Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

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.

Hshapiro wrote: 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.

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? 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? 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.

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.

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.

So... you are wrong. Cables can make a significant difference in a cheap system.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Hshapiro wrote: 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.

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.

Hshapiro wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Some would argue that they are both components and therefore the argument is moot.

Unsound - VERY TRUE!!

Bwhite, at issue has been whether or not a good cable can make an otherwise flawed system sound good. I think it’s 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 don’t 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 doesn’t mean it’s 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 Adcom’s limitations and decided to upgrade it through Stan Warren mods and with new internal wire. It wasn’t only the internal wire that improved the Adcom. Stan Warren’s 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 Nordost’s demo successful. Nordost’s staged a controlled demo with a self-fulfilling successful result. I don’t disagree that the results were successful, and I have never said wire or cable were not important. I’m 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.

It’s not illogical that I haven’t told you what makes a cable lesser than another. This has not been the point of our discussion. It’s 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?

I’m sure there are any number of cables that don’t pass a musical signal as well as others. Do we even need to discuss this? Otherwise, we wouldn’t 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.

I’ll back off from my taking offense at your use of quotes. I could have misread your intent. That can happen when reading someone’s 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.