Bwhite - I agree with some of your points. However, I take issue with a few of your observations.
Bwhite wrote:
"I used a $300 cable vs. a $300 component as a comparison and it seems you agree that a $300 component wouldn't revolutionize a system like a cable might. How about a $1500 cable vs. a $1500 component?"
Not to split hairs, but just because a $300 component would be incapable of "revolutionizing" a system does not imply that a $300 cable might do so. My point is that no matter how good the cable, they will only be as good as the weakest link in the rest of your system. The goal of good cables should be that they impart nothing but the signal fed them. Having said that, I agree that a $300 cable inserted into an already excellent system would probably yield much better results than a $300 component added to that system. Whether spending $1500 on a cable vs. $1500 on an electronic component would yield better results would depend on the quality of the rest of the system. However, I wouldn't spend more than 20%-25% of the cost of my entire system on cables.
You quoted me out of context when you said that I said, if a cable is good, it reveals problems. Your conclusion that I meant that "problems" is the definition of a good cable is illogical. My statement followed the sentence; "If, for instance, your electronic components which cost ten times that of your cables are flawed in some obvious way, no $300 cable will come to their rescue." Taken in context, and not as a non sequitor, you should be able to see that your interpretation of my statement was wrong. The meaning is that, given that someone has a flawed system, a good cable will reveal these flaws. You stated that, "Good cables tend to be good no matter where they are." I'm left to assume that you mean a good cable can make a bad system sound good. On this point I disagree. Given that you have a good cable, it's not that the cable becomes bad in a bad system; it's just that the good cable reveals the system's flaws, which can make entire system sound worse than with a less revealing cable. The same thing occurs when a better CD player with higher resolution makes a poorly recorded CD sound worse than it did with an ordinary CD player. I don't subscribe to the practice of choosing a cable as a "tone control" to ameliorate my system's shortcomings. If anything, I would like to know what the rest of my system really sounds like in order to improve it. This doesn't imply that I change my electronic components to suit my cables. I use a good cable as a clear window to view the reproduction of a musical performance by the rest of my system. Considering the complexity of the electronics in front of a cable and the number of ways that it can contribute to distorting a musical signal before it enters a cable, you can hardly blame a good cable, which has to do only one thing well; pass the signal, intact. That being said, I do believe that choosing the right cable for a good system is important.
Bwhite said:
"Everything you experienced in the changes to the Adcom can be associated with tone and are perceived because of the change in tone or accentuation of various frequencies which were otherwise subdued. Greater Extension, Dynamics, weight, clarity, speed, decrease in noise, etc. This is tone at work."
It seems that you believe you can reduce the many attributes of sound to a common denominator called tone. I don't agree with your assessment. Granted, quite a few of the attributes I used in my example are related to tone. However, the speed of a signal, a reduction of distortion components, and dynamics are not simply "tone at work!" An increase in the level of a sound is not a change in tone, but a change in amplitude. Tonal change is a change in the pitch and timbre of audible frequencies. You can't describe all the sounds you hear as tone any more than you can describe all the things you see as tonal colors. It's not that simple.
Bwhite said:
"Weight: The feeling of solidity and foundation contributed to music by extended, natural bass reproduction.
Clarity? How about Transparency?
Transparency: A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.
Highs.... Open up the sound create that illusion of clarity."
Since you have quoted or created definitions of some of the attributes of sound, you should know that the words transparency and clarity are synonymous.
I use Virtual Dynamics Nite and Audition cables exclusively, and they are the best cables to have ever graced my system. I have never heard a more convincing illusion of the musical performance from my system since using these cables. |
We seem to be arguing semantics in many areas. In other areas, we are in complete disagreement. One has to make the assumption that their basic system is already good, in order to assess whether a cable sounds good. I would not be persuaded that a cable was good or bad if a reviewer used it in an otherwise poor audio system. You need to establish that the other components in your system, their setup, and the room the system is in, are of appropriate quality. Otherwise, any discussion over whether your system is making the cables sound bad or vice versa is a chicken and egg argument. As I previously stated, I agree with you that synergy and certainly the room and setup are essential to obtaining good sound, but I stand by my belief that you can't make a fundamentally bad system sound good with a good cable. You may find a lesser cable that works better with a lesser system, but it is illogical to state that this cable is superior, in and of itself. I will just agree to disagree.
