2. digital
  3. 160660-83203

Dynamic range - effect on different speaker cables - even very high quality ones

I have siltech Emperor double crown speaker cables. I recently bought Tara Omega Gold. 
The difference was very strange, and significant. I could not put my finger on it and changed interconnects to see if there was a compatibility issue. The Siltechs brought out superbly the main "players" and that sound was bang in my face - great. But it was a bit lean in other areas (more periphery sounds such as tinkling of percussion here and there - that sort of thing). 
The Omegas were exceptionally clean and detailed with EVERYTHING coming through, top to bottom, but no particular light and shade that the Siltechs gave. As such, a great pure sound but a bit soulless and didn't give me the bite that the Siltechs did.
I cannot survive life without the hit that the Siltechs give, so have kept those installed and I use the Omegas in an analogue set up (also lower dynamic range it seems) to enjoy those more

My false assumption before was that different cables had different qualities, and (or but) the basics of each recording would be dealt with principally the same i.e. just a different "house" sound
My dealer was nonplussed too as my description of the differences was a bit out of the ordinary, and the difference were VERY stark. I have tried many different cables over the years and never encountered this issue.

By asking around he came up with an interesting "reasoning"

Normal "players" or sources chuck out at a dynamic range of 70db. My DCS upsampler/clock/dac sends out at twice that, and the cables may get over saturated with the sound and act differently. It may appear that excessive dynamic range was not particularly an issue when they designed the cables and so the effect might be unpredictable?
Does anyone have a practical experience of this too - and I suppose the theory buffs out there could confuse me yet more.

tatyana69
tatyana69 OP
269 posts
 
Clearthinker - it seems you disagree with DCS
"
The latest generation of our proprietary Ring DAC™ incorporates a number of important technical advances that have resulted in enhanced dynamic range, reduced jitter, improved channel separation and greatly improved musical realism. "
tatyana69 OP
269 posts
 
Daj
" Here's an idea, don't invite the opinion of others on an open forum,"

Yes I had the expectation that replies would be relevant and specific. Silly me.
tbakin63
69 posts
 
Pompous, ignorant drivel from top to bottom.  Science deniers with Zero evidence to support any underlying premise.  Highly refined science (art) of being nasty to each other while wasting thousands of dollars to fund auditory hallucinations.  Try a blind comparison with a coat hanger.  Whatever...
tatyana69 OP
269 posts
 
Millercarbon
" Point being its very hard to get it all just right. Its also very hard to know when it is being done just right. That’s because the exact same problem we hear with this one speaker cable is repeated across every wire and component in our system, and on up the recording chain as well."

Did your actually read my post? The problem is NOT repeated across every wire or component. That was the whole point of my message, so I really cannot appreciate your generalisation, when I specifically described my reality and obvious, and strange  differences in two cables with rrp in excess of £20k each.
Another poster wrote his $390 cable was the best ever. Chaps, can we up the game a bit and try and explain the issue. If no-one knows, then fair do, the issue will be unexplained until I find the right source/font of knowledge. I just thought some Audiogoner might have come across. something similar. No problem if not.
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
The primary reason I answered tatyana69 as I did is because I have worked with sets of cables for many years now. It seemed clear to me that when a person expresses confusion, ignorance of the potential outcomes of mixing cables, which can vary widely, as demonstrated in the OP, that they are not employing proper methodology in system establishment. Ergo, my response was more relevant than realized. 

Methodology is irrespective of the level of equipment, and one can spend prodigiously and still get mediocre results, or results that are not completely satisfactory, for the capital spent. Sensitivity to direct guidance in that regard will not change the fact. The amount of capital spent has zero relevance to use of proper methods to attain superior sound. If tatyana69 wishes to ignore my advice, he/she will likely continue to flounder and not move in any directed way toward improvement of the system with cables. It's playing at system development (A lot of us do, and it's fun, too, in its own way) when you simply place in assorted cables, completely disregarding - often arrogantly so -the work of cable designers/manufacturers who design their cables for a specific result. It takes more money, time and effort to do comparison of sets, and that is why most avoid it. But, it is the only way to advance a system directly toward one's goals. Disagree? Fine, do things your way. But, let's not play the game of, "I spend more than you, so my methods are superior," as that is nonsense. 

In regard to tbankin63's comment; I am currently working on review of a set of cables that cost thousands. The designer is a person who safely could be said is one of the most knowledgeable engineers on cables on the planet, and who specifically used the science, measurements to direct development. One of the greatest defenses of being chintzy in audiophilia is the attempt to skewer people who are deemed "unscientific". That's a bit harder to do when a world class engineer used LCR measurements to design cables, and discusses openly how the changes to such parameters obviously change the sound. 

You can look for the review when it comes out at dagogo.com  

:) 

Many employ poor methodology in establishing systems, which is why I developed my principle:  The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile. 
More to discover