2. cables
  3. 136769-457

DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

Yes they do.  I’m not here to advocate for any particular brand but I’ve heard a lot and they do matter. High Fidelity reveal cables, Kubala Sosna Elation and Clarity Cable Natural. I’m having a listening session where all of them is doing a great job. I’ve had cables that were cheaper in my system but a nicely priced cable that matches your system is a must.  I’m not here to argue what I’m not hearing because I have a pretty good ear.  I’m enjoying these three brands today and each is presenting the music differently but very nicely. Those who say cables don’t matter. Get your ears checked.  I have a system that’s worth about 30 to 35k retail.  Now all of these brands are above 1k and up but they really are performing! What are your thoughts. 
calvinj
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
And speaking of psycho babble, this just in,

”And everyone at your local Psychic Fair, or alternative healing convention, or anyone peddling pseudo-science, says the same thing.

Congratulations on the company you are keeping ;-)”

Note to self: you can usually tell the ones ones who didn’t go to school.


Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,977 posts
 
prof
... if you listened to a song on my system at 70dB sound level, left for a week then returned to listen again, you would not be able to tell if I'd raised the volume by a couple db.   That difference is far too small to keep distinct in your memory.
Quite so. The ear is rather insensitive to absolute level. But the ear/brain system is much more adept at detecting relative differences in level.  That's why the value of quick-switching is not nearly as great as prof's argument suggests.
isochronism
2,893 posts
 
Geoffkait ..... "blind injection" ?
Don't mess with my brother Ray in concern with his Raylettes!!!
Post removed 
prof
3,474 posts
 

cleeds,

Quite so. The ear is rather insensitive to absolute level. But the ear/brain system is much more adept at detecting relative differences in level. That’s why the value of quick-switching is not nearly as great as prof’s argument suggests.

Cleeds, I’m not following your point there. The above seems a non-sequitur.

Quick switching is useful for detecting relative differences. That’s why it would be useful for detecting the subtle relative difference in volume that I described. So how does it follow that "the value of quick-switching is not nearly as great as prof’s argument suggests." ?

I have been arguing that the more subtle the sonic difference between A and B, the more value quick-switching has for detecting those differences. (Remembering that as I said, quick switching is not necessarily confined to short bits of sound, but rather the ability to switch quickly from one source to the other).

How exactly are you suggesting my argument is incorrect?

Thanks!









More to discover