I have heard many poor recordings sound worse on better CD players, as the flaws in the recording were exposed to a greater extent. I can't change the fact that you haven't heard this or don't agree with the logic. I will agree to disagree.
In my previous post, I indirectly defined what I believe a good cable is. I paraphrase; "you can hardly blame a good cable, which has to do only one thing well; pass the signal, intact."
I didn't tell you that I use Virtual Dynamics cables to hold them up as the standard bearer for all systems. I was just sharing some information. As we agree that synergy is important, I can understand how the Virtual Dynamic cables might not work well in a given system. There is no absolute best audio component for everyone. You can't deny, however, that many of our AudiogoN members have successfully used these cables. In fact, this is where they first came to my attention.
I disagree with your assertion that simply cranking up the bass knob of an old receiver results in greater dynamics, and that cranking up the treble knob results in a more open and detailed presentation. It would result in an increase in bass level and an increase in the overall brightness of the system. However, I have heard more than a few systems which had superior dynamics and detail without their levels being turned up. They just had a higher degree of resolution and a greater ability to pass the recorded signal fundamentally unchanged. This is why I have heard many listeners state that they no longer felt the urge to turn up their systems as loud as they once did, after they had upgraded their systems. An increase in level or tone, while perhaps giving a more exciting sound, is no substitute for accuracy. Again I suggest we agree to disagree.
Quite frankly, I'm not interested in figuring out why you chose to quote the definition of clarity and transparency as if they were different concepts. After all, it was you who posed the questions, "Clarity? How about Transparency?" as if trying to illicit an answer from me on each term.
Something for you to think about Bwhite; when you quote definitions of ordinary audio terms, as you have done, it leads people to think that you are the one who is on his high horse. |
Bwhite, at issue has been whether or not a good cable can make an otherwise flawed system sound good. I think its fair to state that each is an important component in the entire audio chain.
Bwhite wrote:
So... then please explain how inserting a good cable into a system reveals the problems of the system as you have stated repeatedly. Its the chicken and the egg isn't it?
As I have previously stated, one has to make the assumption that you are working with a decent system to begin with when assessing the quality of a cable. You need to establish a benchmark in your own mind as to whether a system without the new cable is neutral enough to use it in judging whether the new cable is good or not. It is only when you dont do this that you are stuck with the chicken and egg argument. That has been my point.
Bwhite wrote:
and if it is... then why on Earth would you make the original statement that putting a good cable in a system reveals the problems?
It was you who said, and I quote, Biggest bang for the buck? Argh! Tough question but - I would have to say the right cables can make a sad system sing and a great system sound utterly magnificent.
It was this statement about a good cable making a bad system sound good that I took issue with. For the third time, here is what I actually said in response to your position above, If, for instance, your electronic components which cost ten times that of your cables are flawed in some obvious way, no $300 cable will come to their rescue. In fact, a good cable, regardless of price, will only reveal other problems upstream. In this context and this context only, is why on earth I made my original statement. OK?
Bwhite wrote:
And.. if it's the chicken and the egg that is more logic leaning toward the point that I've been making all along... The whole point of audio is synergy within the system. Cables either increase or reduce the level of synergy between components. What is a good and what is bad is relative to the system in which it is being used.
Excuse me, but the point we have been arguing about all along has not been about synergy. That came up in later posts. We have agreed on the issue of synergy. The point you raised that I opposed was that a sad system would sing with the right cables. The chicken and egg argument I used in my argument was used in the following context. You need to establish that the other components in your system, their setup, and the room the system is in, are of appropriate quality. Otherwise, any discussion over whether your system is making the cables sound bad or vice versa is a chicken and egg argument. All that I have been saying is that your overall system has to be of sufficient quality for you to be able to judge any other component, cables included. That is, if your electronics are inferior, no cable can make them sound superior. A cable without neutrality can work well synergistically with a system lacking neutrality. That doesnt mean its a superior cable on its own merits, and is not my philosophy in building the best quality audio system I can afford. It may, however, be a stopgap on the way to building a more neutral system later.
Bwhite said:
Hmmm... perhaps you should experience the Nordost demo where they bring out a cheap boom-box, remove the standard thin red/black speaker wire boom-boxes come with & replace with Nordost's low end cables. The sound of the boom box improves dramatically. Then... the Nordost folks repeat the process with every grade of cable up to Valhalla.
