What Speaker Cables Taught Me About Audiophiles

Yes. We are all different in our priorities. I personally have gone through stages from when I became an audiophile. I think first I pursued slam... I wanted my chest to feel the impact of kick drums, then dynamics, then detail, then imaging, then both, then more natural sound, then midrange bloom, rhythm and pace, and finally all of them in perfect balance. Took me fifty years. 

@erik_squires wrote:

... we audiophiles need to be conscious that sometimes our preferences are unique to our culture and that the "normal" consumer may not share them at all. 

Must say I wasn't surprised by the outcome of your story, not that I knew where it was heading. Needless to say there are differences in preferences among "established" audiophiles as well, but do they necessarily reflect where we are on each of our respective journeys - i.e.: as an example, would a seasoned audiophile like @ghdprentice find similar preferences among other audiophiles with 50 years of experience, and would those preferences represent a tendency even among them? I'm guessing it's more of a rhetorical question of mine, also to say that those of your "inexperienced" blind test friends mayn't be representative in their preferences of the totality of those who are inexperienced in our audiophile adventures. 

If anything I believe that audiophiles may be prone to veer off at some point in a direction where he or she has cultivated a sound through their setup that doesn't as much emulate a live and/or natural sound, but rather one that has become "audiophile" and something onto itself. I like inviting more or less uninitiated people that are visiting to have a listen to my setup, just to get their spontaneous response and learn of their findings. They mostly don't use an accepted audiophile vocabulary, but I find that freeing in getting a different terminological angle with their descriptions. As it turns out they're sometimes more critical in actually comparing what they are hearing with the "real stuff," whereas audiophiles tend to accept what they hear within a framework of "audiophilia," having perhaps already abandoned any hope of listening to setups that sound like the real deal. 

Over the past few years I've had three sets of speaker cables in my system:

Acoustic Zen Hologram 2

Nordost White Lightning 

Belden 89259 diy

I rotated the Beldens into my system about a year ago and I've just never gone back. They don't resolve as well as the acoustic zens, they don't create that 3 Mile deep soundstage like the nordust, but they simply provide more presence, more than one if I go to cables were locking even though those cables are quite quite good. And the Beldens of course were exponentially cheaper than the other two.

My wife ran a blind audio test on me with a three sets of cables see if I had any bias for the ones I made myself, and with just about every recording I prefered the belden's.

Treble frequencies are most directional so how much will always affect imaging.

If you want to play with treble and its effects on imaging, DSP or similar EQ is a much more practical, cost effective and flexible way to do it rather than expensive wires that may happen to provide some kind of unique filter to the sound. 
 

Basic tone controls as well just not very flexible in most cases.  

I get good quality cost effective wires mostly off Amazon these days. Mogami is always a sound choice but not necessarily the most cost effective.

Erik,

Thank you for this. It's a fine example of...well, of one of the very many manifestations of subjective bias in our common obsession.

Yesterday, I spent a few hours with a friend's superlative system. He has written many reviews and other things for Stereophile, built his beautiful home around the electrical and acoustic needs of his music system, and so on. Of the several very well heeled members of our local audio club, I like his system best. 

My intent yesterday was to hear a piece I love and have listened to at least weekly for a couple of years now: Arvo Pärt's "Te Deum" on ECM—a composition I've also heard live. On my system, the church acoustic is tangible (it was recorded in the Lohan Kirkko, Finland), the voices discernible as individuals within the choir. Transcendent!

Well, he wanted me first to hear...wait for it...Black Sabbath! Then we listened to "Descending," my favorite track on Tool's "Fear Inoculum." Peaks (and that album is highly compressed) were over 100 db, I'm sure. I know that stuff on my system as well; with a SPM, I've dared to get the ambient sound up to just under 100 db.

The verdict? His huge Martin Logan Renaissance electrostats in his purpose-built listening room projected a much larger sonic image. And they played at a soul-shaking volume that would have blown out my drivers. But.... The sound was harsh, and somehow "electronic." My system is "warmer," and even with the heavy metal, more compelling (except for the sheer volume). As for the Arvo Pärt, my system better captures the mystical feel of that often delicate devotional piece.

Sorry; I know this has nothing to do with speaker cables. But it has everything to do with comparative reproduction. It is all subjective? Maybe. But if I can derive just one lesson from this critical comparison, it's that cost is not the main parameter of compelling audio reproduction.

