently)

I don't see why not.....by doing some form of blind test, or getting the help of someone who has no interest in the whole thing, to be part of testing it.

I have heard more expensive products sound worse than cheaper ones, so expectation bias seems to come and go a bit.

 

[BenLaw]

I have heard more expensive products sound worse than cheaper ones

So we can at least agree on the point I made, that this 10% thing is nonsense?

 

[CnoEvil]

I have heard more expensive products sound worse than cheaper ones

So we can at least agree on the point I made, that this 10% thing is nonsense?

Not necessarily...... because not all "more expensive products" sound worse than cheaper ones (imo).

 

[davedotco]

I have heard more expensive products sound worse than cheaper ones

So we can at least agree on the point I made, that this 10% thing is nonsense?

As have we all Cno......

My position throughout this debate is simply that our hearing cannot always be trusted and perhaps more importantly, when we do hear real differences, the cause of these differences is often not what we think it is.

Ben, I think you are having one of those 'no sh*t sherlock' moments........ :roll:

 

[BenLaw]

I have heard more expensive products sound worse than cheaper ones

So we can at least agree on the point I made, that this 10% thing is nonsense?

As have we all Cno......

My position throughout this debate is simply that our hearing cannot always be trusted and perhaps more importantly, when we do hear real differences, the cause of these differences is often not what we think it is.

Ben, I think you are having one of those 'no sh*t sherlock' moments........ :roll:

More pointing out the remarkable stubbornness of some to refuse to acknowledge that which seems blindingly obvious to others. And hopefully showing the OP, who seems new to this, that not all that one reads about hifi (in fact remarkably little!) is true.

 

[davedotco]

I have heard more expensive products sound worse than cheaper ones

So we can at least agree on the point I made, that this 10% thing is nonsense?

As have we all Cno......

My position throughout this debate is simply that our hearing cannot always be trusted and perhaps more importantly, when we do hear real differences, the cause of these differences is often not what we think it is.

Ben, I think you are having one of those 'no sh*t sherlock' moments........ :roll:

More pointing out the remarkable stubbornness of some to refuse to acknowledge that which seems blindingly obvious to others. And hopefully showing the OP, who seems new to this, that not all that one reads about hifi (in fact remarkably little!) is true.

I have always considered hifi mags to be largely works of fiction, looks like you might agree.

As a published reviewer ( in several mainstream mags) I can confirm this from personal experience...... :shifty:

 

[CnoEvil]

My position throughout this debate is simply that our hearing cannot always be trusted and perhaps more importantly, when we do hear real differences, the cause of these differences is often not what we think it is.

I agree......but that doesn't mean that it can never be trusted.

I'm very much of the "live and let live" camp......if people want to listen to my advice / experience, great; if they don't, that's also fine. From experience, ingrained attitudes are unlikely to change, so there's little point in getting worked up over it.

 

[plastic penguin]

The suggestion that cables should make up 10% of the system cost clearly came from a cable company.....

I think it is upto 10%, not 10%.

There does seem to be a common figure. Check out 'Chapter 4' http://www.whathifi.com/video/get-the-best-from-your-hi-fi

 

[davedotco]

My position throughout this debate is simply that our hearing cannot always be trusted and perhaps more importantly, when we do hear real differences, the cause of these differences is often not what we think it is.

I agree......but that doesn't mean that it can never be trusted.

I'm very much of the "live and let live" camp......if people want to listen to my advice / experience, great; if they don't, that's also fine. From experience, ingrained attitudes are unlikely to change, so there's little point in getting worked up over it.

Quite so.

See this hifi game is pretty simple after all. I am a strong believer in the moto 'If it sounds good it is good'.

I just don't pretend that it has much to do with high fidelity......

 

[matt49]

Be aware of expectation bias when testing, and take it into account.

Errr, you can't, that's the point. (unless properly trained apparently)

I think we've been here before. Time for cards on table, again: as a time-serving university professor, I've worked for 25 years in this field, and I've read very extensively in the scientific literature on cognitive biases. There's no evidence to suggest that you can't overcome expectation bias by, as Cno rightly says, taking it into account and adjusting your responses accordingly.

The idea of being "properly trained" is a red herring. Someone brought this up on another thread, don't know why. It's not about training, it's about making the effort to think rationally for yourself, which we're all capable of.

There's another egregious error in this idea that expectation bias can't be overcome. Consider this:

1. we all suffer from expectation bias and can't do anything about it

2. expectation bias means that our judgements are unreliable

3. therefore the judgement "1. we all suffer from expectation bias and can't do anything about it" is unreliable

Go figure ...

 

[eclecticmonkey]

Thanks to all who've replied. On the strength of various recommendations here and a bit of digging around other posts, I've decided to try some pro-Audio Van Damme xlr interconnects which will only involve an outlay of around £25 or so initially. Then I'll go from there if they don't give me what I expect in terms of what I remember from my demo.

 

[BenLaw]

Good choice of cables (I use generic pro XLRs). One word of caution, if the system sounds different at home from the demo room it will almost ccertainly not be because of the cables. The different room acoustics, positioning etc will have a far greater influence. So don't be tempted to try and 'correct' any deficiency by spending big on cables. Instead, move the speakers, turn the speakers, move your seat and consider acoustic treatment.

 

[BigH]

The suggestion that cables should make up 10% of the system cost clearly came from a cable company.....

I think it is upto 10%, not 10%.