With each step, the sound improves tremendously until you are blown away by what Valhalla does for the sound produced by the crappy boom-box.
Regarding your boom-box demo story with Nordost cabling, if the wire was the weak link within the component, then by definition the wire would made the boom-box better. It was me who said that strategically replacing wire in my Adcom amplifier yielded a major improvement. But this was an improvement within the electronic component. It was only because I used what I considered to be a neutral interconnect and speaker cable prior to working on the amp that I realized the Adcoms limitations and decided to upgrade it through Stan Warren mods and with new internal wire. It wasnt only the internal wire that improved the Adcom. Stan Warrens redesign of the circuit board was a much greater improvement than the upgrade of internal wire. Likewise, I would guess that the boom-box would have benefited from higher quality electronics and construction to a greater extent that the wire replacement.
Bwhite said:
So... you are wrong. Cables can make a significant difference in a cheap system.
No, I am not wrong. You are substituting in your argument an example where internal wire within the electronics was a known major flaw. Your previous argument was always about cables, which we should agree is not a word used to describe internal hook-up wire. Obviously, where one of the major flaws within the electronic component is the wire, then by definition the wire needs replacement. That is what made Nordosts demo successful. Nordosts staged a controlled demo with a self-fulfilling successful result. I dont disagree that the results were successful, and I have never said wire or cable were not important. Im one of its biggest proponents. However, what we have been talking about is whether good external cable can improve a bad system. I have not taken exception to any other point regarding the value of cable or wire.
Bwhite said;
To emphasize my point, below is a quote from Audioengr's Empirical Audio website - its really, really appropriate for this thread too!!
To get the biggest bang for your buck, the best thing to do is try them. You may discover that your $5K system sounds like a $30K system with $2K worth of high-end cables installed. The live sound that we get on our Empirical Audio reference system rivals and even beats systems costing 10X more and it is primarily attributable to our cables!
Given that we now know what Audioengr's reference system is, we must assume the cables he makes are magic.
Your example may be appropriate to this thread, but is irrelevant to our disagreement. In the above example, we must assume that the system without the cable is not flawed in any significant way. I have never said that a good system cannot be improved by good cable! I have only stated that a bad system cannot be improved by good cable. Using good cable on a bad system is like putting a band aid on a gaping wound, when stitches are what are required.
Bwhite said;
What's really illogical is you've yet to tell me what makes a cable lesser than another. Which of cables is lesser? Purist Audio Dominus, Nordost Valhalla, Siltech G5, Audio Note Kondo, TMC Yellow Label, or throw in any others you like...And.. if you can identify the lesser of the bunch, tell me why its that way.
Its not illogical that I havent told you what makes a cable lesser than another. This has not been the point of our discussion. Its not relevant to our argument how we define a superior cable. If I say that a superior cable cannot improve a fundamentally flawed system (my point), no one needs to know my definition of superior cable to understand the meaning of the statement.
Bwhite said:
Ahh... you did tell me what makes a good cable:
good cable, which has to do only one thing well; pass the signal, intact."
Wow... if you've used cables which lose signal then you ARE using bad cables!! Can you share with us a cable which fails to pass a signal intact?
Im sure there are any number of cables that dont pass a musical signal as well as others. Do we even need to discuss this? Otherwise, we wouldnt even be talking about cables and you wouldn't be touting certain brands. However, this is again irrelevant to what we have been disagreeing about. In context, however, my statement above related to my point that given the complexity of producing electronics, a good cable has less to do than an electronic component.
Bwhite said:
Oh.. no.. believe me, I understand the logic. Its just that typical bad recordings are harsh sounding and so are most bad CD players. When a bad recording is played on a bad CD player, the problem with the harshness is compounded. While there may be bad CD players which have trouble with detail retrieval and a softness to the sound, I have yet to hear one that was bad in that way.
I agree with you on these points. All I was saying, however, was that whenever I have heard a poor recording on a higher quality CD player, the flaws in the recording were more pronounced than with the lesser player.
Bwhite said:
Ah I see where you're coming from. Typically I use the Stereophile glossary as a reference for audiophile terms. Transparency is the proper term to describe clarity.
My mistake. I thought you were asking me to respond to each word, as if they were different concepts.