But if I can derive just one lesson from this critical comparison, it's that cost is not the main parameter of compelling audio reproduction.

Agreed.

10 gauge Belden finished by Blue Jeans is all I need.

@snilf nice deeply thoughtful experiential post.

i especially loved the embedded music recommendation…the ECM

Glad you have a SPL widget…. i view ears like turbochargers… as a consumable 

Thanks for sharing your story.  I had a similar experience as I was upgrading my music only system.  I was trying out different speakers trying to find a sound I liked without sibilance.  I had a couple of friends over and was A/B testing 2 different speakers and they thought both sounded good and didn’t notice any sibilance, which I was clearly hearing with one pair.  I then shared with my wife who tolerates my hobby/obsession but doesn’t really care one way or the other.  I discovered she heard what I was hearing too.  I’ve since used her unbiased opinion to confirm my listening, although I don’t really need it since I’m the only one at home that cares.  It’s good to have a sounding board to confirm what I’m hearing and thinking.  It helped reassure me that I should trust my hears and choose that which makes me happy.  As Hans says, enjoy the music.  

You like what you like.

Sometimes you like cheaper cables. Sometimes not. It's all about system synergy and tailoring the sound to what YOU want, not what anyone else tells you that you should like.

I have been playing around with cables lately, and they do sound different from each other, IME and IMO. I have about 6 or 7 different variants here, about half are manufactured cable and the rest DIY. None sound particularly bad to me but I do enjoy several of them more than the others, for various reasons. There doesn’t seem to be a particular correlation to price, although my current favorite are the most expensive while my second favorite are the least expensive.

I am curious whether you have performed a similar listening test with your Connex BL-Ag interconnects, as I have used them before and was considering trying them again but went in a different direction for now.

If you think about it, other than a live performance of symphonic music in a good hall w/ good seats, when do you actually experience layers of depth in live music? I have been fortunate enough to attend Symphony Hall in Boston for BSO concerts ( going again soon)  & at Tanglewood too & have enjoyed  that quality but at very few other times. Rock / Pop concerts now all use line arrays which by design offer no imaging & good smaller jazz clubs can offer nice natural image width & height but little depth in my experience.

Dynamics, pace, start & stop speed ( along w/ decay), frequency extension w/ power,  midrange clarity all contribute to what makes a system sound like live music which for myself is what I’m after. Image depth is fun & interesting but not a huge priority for me. Nor do I hear it w/ most live music. 
 

That all said, I’m sure many will disagree with this which is one of the things that makes this all so interesting. 

@jonwolfpell - I am often reminded of the late, great director, Akira Kurosawa at times. While shooting on an active volcano he ordered extra smoke be brought in, much to the surpise of the effects team. He reasoned, accurately, that while the crew could actually feel the heat coming off the volcano while they stood there the movie audience would not, and they needed to make up for their inability to capture the heat with extra visuals. I think we do the same thing with our sound systems. We can’t see the orchestra so we look for more imaging with our ears.

Also, Kurosawa made a huge blunder. He should have pattented a thermal version of Sensorrround, and surrounded the movie audience with on demand furnaces.

I agree with all that is said here.  More expensive cables are better only if YOU like them better.  In my experience, they can clean up the higher end of the signal, but again, some will like it and others won't. 

Welcome back Erik, I have not seen you in the postings lately, and I always enjoy your thoughtful comments. What I take from your experience is that "different" is not the same as "better" which is the mistake I think many people make when they "upgrade" and are pleased that their new purchase made a big difference.

I have made my standard of comparison trueness to live performance and my experience has been that it need not be terribly expensive to equal or better live performances with home playback. Sometime ago @atmasphere introduced the term "Veblin good" (A Veblen good is a type of luxury good, named after American economist Thorstein Veblen, for which the demand increases as the price increases, in apparent contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-sloping demand curve) in another thread. I am very grateful to him because that term describes what I think goes on with many audiophiles who automatically equate different and more expensive with better.

Q What Speaker Cables Taught Me About Audiophiles?

A Futility in many forum cables posts , with some cable threads that can regrettably descend into cable post flaming wars .

There are two intransigent and diametrically opposed “cables matter” versus “cables don’t matter” cohorts …..with both opposing sides firmly entrenched in their experiences and beliefs , with absolutely zero chance of ever convincing the opposing side to change their minds .

