Why Do Cables Matter?
To me, all you need is low L, C, and R. I run Mogami W3104 bi-wire from my McIntosh MAC7200 to my Martin Logan Theos. We all know that a chain is only as strong as its' weakest link - so I am honestly confused by all this cable discussion.
What kind of wiring goes from the transistor or tube to the amplifier speaker binding post inside the amplifier? It is usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper. Then we are supposed to install 5 - 10' or so of wallet-emptying, pipe-sized pure CU or AG with "special configurations" to the speaker terminals?
What kind of wiring is inside the speaker from the terminals to the crossover, and from the crossover to the drivers? Usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper.
So you have "weak links" inside the amplifier, and inside the speaker, so why bother with mega expensive cabling between the two? It doesn't make logical sense to me. It makes more sense to match the quality of your speaker wires with the existing wires in the signal path [inside the amplifier and inside the speaker].
So many on this forum have such knee-jerk reactions to anyone not bowing down to the cable religion, I never said cables don't make a difference, I never said I haven't tried different cables (only a few I'd have to say) I've spent 10s of thousands on cables, I never said my mind is made up and I won't demo cables, I'm just pointing out logical problems with the audiophile community as a whole. It is very poor thinking to point out some friend or a studio that is an exception to a general statement about a large group. Why does the audiophile community think that cables bring out the design of the components. Why don't engineers design components with particular cables in mind if they are such an important part of the systems fidelity? Why doesn't the audiophile community understand that nearly every channel has DSP on it when mixed. Limiting dynamics, EQ, reverb, phasing, imaging, airiness, and all the other toys used all the time. Why do audiophiles think the electronic signal goes down the strands of the medium (the signal moves in a field on the outside of the conductors). Why do audiophiles think that inserting a very high quality AC cable between the romex and the Amp fuse makes the audio signal change (there is no audio until after the transformer where the power is changed to DC). (Also I've spent 100 of thousands on Power conditioning personally). Blind tests vs. ABX tests vs. visual confirmation cable tests. As you all well know the visual test with the very expensive cable always sounds better. Why is it that audiophiles generally can't accept the idea that an amplifier designed for a specific speaker driver is the best practice for more accurate sound. (I watch a guy on YouTube who has gone through 300 exceptionally expensive power amps). Why is it that the "break in period" is not testable, I understand cables aren't always quantifiable but break in changes should be, and they are not. Why is it that sample rate information has so much BS, the AES did a large study on this years ago and showed experienced listeners were not able to hear any differences between CD, SACD and 96/24 (I spent $8k on my SACD player). Why is it that audiophiles think that resolution (sample rate) is the same as resolution in pixel rate in vision, it is not. (this myth still hasn't gone away). -little harder question- And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables (yes, some people have delt with this question but I think they were all recording engineer who understand this concept.) |
@yoyoyaya Yes I've been right on set when huge productions were waiting for me to untangle cables getting screamed at by the first Assistant Director. To me cables are like plumbing they should only get noticed if there is a problem. |