Bwhite said:
What's wrong with quoting audio terms? It keeps everyone on the same page and using the same language to describe what they hear. I do not write the terms my friend, instead I used them in this case to provide a basis for our discussions. You have repeatedly stated that the changes you heard in sound were not TONAL changes but the glossary definitions of the terms you use seem to indicate that perhaps they were. Then you shift your opinion and confirm that yes, some of the changes were in tone.
Ill back off from my taking offense at your use of quotes. I could have misread your intent. That can happen when reading someones writing and not sitting across from them.
However, I have not repeatedly stated that the changes I heard in my Adcom upgrades were not tonal changes. I originally said, Yes, one of the changes was in the tone, but it was the least obvious improvement in this tweak. I later said in the next post, Granted, quite a few of the attributes I used in my example are related to tone. In my opinion, certain attributes relate to tone, certain do not. This is not a shift in my opinion. Based on what you have written, it seems that you believe that all attributes of audio relate to tone. This was my basis for disagreement on that point.
I hope that you now realize I have only taken issue with two of your opinions; that good cable will always improve a bad system, and that tone accounts for all attributes of sound. For the most part, we have been on the same page. |
Bwhite, I think you are missing Audioengr's point about the various modules within a component not being tone controls. Correct me if I'm wrong Audioengr, but just because a module may add a small amount of noise or sound different from a similar module in another brand of component, it doesn't mean that the modules are acting as tone controls. Afterall, there is more measurable and unmeasurable differences in sound than just tonal balance. As we all know, the final "sonic signature" consists of many other audible elements, such as dynamic contrasts and shadings and a lack of distortion, to name but a few.
Also, Audioengr didn't say that the Linn CD12 sounds good because it uses short wires. He said that when wires are as short as the Linn's, their quality is practically irrelevant. This seems logical and I basically agree. I have found in my own experience, however, that improving even small lengths of wire in a component can sometimes yield significant results, such as when I replaced the cheap input and output wire in my old Adcom GFA-555 power amplifier with some custom 22g pure silver wire in a teflon jacket some years back. I suppose it depends on whether you use the better wire in places where it can affect the component's sound.
One of the problems we all have is that until we find the most "neutral" cable we can afford, we cannot hear whether the rest of our system has any additional weak links. Of course this is a "chicken and egg" problem, but is nevertheless true. |
Bwhite, whatever component, including cables, that gets out of the way of the original musical performance through reduced distortion of the signal can offer the "biggest bang for the buck." If, for instance, your electronic components which cost ten times that of your cables are flawed in some obvious way, no $300 cable will come to their rescue. In fact, a good cable, regardless of price, will only reveal other problems upstream. Obviously, a $300 component would be incapable of "revolutionizing" a system. I would agree, however, that if your electronics are fundamentally sound, a properly designed $300 cable can make a remarkable improvement, given that your previous cables were not properly designed.
I happen to believe that all modules, including gain can effect sound, even if only in a less obvious way. For instance, the choice of a pot for controlling levels can effect the sound.
The best bang for the buck in one part of my system cost almost nothing. I own a Linn Sondek LP12 turntable, with ITTOK arm and an older Kiseki Blue cartridge. Years ago, I tapped on the arm until I found the point of greatest resonance, and wrapped a short lightweight piece of clear rubberized tape around that point. The improvement was remarkable for the cost of about 2 cents.
While I no longer have the Adcom GFA-555 amp, a few years ago, a friend of mine who hand-makes cable, suggested that I try to replace a few of the wires within the amp with some of his wire. This Adcom, I should add, was already modified and markedly improved by Stan Warren of PS Audio fame. After a short burn-in period, the improvements from inserting the new wire were immediate and confirmed by other audiophile friends who were not told of the change. Yes, one of the changes was in the tone, but it was the least obvious improvement in this tweak. The frequency extremes gained greater extension. Whenever the original signal is allowed to pass unhindered, some increase in a particular frequency will shift the overall tonal balance. The greatest improvements were that the sound became quicker, with greater dynamics and weight. Clarity improved as well, and there was a decrease in audible noise. All of this came from changing a few inches of wire in critical areas of the amplifier. I should also add that the original Adcom wire was of the standard copper stranded variety, not as short as possible, and was hanging over the main circuit board. This probably contributed to the noise I spoke of. We used solid core silver wire in the shortest possible lengths and situated them out of the path of the circuits. |
Bwhite said:
Hshapiro - for a guy with Spectral gear and who has been "required" to use MIT cables for a long time... until you risked using VD.... You sure seem convinced that you know a lot about cables.
