Audio Cables: All the Same?


My patience has worn thin reading numerous postings by individuals who proclaim that anyone who spends more than, say, $30 on a cable is an “audiophool” and that the manufacturers who sell cables priced above that price are snake oil dealers. These people base their claims on two factors: (1) they can’t hear the difference between a cheap cable and an extremely expensive one; and (2) all cables of any quality whatsoever measure the same when tested.


I believe that these individuals have blinders on. Allow me to set forth a useful analogy – eggs Benedict. The recipe for them is simple: toast an English muffin; sauté a couple of slices of Canadian bacon; poach two eggs; and prepare Hollandaise sauce. After those ingredients are ready, put the Canadian bacon on the English muffin, stack the eggs on the bacon, pour Hollandaise sauce over the eggs (and possibly sprinkle a pinch of hot paprika over the sauce), and serve. Voila! Now, take two preparers – one of whom doesn’t give a damn how his eggs Benedict turns and tastes as long as he gets his $17.50/hour pay; and the other a supremely talented chef renowned for his exquisite preparation of egg dishes. I am willing to venture a guess that one of them will taste terrific, perhaps being the memorable highlight of a marvelous breakfast, and the other will be an awful mess, perhaps a composition of barely toasted and soggy English muffin, Canadian bacon so overcooked that the meat is like shoe leather, poached eggs like hockey pucks, and a severely curdled muck of a sauce poured over everything, followed by far too much paprika. That serving will also be memorable, but for a far different reason.


Now, here comes the chemist to test and measure both versions of eggs Benedict. He confirms that, upon his testing of the two dishes, he is able to state unequivocally that they are identical because both contain exactly the same ingredients and provide the same nutritional value. The fact that one serving is nearly inedible and the other is altogether delicious is irrelevant. After all, there is no science-based test for taste.


I propose the same is true for cables – there is no scientific test for what we hear.
Let me end my soliloquy by relating my recent experience with cables. A couple of months ago, I upgraded my digital system by acquiring a new SACD transport and a new DAC. Both components are widely considered to be extremely high end pieces of equipment (and priced stratospherically, too). At the time I did not replace the cables I had been using previously – an Audioquest Cimarron Ethernet cable between my 24 port network switch and my DAC, and Monster Cable M1000 analog interconnects between my DAC and my preamp. Frankly, I was dismayed by what I heard when I began streaming (Qobuz) music through my new DAC. The magic I had heard at its demonstration at AXPONA 2024 was non-existent. Maybe it was a bit better than my old DAC, but certainly not by much. One of the local audio dealers with whom I shared my disappointment suggested I try a really good Ethernet cable, handing me a Shunyata Sigma V2. This Shunyata cable contains two filters (one for EMI/RFI and one for common-mode interference) as well as several differentiators in how it is constructed. I really despise the expression oft-used by reviewers – “like a veil was lifted” – but that is what happened. The magic had returned. However, now I had another problem. Voices seemed to come only from a singer’s mouth and not also from the chest. With instrumentals, a certain fundamental (bass) element was missing. Overall, it was as if the entire frequency spectrum was tilted – lifting the treble and lowering the bass. I went back to this dealer. He recommended I try a pair of DH Labs Air Matrix Cryo analog interconnects between my DAC and my preamp. All I can say is “Wow!” The frequency spectrum had returned to its proper equilibrium.


I have now been using these new cables for a month. Their impacts are not the result of a placebo effect. Moreover, the last thing in the world I had wanted was to spend a couple of thousand dollars more for cables after I had already spent far more than I had planned on the SACD transport and the DAC. However, they had addressed and solved two very real problems. The Shunyata cable filtered out noise coming from the network switch; the DH Labs cable eliminated a frequency distortion inherent with the Monster Cable cable (which evidently had been masked by the predecessor DAC).


Before this experience, I had never believed that cables could be so important an element of an audio system. I always spent between $100 and $200 on them because, on the one hand I did not want to “chintz” and shortchange myself sonically, but on the other hand I was very skeptical that even spending that amount was fully money-for-incremental-value.


