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].

 

 

kinarow1

@donavabdear : having a dedicated room solely for two channel audio is huge. It is a great starting point. Now, in addition to two (matched pair) speakers, you would need the 2-channel equipment. Preferably dedicated to two-channels (stereo), and not multichannel. Amp(s), preamp, DAC, etc. etc. All two channel. And of course, room treatments, which I think you are pretty familiar with and knowledgeable. You can then experiment with cables, ideally with a return policy and no risk trial. There is no substitute to experimenting for yourself. And it is fun. That is if you enjoy experimenting. Not a chore, if it becomes a chore, and frustrating, it’s not worth dealing with. We all do what we enjoy. This is a hobby, not a job.

 

Enjoy the process, and hopefully the results.

donavabdear

I have recorded and mixed 100s of orchestras and it's much more forgiving than doing a recording of an actor who is getting $20M to act in a movie ...

I don't think there's any correlation at all between what an actor or musician gets paid, and the difficulty in recording them well. It's silly to claim otherwise. Certainly, you're entitled to your opinions, but recording the dialogue of a single voice - something easily transmitted over any telephone - is inherently simpler than recording the complex sounds and wide dynamic range of an orchestra. Of course, fidelity for film must be better than cell phone quality, but the phone proves it doesn't take much to record the identifiable qualities of a human voice.

... if you didn't do the original recording then haw can you or anyone else talk about the proper image or the tightness of the bass ...

You can't rely on any single recording. But you can rely on groups of recordings, some with consistent, repeatable, identifiable characteristics (such as the Mercury Living Presence series), to tune the sound of a system. If you also make your own recordings, as I sometimes do, the task is made easier.

@donavabdear 

It’s refreshing to see the two-way learning in this thread.  I had written you off as coming here to make a point, rather than share a point of view and accept that it might be challenged and your initial perspective may be improved.  I was wrong about that.

Many of us who have developed strong opinions about hifi cabling based on our unique empirical experiences and some understanding of both theory and uncertainty associated with connecting a bunch of boxes with various electronics inside with wires forming a complex “system” driven by variously clean power from the wall and played in infinitely variable acoustic room environments.  Every time there is a thread on here or another forum containing the word ‘cable’ some collection of theorists join the thread and talk about graphs and what they know about resistance, and many of us have developed sensitive trolling antenna.  To folks that have learned to keep an open mind and trust theirs and others’ ears, it resembles a chorus of the flat earth society.  It’s tiresome and interferes with productive sharing.  So forgive our collective fatigue.

I do have to admit I am taken aback by your name dropping, even if it is sincere and in support of a point.  I am much more convinced and interested in your description of the physical and acoustic challenges of recording sound in complex and noisy environments with the sources moving around, and then trying to mix that in ways that make sense and support the moving images in a film.  That’s cool.  I regularly work with rich and famous people, and I find that name dropping NEVER succeeds as a validator of my thoughts or points, and it is almost always a turn off in a conversation.  Just a suggestion of something to consider in this and other discussions.

Back on topic, you said;

”I have no extreme reverence for knowing what the original record was I'm just saying if you didn't do the original recording then haw can you or anyone else talk about the proper image or the tightness of the bass, you can make the tightest bass ever just add gating, ducking, and lots of compression. Tighter and wider on every recording isn't always correct”

The improvement by good cables with respect to reproducing soundstage width and depth and timing aren’t some technicolor hallucination that appears on all recordings.  Mono doesn’t become stereo, flat or not particularly well-miked stereo recordings don’t grow width or depth that wasn’t captured or mixed into the final cut.  Good gear and wires just tell you more of whats going on, good and bad, and sometimes that can make you want to listen to certain recordings on your Bluetooth speaker in your kitchen rather than your two-channel big rig.

Enjoy the journey,

kn

Every time there is a thread on here or another forum containing the word ‘cable’ some collection of theorists join the thread and talk about graphs and what they know about resistance, and many of us have developed sensitive trolling antenna. 

Yup! And cannot blame us. It becomes tiresome. Take a look for example of Jason Bourne trolling in EVERY SINGLE CABLE THREAD. Always the first to reply with 3-4 consecutive posts saying the same thing. Over and over.

Therefore:

... forgive our collective fatigue

 

 

@knownothing @thyname Wow thanks for understanding, honestly I came from physics, engineering, and acoustics in these fields they aren't understanding on audio goals being unverifiable they are antagonistic to it. I had the American rep of a big audio company at my house  yesterday (not name dropping), we hit it off perfectly and I was telling him how I was understanding the immeasurable attributes cables can make in a system because of you guys. He said his company felt the same way all the engineers fought very strongly against psychoacoustic principles so they didn't let in any "magical" effects that real people have in the audiophile world. He told me about a test they did with a CD player being set on 4 different kinds of racks like glass, wood, carbon fiber and such using long cables and everyone could tell the difference, this is a group of engineers that fought against "magical, unquantifiable" ideas, this experiment has a lot to do with changing these German engineers minds. 

I understand the frustration and I have a thick head I always put logic and physical laws above feelings, but it's clear I don't know everything and the magic is why I can't stop listening to music all my life. Thanks and Best!