Having only two cables in your system, how did you get so much knowledge and become such an expert? We haven't been discussing the pros and cons of specific cables. I have had three cables in my Spectral system, including custom-made, solid-core pure silver multi-conductor braided cable that a friend of mine produces in Chicago. I have never professed to be an expert on specific cable brands, nor is it necessary to make my point. I have, however, used other cables in other systems I've owned over the past twenty-five or so years. Besides MIT 750 Plus, MIT 330 Plus and VD cables, I have used Kimber 8TC, Linn, Wasatch CableWorks, Audioquest Diamond, and even Monster Cable and Mogami Cable in older systems I've had. I haven't taken a warranty risk by not using the so called required MIT cables with Spectral, as my two Spectral DMA-80 amplifiers are out of warranty. According to my dealer, the so-called problem can only occur with Spectral power amplifiers and is related to an inductor that MIT places in the cables, while Spectral leaves it out of their power amplifiers. My new Spectral DMC-20 preamplifier is not at risk. Incidentally, Rick Schultz of Virtual Dynamics told me this would happen; my Spectral amplifiers now run much cooler with VD cables than they did with MIT. This, I am told is the result of a reduction in mechanical resonance in the cables. As the amps run cooler, I am more comfortable with the safety of the amps now than I was with the MIT cables. Incidentally, I'd be interested in knowing what characteristics of the VD cables you didn't like in your system. Bwhite said;
First - regarding the NORDOST demo. You misread what I wrote. They are not removing internal wire from within the Boom-Box. They ARE removing and replacing the speaker wires only. Re-read it. You are right. I stand corrected. Bwhite said:
The combined general concensus on Audiogon and one that I agree with (and fight diligently to defend) is that there is no single cable that will work best in every system.
Which means that the best cable for any given system is dependent upon what the system is. This is about synergy, which I have said many times I agree with. Bwhite said:
In my collection of "systems" I have what I call a pretty cheap and crappy system . It might retail for $500 total... But maybe less.. This system uses Audioquest Lapis cables (which retailed for about $800 - I think). In my honest oppinion, the Audioquest cables help the system tremendously - in fact, the improvement is huge.
This experience seems to contradict what YOU repeatedly state that, "good cables cannot help a bad system". So each time you state that, you are telling me that I cannot hear, I cannot determine for myself what sounds better and I resent that. Although you have not quoted me exactly, I will withdraw my prior statement that a good cable can't make a bad system sound good. I suppose it can make it euphonically sound better. What I should have said is that a good cable can't make a bad system more accurate. Please don't ask me to define accurate. Had I put it that way, you may not have resented my statement. However, there is a difference between saying you have a good cable that is synergistic in combination with a mediocre system, and saying that you have a cable that has high enough resolution, which if the rest of your system is flawed, can reveal those flaws. The latter point is what I have been saying, and that alone. In my experience, if you have a good cable and inferior electronics, the result is that the resolution of the cable can magnify some of the other problems. Let's just say that your experience differs from mine and leave it at that. The following is based on your second post: Bwhite said:
First off, you either mis-quoted me or mis-interpreted what I said. You can either go to the post I made on: 08-26-02 or read what I wrote below:
Biggest bang for the buck? Argh! Tough question but - I would have to say the right cables can make a sad system sing and a great system sound utterly magnificent.
