I used to think pricey interconnects were snake oil...


But recently I had a chance to test my old free cables vs Audioquest Red River and then Mackenzie. The difference was subtle, but definitely there with each upgrade.

I guess reluctantly I am a believer now.

saulh

A few years back, I bought some "acclaimed" cables. Yes a difference. Worse.  I did some testing. My sonic results were good old Belden Brilliance 75 Ohm stranded on decent ( non-Ferris) RCA's made as short as reasonable.   With cables, less is more.   The old free cables were often well over 100 Ohms and the shielding well less than 100% so I do not blame the emergence of quality well designed cables. Seems like Monoprice, Belden, Amazon WBC etc. can produce the 99.99% as good as it gets only missing the .01% ego factor. Won't go wrong with Blue Jean but they seem to have moved the price to add ego to the mix. I at least respect their engineering as they are real engineers.  Some cables have marked "direction". Now for a simple cable, this is total marketing, but it is possible with cap coupling of the shield or single shield ground in a balanced cable for it to make a difference. Not magic. Tricks we use to combat RF and ground loops. Which end depends on testing. A wire does not know the difference. AC or DC.  

How big a difference?  Well, if everything else is SOA, maybe if you are still in your 20's, have been trained in listening, not damaged your hearing with ear buds or the defective Army ear plugs, the source material is good enough, yea, probably audible.  I am old. I have "decent" equipment and listen to CD's ripped to FLAC.  Amazon Basics is better than I can hear. 

I also tested USB cables doing a loopback through my Focusrite. Clear differences in noise, rise time and jitter.. Free garbage and all the rest.  Again Belkin, Belden, Monoprice etc.  I also use short as possible. My music server to DAC is 8 inches. Less is more.  Now, does it make a difference with todays DACs with vastlly improved USB receivers, asynchronous communication, and better internal clocks?  Not sure it does.  Walmart-DAC running WMP? Maybe. JRiver into a Schiit Unison or Cord? Probably not.  Lesson is to put your experience and bias to todays situation, not yesterday's. 

On to speakers. Here bigger differences ( damage) is common. Because you  hear a difference does not mean it is better. This application is very component sensitive as the amplifier behavior does change depending on the oad. When I was investigating why my wife liked my 800 series Rotel amps over my Parasound 1200s,( made John very upset) I had pictures of the current into the driver that showed clear differences.    FWIW the real difference she was hearing is how dominant pole compensation vs Miller compensation changes the distortion distribution. With a better tweeter, Mr. Curl was right.  This added to the testing we dis back in the 70's when the crazy cable stuff started.  Original Monster ( 11 ga, twisted, slightly higher L, slightly lower C) came out and remains an excellent choice. One member of the testing was an engineer that had designed wire for a living.

My money?  Quite surprised how big differences in DACs are. Of all I have listened to in my desk system, the JDS Atom+ is still the smoothest.  I have further testing with JRiver settings that may reduce the differences, Topping Schiit, JDS, SMSL etc.  I plan on testing a Qutest. Output reconstruction and filtering is 99% of DAC differences and that is exactly where the brands differ. 

Summary: Yes a "bad" cable can sound bad, but there is no esoteric magic cable can actually improve the signal transfer.  They can filter it which may mask a problem and it sounds better.  Cables have kept a lot of stereo stores in business, so maybe that is their greatest worth. :)

Your 8th post is great...😁😊

 

Welcome here....

Summary: Yes a "bad" cable can sound bad, but there is no esoteric magic cable can actually improve the signal transfer. They can filter it which may mask a problem and it sounds better. Cables have kept a lot of stereo stores in business, so maybe that is their greatest worth. :)

 

It’s not an all or nothing proposition.  The truth as usual lies in the middle.   Good wires need not cost a fortune in most cases.  If you are already spending a fortune and you hear differences with different wires you are more likely to go nuts. 

Summary: Yes a "bad" cable can sound bad, but there is no esoteric magic cable can actually improve the signal transfer. They can filter it which may mask a problem and it sounds better. 
 

That same “filtering” is what can also hold back a component and you will never unleash its full potential.
When you get to a certain level with your system you don’t want masking, veiling or coloration anywhere in the chain. You want your components to shine. Unfortunately, I have not yet come across a giant killer in cables (or components for that matter). If anyone can tell me what sounds as good as the Nordost Tyr 2 interconnects and Audience AU24SX speaker cables for the price of BlueJeans or Mogami, I will forever be grateful. 

                WELL: the Cargo Cult's building another runway.

                                         Time for a rewind:

Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.[1] The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.[1]

Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.

     Do a bit a research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding, of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.

                                                A rewind:

                 It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.

               It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.

                       *heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

                                              OR, two:

     The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.   

     Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications.    THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!        

           Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.

        At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.

        But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.

         They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.

          Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).

                                         Solid State amps?

                                     OOPS (back to tubes)!

                                        Your Smart Phone?

                                        FA'GET ABOUT IT!

                                         Your car's GPS?

                                                NOPE!

    Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.

                        Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?

      *Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.

      Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.

                                          But, I digress: 

       Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?

         Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their beliefs, education, experience and biases

                                      Remember this?

     One anecdote  that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how Feynman's father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.

     It saddened him that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.

     At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.                               

                            It wasn't an insult or condescension.

                                                Just reality.

                                    Oh well: let 'em go build a runway!

                                                    references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=Examples%20include%20lasers%2C%20electron%20microscopes,systems%2C%20computer%20and%20telecommunication%20devices.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/08/13/what-has-quantum-mechanics-ever-done-for-us/?sh=37c459944046

https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-101/quantum-applications-today

          But: I'm a kook, because I believe in the SCIENCE, from which all that sprang?

     https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/

           Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda).

  https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200507/history.cfm#:~:text=Einstein's%20original%20equations%20had%20been,how%20the%20universe%20will%20end.                                            How about that?

Another example of a hypothesis/theory, with no way to EXPERIMENT/MEASURE, what you're sure must be there, in some detectable way, or another.

                                               Just for fun:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-times-quantum-physics-blew-our-minds-in-2022/

                                            Happy listening!