Interconnect cable upgrade disapointment

Douglas schroeder: As to the reduction in vibration - I did not state that I was trying to improve the sound - you seem to have assumed that. What I did state was that I was seeking to reduce the transmission of energy caused by the floor - speaker interface. My reason was, not to change the quality of the sound, but to cut down on the inefficiency caused by loss of energy through that interface.

However, the arguments proposed for cable improvements do not rest in scientific theory, at least not scientific theory that has application at the frequencies and current levels present in home audio.

Seems like I have touched a nerve - do I detect one with a pecuniary interest in cables? And no, I won't be joining you on the cable adventure - I have heard the cable argument for going on 20 years and it is as meritless today as it was 20 years ago.

Musicnoise

I never can get over that handle… Musicnoise… that’s super.

What is music to one is noise to another, huh? That’s a great pseudonym.

I want to personally thank you for enticing me to do my little AB test. I never have had the thought to do one outright, nor did I have the devices which could truly facilitate such an endeavor quickly enough for such a test. I had begun to doubt my previous thoughts on whether or not there truly were diffs, one to another with cabling.

Thanks to you I’ve finally determined unequivocally, that there are indeed differences. Better. Lesser. In regard to cables…. And I appreciate it very much.

So… putting the slide rule and specimen jar, aside now…

Everything has its place. Research. Testing. Practice. Application. Implementation. Revision… on the clinical side. All quite traditional methods for exploration of theorems, or theories, and ideas. I’ve absolutely no issue with science at all.

AS I’ve said previously, if the human element was not involved, perhaps then, and likely only then, things might become vastly different. There is a time and place for all of it.

So long as we humans are around, we’re going to say and do things which are contrary to a clinical approach.

For ex… when buying shoes… do you simply pick out the size style, and color you want, or do you slip them on first?

Or a gun… do you merely seek out the appropriate caliber for the task, without regard to fit and feel, or brand?

Ever order a new car or truck without driving it first?

How ‘bout that home of yours… Did ya take a peek inside before closing on it, or just look at the specs, location and square footage?

Ya know, science said those gaskets on the Challenger would be fine too… even without ever having been tested in those conditions…. Common sense observations said otherwise. We all know the result of that event.

Now I did try one scientific approach during my previous marriage… I bought my wife a table saw for her birthday. Figuring she wouldn’t use it and I could, but a present had been bought and a remembrance of the special occasion had been made.

She wasn’t terribly pleased with that approach, despite my assurances I’d use it till she could, and it would benefit us both!

She never did use that saw. In fact she sold it. Her justification was simple… when I asked her why she sold it she reminded me… “: well, it was mine, wasn’t it?”

I know that’s not a great analogy for this topic, but I felt compelled. The plan seemed solid enough… it was the outcome which threw me.

Mere science, even pure science, without consideration doesn’t always win out positively… for even science in its most pristine form is subject to the human condition, and consequent evaluation.

I feel the vast majority of audio & video enthusiast which spend severe amounts of time energy, and money, are intelligent, considerate, and thoughtful people… by and large.
Not every audio or video junkie is flush with funds either. Therefore, the litmus test for any application, integration, or use of higher end devices will always be the subjective consideration of the buyer…. And that’s no simple matter.

If such people are driven more by ego, or peer pressure, than by honest evaluation, then so be it! Let ‘em bleed. It’s their party.

The truly only appropriate equation for any audio or video nut is this… “If you hear or see a thing as being better, and can justify the expense for acquiring that level of betterment or difference, then by all means… BUY IT.”

Either way… if one chooses a clinical methodology or a simple plug it in methodology, I say “Have fun”… the last word always is a human one anyhow, huh?

The only justification I’ve ever had to make is the “Can I afford that degree of improvement, or differenced?” ….and sometimes I’ll ignore that answer if it doesn’t suit me. In the end or at least to this point, the ONLY poor choice has been a sideways step or two, and not one that undermined my system building efforts. It’s all been an ongoing upwardly moving sojourn.