You seem to think I said something different: No. I copied and pasted it from one of your later posts. Remember, I didn't enter into this discussion until 9/9. Whew, this thread has been going for quite a while! However, I don't feel that the slight difference in words is meaningful to our discussion. Bwhite said:
Okay... Well I didn't say that a "GOOD" cable will make a bad system do anything. I said THE RIGHT CABLE can make a sad system sing. Key word = RIGHT! Ok, I see your point when you use the word, RIGHT. When you establish that your cable is right, you are saying that it's synergistic with the "sad" system. Bwhite said:
When you say that a good cable reveals problems upstream it's idiotic - and the kind of thing you hear folks say who don't know what the hell they are talking about. Just when I was starting to like you, you have to say something like that. :) In your previous post you're complimenting me for being a great contributor to this site. In your next post you're lumping me together with folks who don't know what the hell they are talking about. Wasn't it you who said in your previous post: I have read many of your posts and believe you are a great contributor to this site and seem like an awful nice guy. Therefore it troubles me to be in such a heated and at times - confusing, discussion with you. Why so uncivil? All that I have been saying all along is that a good cable can reveal problems that exist upstream. You may laugh at this as being mid-fi thinking, but that kind of attitude only impresses the audio elitists! I wasn't saying that a good cable will reveal problems that DON'T exist upstream. In a good system, there should be no real problems upstream, so our discussion is moot in that instance. Bwhite:
This is why I kept quizzing you on which of the cables I named, were good. Not having tried the cables and LISTENED TO THEM YOURSELF, you would have nothing other than the opinions of others, price, and perhaps reviews to base your decision. What decision? It's not necessary for me to base my opinion (decision?) on whether good cables always improve bad systems on just YOUR cables? My arguments are valid despite not haven't listened to all of YOUR cables. I'm not commenting on YOUR cables. It's not personal. I believe in the philosophy of trying to find neutral components. Using a neutral cable can be like a clear window to the rest of the system, much like an excellent speaker, should be a clear window to everything before it. I am saying, if the system is flawed, this clear window can help reveal it. Please hold your laughter until after the discussion is over. We're never going to agree on this, but who cares! Bwhite said:
Here are three scenarios:
1) you buy and expensive cable, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link?
2) you buy a cable that received a great review, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link?
3) you buy a cable that everyone is talking about, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link?
How do you as the audiophile deduct that the cable is good and your system is bad? As these are actually all the same questions with a bit of peer pressure thrown in for good measure, I will give you the same answer. Yes, it means that the system has a weak link, IF you believe that the cable is neutral. It's always based on personal opinion as to whether any component is neutral, but through listening to a variety of components, we make decisions as to what does and what doesn't sound like a convincing illusion of the real musical event. At some point, it's an act of faith. As both of us have said before, there are no absolutes. Otherwise, we're locked into a meaningless chicken and egg argument. Bwhite said:
The asinine assumption that a cable will "show" you a weak link just makes me laugh. That is such a mid-fi way of viewing high-end. Laugh all you want, and thanks for exhibiting your elitist audiophile side again. Please define the "mid-fi way of viewing high-end?" Bwhite said:
As Rcrump put it to Sean - (two guys who I believe in by the way), "Sean, the quote is all wire is crap, but some are less crappy than others." The cables themselves are in many high-end systems - the most likely candidate as the weak link. Yes, when the system is high-end, then by definition it can be considered without flaws. I was only referring to flawed systems not being corrected by good cables. Bwhite said:
Perhaps this will help you - if you already own the VERY BEST SYSTEM in the world & there are no possible upgrades for ANY of your components. And you put what you consider the very best, most highly rated cable at any price in that system and it sounds bad.... what do you do?? Oh my lord!!!!
You buy another cable! Can't help the sarcasm, can you? Your example uses the very best system. I was discussing a cable revealing flaws in a flawed system. Bwhite said:
If you have an OKAY system or one like Audioengr's which sounds like systems costing 10x more!! And you put what you consider the very best, most highly rated cable at any price in that system and it sounds bad.... It becomes an issue with TRUST... I think you stepped up to the plate in one of your posts and talked about having a level of confidence in your system vs. the cable. This is good and I think its a fair way to judge performance. What your gut tells you is usually not far off. Needless to say, I don't trust Audioengr's system and therefore I would keep the cable and ditch the system. But that's a rare case! :) Now you're being nice? It's not important whether one trusts his system or his cables. Given someone feels the need to improve something in their system, at some point, they will need to make a decision on which component represents the weakest link. Bwhite
But when you stoop down to a lower level system - lets say something like a Philips CD player, an Outlaw Audio Home Theater Receiver, and Low End Speakers. Cables make a dramatic difference in sound. Yes, it can be very much like painting a $200 car with $2000 in paint - but no joke, the difference in sound is astonishing. In fact, I would have to say that the RIGHT cables in a cheap system will have more impact on a percentage scale than GOOD interconnects in a high(er) end system. Hard to believe? Well... I don't know for sure but experience tells me it is possible. I agree with you, that if you find the RIGHT (synergistic) cables, they can make a big difference in even a cheap system. It makes sense that the greater improvement would be the right cables in a cheap system, since there is so much to improve upon. I know first hand, since I first replaced my zip cord with Monster Cable over twenty-five years ago in my Luxman system. They worked quite well at the time. Improving a high-end system becomes a case of diminishing returns at a certain point. Bwhite said:
Keep in mind - cheap systems are harsh, bright, muddy, ugly sounding pieces of doo-doo. This is where the effects of cables can be quite profound. You are listening to the euphonic, but pleasing effect that the cable has on the entire system. I'm starting to see where you're coming from. Bwhite said:
REMEMBER - I never said GOOD CABLES WILL MAKE A CHEAP SYSTEM GOOD... I said SING. Maybe its Karaoke night kinda stuff, certainly not gospel - definately not REAL good.. but entertaining... often surprising... obviously better than doing nothing and more fun than listening to the cables they ship with the gear.