That Mexican standoff predicated other large audio forums (including inter alia CANUCKAUDIOMART and it’s subsidiary in USAUDIOMART…) to publish cautionary forum posting conduct rules against fostering or engaging in cable war posts, including reprimand and potential forum expulsion consequences

@akg_ca I disagree. I am in the middle. I believe that cables make a difference but I don't feel they are the best place to try and adjust the sound of a system. Changing cables is like shooting in the dark with very expensive ammunition. Some may choose to do so but I do not.

I took a chance on the Silversmith Fideliums, changed my system dramatically!

I had previously run old Cardas Gold, then Shunyata Venoms (which after burned in, were fantastic, for the money). Ran those for about 8 years then tried the Silversmiths, very mid-centric and bright at first, but after burning them in with a streamer on repeat for 72 hours, the changes were very dramatic! The bass is very deep, Midrange so clear and dynamic, and treble as crisp as can be (IMO). The soundstage is so deep now and imaging has improved at an amazing level. The system when compared to others is so much more satisfying now. Silversmith carries a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. Which I thought of using at first, but no way now!

What I learned from audiophile about speakers cables , realizing we all have different listening skills, different sound preferences, and mostly they are looking for clarity or detail, bass, musicality. Even if the system is musical and already good? If they did not hear the bass they prefer the system is still not good enough.

Yesterday I decided to rotate my speakers cable . My 8AG Kimber is connected with my Borensen x1 monitor speakers , with the 8Ag , I get musicality emotions, clarity, liveness , but I felt the 8AG is helping the X1 to do its job, but the x1 don’t seems to shine on their own.I enjoy the music still.But when I connected my Tellurium black diamond speakers cable the speakers disappeared very natural , and quieter.Here I learned that since both cables are excellent, I just have to enjoy their performance.i just have to rotate them monthly 

I auditioned over a number of years many brands, price levels of IC, speaker, power, digital cables through lending library at CableCompany. Cables certainly don't all sound the same, price may or may not correlate with superior performance. Beyond that I'd only add power cables are most impactful on general sound quality. In the end my old workhorse Cardas Golden Reference IC and speaker cables still remain, power cables exclusively diy Helix. I'd only say good luck with cable chasing, get a good ground base with static cable choices, find the variables elsewhere.

@sns 

+1 that power cables can make a bid difference.

On my Magnepan speakers I was reading that people were having great success with 10AWG Blue Jean cable because of the sound profile of the Maggies. Some technical detail that I am not going to repeat here properly. I got out my wallet and bought 2 sets of these cables for $220 total. The Mini needs 2 sets of cables.

The cheaper Blue Jean on the Maggie sounded as good as I had heard on the Magnepan LRS+ with my single set of Audience FrontRow speaker cable. I cannot test the FrontRow on the Mini even though I have 2 sets because I have spade termination on one set. The Mini and LRS+ are close enough to make an apples-2-apples comparison. I am now selling 1 set of my FrontRow that cost 20x more.

I also compared the Blue Jean cable on my Yamaha NS5000 speaker, and the Blue Jean was loose and flabby and rather bad. I am keeping the FrontRow on that speaker.

Today I am comparing the Mini + Blue Jean + with my CODA #16 amp. It is the best I have heard the Mini’s. A shame I cannot test the FrontRow on this setup, but I do not think it will change the sound much.

One thing that fascinates me is how the less a component matters to sound quality, the more people are willing to fight over it.

Forums are infested with statements like:

"my $275 wall outlets made a transformational difference in soundstage depth"

"my new $14000 network streamer revealed a noise floor of such inky blackness I never before experienced in my 75 years as an Audiophile"

"If you can't hear the difference my digital streamer's $4000 power cable makes, you either bought your crappy system at Goodwill, or you're deaf, or most likely both"

"I had barely plugged in my new $800 linear power supply into my USB switch that my wife ran out of the kitchen asking did you buy new speakers again?" (ever noticed how with these guys the wife always runs out of the kitchen, and never from her PhD dissertation? But I digress)

Etc, etc.

On the other hand, conversation about components that do matter is largely, if not always, pleasant and non-confrontational. There are exceptions of course, but when was the last time you saw folks trading insults over amps or preamps, or having some kind of pissing contest over speakers?

Unlike in real life, in the audiophile world the more worthless the battle is, the more willing people are to fight it. Why is that?

It stands to reason that a speaker cable designed to accomodate power hungry, low efficiency 4ohms or below speakers will sound different from one designed for 16ohms 100db efficient horn speakers. Horses for courses as always. There is no generically great speaker cable.

