AUDIO SCIENCE REVIEW and $50 to spend.........

A lot of mental confetti being tossed around here.

Valentines Day.  Zip ties.

Nah, not going to go there.

@prof

I enjoyed reading your well-founded comments and considerations.

While I am a strong advocate of premium cables (I didn’t just drink the KoolAide, I chugged the entire pitcher), I can support your argument that highly satisfying musical results can be achieved with "good quality" cables. If all the stars line up -- excellent gear, well-recorded sources, correctly designed acoustical treatments, etc., the results can be quite impressive -- even to "audiophile" ears. Would certainly beat expensive cables in a small and reflective room.

Coming from the perspective of speaker designer/nerd and one who is currently involved in audio performance upgrades, I’ve come to identify a couple of performance factors: Errors of commission. And, errors of ommission. The first involves the phenomena where something in the audio chain is generating sounds that shouldn’t be there. This can be sutle to sledgehammer, but usually audible (and, measurable). The second is simply where a component acts as a "filter" where certain sounds, as well as spacial queques, etc are attenuated, or missing all together. In this sense, it’s possible to introduce a component in the audio stream that "doesn’t sound bad" but merely missing information. In many cases, the listener is not aware what is missing, because there is no reference. I would inject here, that the "right" premium cables WILL provide an additional level of detail and transparency to your system.

I understand your position with Nordost. They do some things well, but not everything. If your opinion of "high end" cables is with this reference, I’d suggest you try something else. Audioquest has never let me down. fyi- my first experience with pizza was one my dad made with Limberger cheese. I thought ALL pizza smelled and tasted like this. It took, me years to give pizza another try. Now, it its a weekly staple to our "diet."

If I recall correctly, I believe it was Geffen who rewired their studio with "audiophile-grade" cables and made something of a big deal about it.

I’ve wondered for years: "If Dark Side of the Moon was recorded in a studio using audiophile cables, would the enhancement in sound quality result in more, or less, mood-altering drugs being used to enjoy it?"

@digitalviper:

See a lawyer for free consultation.

You could also run your request by the minions at ASR and see what they suggest. I can’t recommend them highly enough for those who want to buy cheap junk under 100 bucks with no domestic warranty.

The inescapable logic is that WHATEVER details you hear on those recordings through your new cables, the ORIGINAL NON-AUDIOPHILE CABLES WERE SUFFICIENT TO TRANSMIT.  Otherwise...there wouldn't be that detail there to hear in the first place.

There is so much wrong in this statement. 

@waytoomuchstuff

Thanks.

I find that the blanket dismissal of the value of ASR by some here mirrors the dogmatic blanket dismissal by some on ASR of places like Audiogon. They are mirror images of the same heels-dug-in mindset.

I have tried Audioquest in my system...in fact I might have some in the system now! (I’ve borrowed various cables down the years I sometimes forget which is left in the system or not).

I once sold a pair of speakers I owned to a friend, an audio reviewer. From then I was able to hear those speakers at his place with very highly lauded cables of all sorts - literally up to $50,000 worth of top Nordost, Crystal cable etc. Did throwing all that cable money at them increase the sound quality? Not really that I could tell. I would hear all the same things when I played my reference tracks as I did at home with the cheaper cabling. And I DO listen for these details, I’m an inveterate audiophile after all.

A problem in these discussions is that many people take someone expressing a different opinion or approach as some personal attack on their own beliefs or approach. This is particularly true of people who are in the, for lack of better term "purely subjective" or "golden ears" camp, in which they privilege their personal perception above all other means of evaluating gear. If someone else explains why they prefer measurements or even controlled listening tests, it will necessarily arise from skepticism about relying on human perception alone. And then the subjectivist/golden ears takes that as absurd, even a personal attack: "How can someone tell me I don’t necessarily hear what I KNOW I hear." And then this brings forth lots of insults and ad hominem attacks.

I’ve tried to emphasize over and over that giving reasons why the fact I have my approach - my areas of skepticism - doesn't entail I'm telling others to have the same approach. That we all get to practice the hobby as we want, and that’s how it should be!

Even though I have done blind testing out of curiosity a number of times, I am not a scientist and couldn’t...and wouldn’t even want to...attempt formal experimentation on every audio choice I make.

For instance, I own Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks. I bought a second pair to try out, ones that had been upgraded with the Teflon Caps that many CJ owners seem to rave about. I spent many months going back and forth between them. I seemed to hear certain distinct differences, among them for the upgraded CJs a smoother sound, a "blacker background" in the sense of tonal balance and the impression of finer rendering of ambience/reverb etc. And better bass control. Now, on the ASR forum that would be met mostly with skepticism.

So while I might in fact mention it on the ASR forum, I would be more inclined to come here or other forums to go through my impressions and exchange notes, where people are more open to the idea. The same goes for things like tube rolling.

The thing is, I understand the skepticism held by some at ASR over such a claim, and understand why they would prefer much better evidence, e.g. measurable changes or blind tested, over just my anecdotal impressions. So...I wouldn’t make any such claims there like "I KNOW what I hear and anyone being skeptical is just a dogmatist or cloth eared."

So for the same reason I do not hold myself to some personal standard where everything I choose has to be on the basis of the most rigorous evidence, I don’t propose anyone else has to either. We can be as consistent, or inconsistent as we want.

It all changes, though, when it comes to actually making claims, or defending claims about audio gear. If I said "look, I KNOW from listening that changing caps in amps altered the sound in the way I describe" well, that’s a claim I’ve made and it’s game on for anyone to ask me what justifications I have, and to express why they are skeptical. No problemo.

And that’s the thing. "Objectivists" will make claims about what is measurable or audible. Fine. But "Subjectivists" will often make just as strong claims "I KNOW cables make a difference and anyone who can’t hear these things must use Chi-Fi gear or be deaf." Not very fruitful for exchanging views.

Cheers!