Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Hshapiro wrote: 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.

And he continued: "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."

I guess my point was that if a "good" cable reveals flaws in your system, how do you really know it is a good cable? What if it doesn't reveal flaws? Does that mean its bad? It seems MORE logical to rely on how the cable makes your system sound vs. some perceived notion that the cable is "good" based on measurements or price or if it reveals problems. Like I said, its about system synergy. Certain cables - yes, even $300 ones can make an ordinary system sound great and can in some cases benefit a much higher valued system as well. The results all depend upon the sonics of the components being used as well as the room in which the system resides.

Hshapiro wrote: 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.

Yes they can. My definition of "good" as it pertains to cables is simply what sounds best in any given system. What is your definition of good? How do you know your Virtual Dynamics Nite and Audition cables are good? Do you measure them? Do they show weaknesses in the rest of your system or do they just sound good?

Come on man, tell me... how do you define a good cable? And.. how do you know its good? Will that good cable sound good in everyone elses system?

** Something to think about - Virtual Dynamics cables made my system sound lousy, so they must be good... right?

Hshapiro wrote: 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 have NEVER heard a good CD player (and I've owned several very good CD players) which made a bad recording sound worse than when played on bad CD player.

Hshapiro wrote: 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.

You are right, its not that simple. Sound itself is simply a set of vibrations containing frequency. And tone is how we perceive the frequencies. Take an old receiver and crank up the bass knob. We perceive greater dynamics - amplitude - weight... turn up the treble and wow, everything is more open, detailed. How exciting! In order to add more detail to music it takes a change of pitch, timbre, yes... tone. How else do you think the vibrations of sound can be mutated or etched to create sound we perceive as more detailed?

Hshapiro wrote: 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.

Do you honestly assume that I didn't know the meaning of clarity is virtually the same as transparency? Duh! Come on man! Get off your high horse and try to figure out why I chose to quote the definition of transparency vs. clarity.

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!!