There does seem to be a common figure. Check out 'Chapter 4' http://www.whathifi.com/video/get-the-best-from-your-hi-fi

They would, no surprise there. Pity they don't do blind tests.

 

[bretty]

Be aware of expectation bias when testing, and take it into account.

Very good point, Cno. The ****** of it is, though, that you don't know that you're experiencing expectation bias until way after the event. I had it, with my speaker cable. When I first listened to it, I told myself it was so much better than the cable it replaced. Months later after swapping between the two, I realised they were exactly the same. I was at first gutted, then relieved because it's meant I dont spend silly money an cables anymore

 

[davedotco]

Be aware of expectation bias when testing, and take it into account.

Errr, you can't, that's the point. (unless properly trained apparently)

I think we've been here before. Time for cards on table, again: as a time-serving university professor, I've worked for 25 years in this field, and I've read very extensively in the scientific literature on cognitive biases. There's no evidence to suggest that you can't overcome expectation bias by, as Cno rightly says, taking it into account and adjusting your responses accordingly.

The idea of being "properly trained" is a red herring. Someone brought this up on another thread, don't know why. It's not about training, it's about making the effort to think rationally for yourself, which we're all capable of.

There's another egregious error in this idea that expectation bias can't be overcome. Consider this:

1. we all suffer from expectation bias and can't do anything about it

2. expectation bias means that our judgements are unreliable

3. therefore the judgement "1. we all suffer from expectation bias and can't do anything about it" is unreliable

Go figure ...

"With all due respect, I don't think you'll find any psychologists (I mean academic researchers in psychology who study precisely this area) who'd agree with this. It's certainly true that in many situations most people will experience some form of bias in their judgements. It's equally true that most (psychological) biases can be overcome with training. There's a lot of idle talk about how our brains are 'hard-wired' to respond in certain ways. In fact, almost all of this supposed 'hard wiring' is susceptible to e.g. the influence of experience. Those who've advocated the 'hard wiring' form of argument, e.g. people like Paul Ekman, Silvan Tomkins, Paul Griffiths, generally agree that there are only a very small number of 'hard-wired' systems in the human brain that are impervious to training. These are the emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust."

Errr..... That would have been you. (sorry, I dislike this kind of argument, it gets miles away from the point))

I keep trying to bring this back to hifi and what happens in the real world.

There is no evidence that experienced listeners fare any better in blind tests than novices, journalists are proven, time and time again, that they cannot hear in blind tests what they regularly 'hear' in sighted test, yet this does not stop them writing about them.

I fail to see much in the way of 'influence of experience' there.

 

[matt49]

Errr..... That would have been you. (sorry, I dislike this kind of argument, it gets miles away from the point))

Quite right. My apologies.

There is no evidence that experienced listeners fare any better in blind tests than novices, journalists are proven, time and time again, that they cannot hear in blind tests what they regularly 'hear' in sighted test, yet this does not stop them writing about them.

I fail to see much in the way of 'influence of experience' there.

I didn't mean 'experience in listening', I meant 'experience in countering expectation bias'. The point at issue is whether, if one makes the effort, one can improve one's ability to make objective judgements. I suspect what happens in all these blind tests of hifi is that the participants treat it as a bit of a laugh and not seriously related to their day-job. And they do it once or twice and then never again. I'm on your side inasmuch as I think that hifi journalism would be much healthier if blind testing were the norm, and if hifi journalists made the effort (and it does require effort) to learn how to do it.

My problem with this evidence is that AFAIK none of it was produced under robust experimental conditions, whereas the really robust evidence suggests that expectation bias can be counteracted.

 

[davedotco]

Errr..... That would have been you. (sorry, I dislike this kind of argument, it gets miles away from the point))

Quite right. My apologies.

There is no evidence that experienced listeners fare any better in blind tests than novices, journalists are proven, time and time again, that they cannot hear in blind tests what they regularly 'hear' in sighted test, yet this does not stop them writing about them.

I fail to see much in the way of 'influence of experience' there.

I didn't mean 'experience in listening', I meant 'experience in countering expectation bias'. The point at issue is whether, if one makes the effort, one can improve one's ability to make objective judgements. I suspect what happens in all these blind tests of hifi is that the participants treat it as a bit of a laugh and not seriously related to their day-job. And they do it once or twice and then never again. I'm on your side inasmuch as I think that hifi journalism would be much healthier if blind testing were the norm, and if hifi journalists made the effort (and it does require effort) to learn how to do it.

My problem with this evidence is that AFAIK none of it was produced under robust experimental conditions, whereas the really robust evidence suggests that expectation bias can be counteracted.

Sorry matt, but what does that have to do with anything? I'm not interested in an academic discussion, neither am i interested in a 'you said - I said' argument.

There are a fair number of blind tests that have been carried out under 'robust experimental conditions' and subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, and serious debate, see here for example: http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

But even this is far beyond the reach or the need of ordinary enthusiasts, almost any kind of blind testing, so long as care is taken to match listening levels, will teach the listeners a lot about what they are hearing. It can be quite chastening to to discover that you cannot tell one cable (or amplifier, or DAC) from another despite 'knowing' that the differences are 'night and day'.

Some people resolutely refuse to take part, knowing they will be shown up, others refuse out of shear ignorance ('I know what I am hearing') but to me this is the crux of the thread, reality and opinion do not make easy bedfellows.