If you have a crappy system. Try it. Now that I have read your comments in greater scope, I believe I understand what you have been saying. I mistakenly thought your were saying that a good cable is all that it takes turn a bad system into a good system. I can relate to making the bad system euphonically pleasing with good cable. I think we have been arguing semantics. Bwhite said:
Did you re-read what I wrote about the Nordost demo? That's important because they change the speaker cables on a boom-box and the differences are amazing.
If you don't have a crappy system, do you have a VCR? Try switching the cables on your VCR with your Virtual Dynamics and see if you can hear a difference. Not sure if your TV speakers are capable but you might hear an improvement. You probably won't believe me, but a few months ago I gave my son, who has a Sony cheapo system, my custom-made silver speaker cables and found that it made a fairly good improvement. I was never arguing that point. I know that you disagree with me, but I was only saying that high-resolution cables can reveal other shortcomings in a system that low-rez cables can't. |
Bwhite- I don't have much time, as I'm off to see a client. I too am sorry if I sounded like I was from the typical objectivist, accuracy is everything crowd. I can get carried away with logic, sometimes. It does all come down to personal preferences, and as always, perception is reality. I too have read a number of your posts, and believe you to be a very nice guy, as well. It only proves that we have a passion for this hobby, which is a good thing. Bwhite said:
I have a couple pet-peeves or things which cause me to cringe when I read 'em. For example - when someone says, "shows you problems upstream" or "sounds like systems costing 10x more" - I freak out. Perhaps I should better contain my reaction. Same here. One of my pet peeves is when people use adjectives such as always or never to describe how they perceive things. I sometimes lose sight of the point of the discussion and start unconsciously arguing against those adjectives. Bwhite said:
Anyhow, I see your point in regard to whats *perceived* as a good cable showing flaws in an otherwise untrustworthy (or flawed) system - one which the owner may perceive as having a weak link after installing a cable they feel is "good" or "better" than the rest of the system.
I guess it all has to do with what your goal as an audiophile is. If you put a good or better cable in any given system and it "highlights a problem" it becomes an issue of how much you want to spend to resolve the problem-or how far you're willing to go. Thanks, and I didn't mean to sound as if a good cable cannot make an otherwise mediocre system sound better. Again, I got caught up in a logic argument. Bwhite said:
There is a lot of room between what's good for Krell and what's good for Jadis. The goal should be finding the cable that is RIGHT in either situation. Hence my suggestion to most people is NOT to upgrade components based on what cables do to a system, instead change cables based on what they do to the components - based on what you, the listener, feel is right.
And if down the road they upgrade components, change cables accordingly. Its simple. I do agree with that. I have always chosen my electronic components first, since they are responsible for the retrieval of music, which cannot be compensated for further down the chain. Bwhite said:
Just because a cable is as some may put it, "low rez" does not mean its bad. Likewise, if a cable is "high rez" it might not be that good. Depends on the usage.
