Why Do Cables Matter?

@donavabdear we are apparently talking past each other here a bit.  To the degree you called me out on that, you sound like my wife.  She is quite smart, so that’s a compliment.  

Like others who just posted to this thread, I never said I was trying to get 7.5 worth of information value out of a recording that only has a value of 7.  OK?  We straight on that?  I think pretty much everyone on here has addressed that issue in a way that is consistent with your point, so we should be good.

I also maybe misinterpreted your point to mean it is hopeless to use way more expensive cables than the recording studio, because you might be trying to score a 12 out of 7 in replaying the recording, and that is just such a ridiculous concept, right?  Nobody would claim that.  Right?  At least I haven’t read a single post in this thread where anyone claimed that.

I think what folks are getting at here is that better hifi systems, including their better and finely optimized cable looms, more closely approach reproduction value of 7.0, say attaining a value of 6.45 (subjectively) compared with less capable systems with less resolving or higher loss cables which may only be capable of achieving a reproduction value of 5.9 or 6.2 (subjectively) for the listener.

My point was also that as systems become more resolving and more closely capable of reproducing what is actually on the recording (nothing more), the variation between quality of different recordings and their pressings becomes quite apparent, and this can either lead to more enjoyment or less enjoyment for the listener.  Again, with system and cable qualities adding synergistically to the approximation of perfect replay of only that information captured on the original recording and source material, be it analog or digital formats.

All that said, I am having a distinct sense of deja vu, so I’ve either had this exact same discussion in the past on this or other forum, or I am doomed to have it again.

kn

@yoyoyaya I'm saying that the audiophile view of cables is not one of science but religion. People on this forum and on YouTube along with salesmen at EXPONA often describe the characteristics of their components as creating something in the music while using their 100k components that are much better and finer tuned than any recording studio. This is not possible because despite the statements of $80k DAC's or $40k XLR's with the same neutrik connectors on the ends covered in 3x colored shrink-wrap, you are not going to achieve anything better than the Canary or Beldon star quad XLRs that were used in the studio. Logically $80k cables will get you close to simply welding the amp to the speaker but that cable is never going to give you anything positive. 

As far as getting to the point in audio quality as the original recording I think that level can be surpassed in speakers but with musical attributes that are not mixed and A.I. in the near future will be able to give us all very high quality by filling in the musical harmonics and subtracting the unintended noise in the recordings. The mindset in the audiophile world is not trying to get back to zero (the original recording) but it is buying exceptionally expensive things like cables in which at the original studio used cables 1/10th the price and therefore theoretically is not capable of producing a fraction of the quality of signal in the playback recording if all the thought in modern audiophile cable technology is correct. It's always the same picture. Super turbo mega cables inserted between a skinny fuse and the crossover wire a speaker can't make a difference just like inserting a firehose between two garden hoses can't make a difference. In physics in called Kickoffs law. 

@donavabdear 

Thanks for that lengthy exposition but could you just please give a direct answer to the question that I asked. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thank you.

I don't believe the limitation is in the recording.  It is in the playback system and the ears of the listener.  One reason I say that is from my visit to Axpona 2022 in Tampa.  On Friday night a recording engineer did a seminar in the large room displaying the Acora speakers.  He had a digital version of the master recording of Night at the Opera by Queen.  The original master was analog being that it was made in the 1970s.  One of the fascinating things he said is that he can hear the splices in these old master tapes when playing them back on his stereo.  Try as I might I do not hear them.  I'm not trained to hear them.  His entire demonstration of how the mix down to two channel is made was a new experience for me and very fascinating.  

Vibration is the single most limiter to resolution.  Unwanted vibrations cause smearing.  A good example is a Scanning Electron Microscope.  The more the SEM is isolated from vibrations the better it's resolving power.  I can recall seeing my first SEM in 1980.  It was mounted on its own separate concrete pad from the plant floor and stood atop a thick cork underlayment.  Audio is the same.  The better the recording studio and its components are isolated down to the playback system and its components- including the cables then the more resolving the playback will be.  

I agree and understand your point and that is exactly how I think about it.  If say the live performance is a 10 and the studio recording is then possibly an 8, then the average system playback will be around 2.  Mid-fi might hit 4.  Hifi might hit 5-7.  Thing is, only a small subset of listeners may be able to discern the difference between a 6 and a 7.  I also understand that the live recording and the final mix down to 2 channel will not have a lot in common.  That was another interesting thing that night at Axpona.  After hearing many of the 24 tracks separately on the master tape, I tried and tried to hear many of those sounds in the 2 channel version but I could not make them out.

@yoyoyaya 

Yes