Since then, I tried replacing another Audioquest Cimarron Ethernet cable between my Nucleus+ and my network switch with a $500 Ethernet cable of another well-regarded cable manufacturer. I could not detect a shred of sonic difference between them. Thus, it has become clear to me that every cable implementation is unique; sometimes there is a discernable improvement provided by one over the other, and other times there isn’t.


In summary, having a preconceived notion about the value of cables (or lack thereof) disserves oneself. In some cases, but not all, there is a cable out there that will truly improve the sound of one’s audio system. It may be immeasurable, but it is, nevertheless, very real. 
 

128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xjmeyers
Post removed 

MIT Computer Music Journal published a blind AB test of cables, oh, 20-25 years ago that really should have shut a lot of people up. Some of the listeners could not tell the difference between cables, while others did. One tester (identified by only the initials "JA") responded correctly 100% of the time.

So if someone claims that he or she can’t hear any sonic difference between two cables in a particular sound system & room, then my conclusion would be: i) that person is simply not capable of that degree of differentiation; ii) the system does not have sufficient resolution to reveal any differences (i.e., cabling is not its weakest link); iii) the cables do not interact with some system-specific characteristic in a way that alters SQ; or iv) those particular cables really do sound very similar.

In none of these cases, is it reasonable to assume that a choice of cables cannot under any circumstances produce sonic differences.

And I still groan when I hear about non-experimentalists whining about the sine qua non of double-blind ABX testing.  There are many ways to conduct an ABX test, and some of the most common can be ineffectual when evaluating differences in a listener's perception of sound quality.  You can't simply migrate an ABX procedure  that works for visual or tactile sources into the audio domain -- the way our brain processes sound is not like the way it perceives visual stimulus.  This is a big topic, and probably worthy of its own thread.  But it's quite possible for unblinded AB audio comparisons to produce more credible results than would an ad hoc DBABX procedure.  So again, I have to make a generalization that generalizations are rarely helpful.

All you need is OFC at the right gauge for the length of the run. That's it. 

Anything else is just snake oil in regards to audible performance. If you want to spend thousands of dollars on cables because they LOOK nice, then go for it. But don't be fooled by fraud, er, marketing. They will not improve the sound over standard OFC speaker cable.

Beware... Audiogon forums are a hotbed of thise fooled by placebo and confirmation bias. Educate yourself. 

 

 

I was using Mogami 2549’s from WBC for all my components except the connection from my pre to my amp. The following is my review, when I switched that cable to 2549’s.

I have a relatively expensive separate component system that never sounded quite right. I have 10’s of $K invested. I tried everything, except change the $250 RCA cables from my preamp to my amp.
I have 2549 Morgami WBCs on all my other components, but THOUGHT I had my best cable running from my pre to amp.
I thought just change it out… give it a try… I needed another cable for my new headphone amp anyway.
I immediately got a significant improvement in sound. Stronger clearer bass, better decay, detail & harmonics & clearer across the spectrum! My highest recommendation.

Two points:

1. Cables absolutely make a difference.
2. The price of the cable does not necessarily mean it is better.

The OP lost a lot of credibility with the eggs benedict analogy. Of course science could differentiate between the two plates: this bacon is more carbonized than on the other plate; the water content in this muffin is higher thus making it mushy; the temperature of this egg is higher than the other (so, overcooked); the paprika content is 147% higher on the second plate. There is a ton of science in cooking.

This debate is too formless to be useful (if it would ever be otherwise). The distinction between digital and analog is critical in the analysis. Digital cables are more of the "do they or don’t they work" period (binary!) type, whereas I allow there may be potential differences between analog cables.

However I don’t equate sound quality with exotic or expensive materials. And I try to be practical and not go to the "veil lifted off...wife noticed from the other room" level of statements, albeit I experienced it once when I actively biamped my Maggies (no, my wife didn’t come running in).

The argument (as an argument) need not exist if the pro-cable believers didn’t get so upset in the face of contradiction, albeit there are uncivil posters on each side.

But it’s totally legitimate to post skepticism and to remind people of established science in the area. There are many less experienced hobbyists or newbies who look to Audiogon as a source of knowledge. Sometimes it’s important to point out that belief is different from knowledge. I suppose that can go both ways.