Make sense? Yes. If a "low rez" cable helps make a "low rez" system sound better, then the result is positive. I have heard some "high rez" cables that did not interact synergistically with other "high rez" equipment, so it can go either way. It seems like we have come to a meeting of the minds and I feel a whole lot better. |
Bwhite said:
In order to explain I have to first say that I tried countless cables in my system before settling on Audio Note Kondo KSL-LP (which is the newer doubled version of the old Kondo AN-Vz between my source and my preamp), NBS Statement between my preamp and amp and Audio Note Kondo KSL for my speakers. I read a review from Hi-Fi Review Magazine, which said the following: "After using AN-Vx for more than 2 years, I decide to upgrade my system by borrowing a pair of AN-Vz balanced cable from the Elephant Holdings Ltd. (Each pair worth $19,000/m" Are you saying that you have the doubled version of this interconnect? What does this monster cost? For anywhere close to this price, it had better be one of the all-time best! :) Bwhite said:
With the VD cables in my system, the first thing I noticed was the added "sledge hammer" bass and a "gimmicky" sound quality. I had worked very hard to make my system as organic as I could with the cables I owned (and NOS tubes I selected) but for whatever reason the VD and the NBS didn't mesh well together. It brought on a harshness to the sound so I pulled out the NBS and inserted the Kondo and the sound was more livable but still not right. I felt that the harmonics were inaccurate in my system and the bass was overloaded. The highs were shimmery & like a school of fish I could never predict where they were going next. It was a bit more coherent in that setup but certainly not an improvement over where I was before VD. This past month, I bought a new VD Nite PC for my Electrocompaniet EMC-1 MKII and a pair of Nite IC's to connect my Spectral amps and preamp. All of my other cables are from the VD Audition cryo'd line. The latest Nite line of VD cables is a substantial improvement over anything they have previously produced. It is as if you are peering further into the soundstage and their transient response is the best I have heard in my system. Still, it took about 200 hours even after Rick cable-cooked them to have them settle into my system. I agree that they can sound somewhat bright and forward before they are fully broken in, but in my system they settled down and opened up after the break-in period. Bwhite said:
Even though my experience with the VD cables wasn't all that spectacular, I cannot say its a bad cable. In fact, they have qualities which would be pretty good in the right system. Not that price guarantees performance, but any cable might have a hard time competing with the doubled version of your Kondo AN-Vz cables. Bwhite said:
While I only spent 72 hours with the VD in my home and even less time listening to them, I heard the VD as a pretty dynamic cable which was more ready to kick ass than it was to give me a kiss on the cheek...but I must say, in a nice way of course, that problems I found in the cables were more in regard to my preferences & system than to the cables themselves. The first thing I noticed when plugging in the VD cables was the increase in dynamics over other cables I have tried. It was only after the long break-in period that dynamics were no longer the dominant characteristic, and their other qualities came into balance.
I sent the Signature power cord back to JC Audio and sold the interconnects three days later. But.. I kept the low end cable and ripped it open to find out what Rick does inside there to make them tick.
The low end VD cables are completely different in construction from the high end VD cables, lacking some of their proprietary materials and technology, which put them in a different league from the VD Nite cables. Bwhite said:
Another thing I didn't mention is that the VD power cords replaced a pair of more refined yet anything but transparent Shunyata King Cobra V1 power cord and an ElectraGlide FatMan K. The Shunyata ads a surreal quality to the digital front end and the Electraglide adds a vividness to the texture and a smooth seamless intensity to the dynamics. Whether or not the VD's were broken in, I do not know but they certainly lacked the refinement of these two cables. After a lengthy break-in, the VD cables become much more refined in my system, particularly with the Nite series. But that's in my system, and everyone's mileage may vary. |
Bwhite said:
On the lower end - lower rez cables will make harsh sounding systems sound better - easier on the ears - and high rez cables make muddy systems sound more transparent. I would say the high rez cables I have heard in lower end systems created an illusion of transparency. I think that it's because they have wider bandwidth, the highs and lows they create make them sound more see-through. Bwhite said:
On the highest end - when a synergy has been formed - lean toward the most neutral cable for the system. Its impossible to fine a 100% purely neutral cable and unlikely to hear a 100% purely neutral component. At this level, one really wants to listen to the music and not the cables or components. Given that the quality of sound reproduced by such components is typically superior but not absolutely perfect, it becomes a delicate balancing act to add the RIGHT cable into the mix which has the most neutral presentation possible without leaning the wrong direction. Speaking of adding the RIGHT cable into the mix in a high-end system, please tell us why you didn't like the VD cables in your system. Did you try their top of the line Nite cable? Finally, what components were you using while trying them? Bwhite:
Even at this level (20 or 22) its possible to be too sterile or too rich with the components. At this level, high-rez is just as bad as low-rez. That's what I thought you meant. For whatever reason, I was lucky the VD cables locked into my system without my going bust. |