Here’s what I am noticing - we all have preferences. 
 

I have experienced differences in systems and various components in my system (including cables). Ultimately I trust folks reading this are enjoying music as much as more than they ever have. 

@devinplombier  I heartily agree. In my former life in academia it was axiomatic that the less there was to fight over the fiercer the fight. Maybe it was like that with cave men too.

@antigrunge2 Reasonable except that is not the way they are sold in my experiance. Could it be because if they were they might be susceptible to testing?

much modern hifi IMHO is too treble-rich as it is for my taste. i'd gladly accept better imaging in exchange for a bit less brightness in the treble range.

Great post and great comments. It exemplifies that, in our hobby, everything comes at a cost and that cost is not always monetary. The journey is in finding the sacrifices that we can live with.

I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year!

@jonwolfpell wrote:

If you think about it, other than a live performance of symphonic music in a good hall w/ good seats, when do you actually experience layers of depth in live music? ...

+1 

Image specificity with a live performance of symphonic music is another area that in its reproduced state can take on an unnatural degree of precision and accentuation even. While it's possible to do so with a stereo system, my take is that a heightened degree of image specificity stems from or is being brought to the forefront of the perceived experience not as much due to the recording itself (if at all, really), but rather because of a lack of capturing and balancing other vital aspects of the recording such as sheer scale, dynamics, natural warmth, texture, low end capabilities and a holistic/coherent sensation, whereby a focus on detail, airiness, specificity and an overall thinner presentation takes the front seat. Some of these what I'd call 'deficiencies' are physically rooted in the speakers themselves, while also and maybe not least coming from a preference among many audiophiles on imaging and details. 

Dynamics, pace, start & stop speed ( along w/ decay), frequency extension w/ power,  midrange clarity all contribute to what makes a system sound like live music which for myself is what I’m after.

My findings and preference as well. 

Image depth is fun & interesting but not a huge priority for me. Nor do I hear it w/ most live music. 

Single point source, time aligned or panel speakers with full range elements and no crossover divisions in their passband usually have an advantage with regard to spatial acuity. Principally I'd love for this quality to be maintained in a speaker setup, but the question is in which form, size and overall execution such a design is realized for it to be interesting and comply with my specific needs more broadly speaking. Oh, the compromises. It's not that imaging isn't at all important to me (as well), but rather it's about how it feels relatively natural in the greater scheme of the presentation, and how it's balanced with or even takes a back seat to other aspects.  

@erik_squires wrote:

I am often reminded of the late, great director, Akira Kurosawa at times. While shooting on an active volcano he ordered extra smoke be brought in, much to the surpise of the effects team. He reasoned, accurately, that while the crew could actually feel the heat coming off the volcano while they stood there the movie audience would not, and they needed to make up for their inability to capture the heat with extra visuals. I think we do the same thing with our sound systems. We can’t see the orchestra so we look for more imaging with our ears.

Interesting analogy, and there may be some merit to it, if only to instill the need to point out that it's odd seeing other aspects of the presentation being at the same time downplayed; why are scale, dynamics and other not deemed important as well, at least in an effort to see them less diminished as a means to "compensate" for or more closely emulate the real thing? From my chair a minority of audiophiles are actually invested and interested in trying to replicate to some extent a live musical event in their homes. 

Biggest improvement I have heard in my system by far is the Bacch4Mac room correction and spatial 3D sound.  Simply amazing... once you have heard it you will understand.  

BACCH4Mac Overview and FAQ | Tom Martin Reports...

One thing that I just became aware of is how a little impedance between the speakers and the amp can help tame peaky resonances in some speaker drivers, and reduce distortion as a result. Not sure how that ties in to cables, but I suspect it could in some way. Also tube amps, with their higher output impedance.

@pfreix

I’m a big believer in interaural crosstalk reduction. I’ve not heard BACCH4Mac, but I’ve heard other methods of reducing crosstalk that I found very compelling. BACCH4Mac seems to be the current state of the art when used in a well treated room, and with appropriately directional speakers. Some people also add lots of ambience channels per Ralph Glasgal.

It’s certainly a very different approach to those looking for the cleanest, purest signal path in the system itself. Without crosstalk reduction, the signal arriving at the ears ends up being pretty messy. But some are just looking to optimize the two channel sound, crosstalk and all, as its own art form.

you have to hear it to believe it.... best addition to my system by far... hard to describe