Doug

It’s no wonder folks don’t do a whole system wireing AB test. The cost is too prohibitive. We’d all know the major result beforehand too…. It would be different. The question remaining would be, “Is it better?” and the issue would be, “Wonder what all them wires would do in my system?”

…but it would be interesting reading I suppose…. Or time well wasted. It’s one of the two I’m sure. Interesting, never the less.

Blindjim - the handle comes from the title of a book written fairly recently about 20th century 'classical' music "The Rest is Noise" which happened to be in front of me on the bookshelf when I selected my moniker for this forum.

Additionally - one thing I would like to point out - although not directed toward Blindjim but to the comments from another poster about reducing vibration - my goal with vibration reduction is not to improve sound quality - what prompted my interest, aside from inefficiencies, is I do not want to "feel" the music when I listen with my feet on the floor. If you look further down my post with regard to vibration damping you will see some reference to that effect, which occurs when at high volumes. To the extent that I can get rid of that effect, is the purpose for the damping system. I don't expect a change in quality of the sound from the damping of the floor-speaker effect.

"Seems like I have touched a nerve - do I detect one with a pecuniary interest in cables? And no, I won't be joining you on the cable adventure - I have heard the cable argument for going on 20 years and it is as meritless today as it was 20 years ago."

You're right, you touched a nerve; I think you've got a lot of nerve making pronouncements when you seemingly have done nothing to test it out. Then, in arrogance dismiss the reports of those who have done comparisons. You really think your logic is wonderful. I know, I used to be just like you.

I think in this post you reveal your true motivation: Mistrust

No, you do not detect, "one with a pecuniary interest in cables," as you are speaking with someone who conducted tests with suites of cables on his own dime - sometimes tying up $4-5K in extra cables for comparisons, then to sell them off -years before becoming a reviewer. Sorry, wrong assumption on your part, but it confirms the deep suspicion and mistrust that lies underneath your dismissal of cables.

I became convinced of my perspective on cables before I had any part in reviewing. In fact, it was all my informal comparisons of suites of cables which led me to conduct three reviews of cable groupings quickly after becoming a reviewer. I wanted to conduct more listening tests to confirm what I had found on my own. Reviewing has only strenghened the conclusions I already reached. I have had more access to cables from all levels of quality and different brands. My conclusion about the efficacy of cables is verified on a weekly basis, and witnessed by audiophiles whom I invite into my room. So, yes, it gets tiresome to hear someone with almost zero experience act like they know it all in regards to what cables can/can't do.

Why the suspicion simply because I mention that I review? You don't believe people when they're sharing experiences? You think there's always a fiscal (almost an evil audiophile) ulterior motive? Pretty sad. At least those who are not so jaded can learn something here.

I wish you well in your isolation device endeavor. :)

I thought I would take a second to correct some of the last poster's inaccuracies, for the benefit of the original poster, so that the original poster can evaluate the recommendations to the extent that future choices are made. As to experience and training, I built my first ham radio and put up my first tower decades ago as a teenage. In other words I have been connecting parts of electronic systems for a long time with great success. I learned more than a bit about electronics from years as an amateur radio operator, from repairing aviation weapons control systems and radar in the USN, from an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, from decades working as a biomedical engineer in research designs and clinical applications, decades as a member of the IEEE, and many years teaching electronics both in the classroom and in the laboratory at a technical college part time in the evenings.

Amplifiers are amplifiers, frequency response is frequency response, interconnects between equipment do not 'know' what the signal is - whether it represents music, a nerve conduction potential, or the output of a radar receiver, is immaterial to the interconnecting cable. What is important in determining selections in such interconnections is an understanding of the frequency and time domain characteristics of the signal and the electrical properties of the interconnected devices. In other words, there is nothing particularly special about moving signals around in a an audio system. So, I present my opinion in these matters from a considerable background pertinent to the topic. As to comparing cables by listening to them, I cannot say that I have extensively engaged in that practice, - however, there simply isn't a lot of value to be assigned to such subjective unquantifiable endeavors, if there were we would likely see a large number of studies of the results published in professional journals.

As a sidelight, a trademark of a weak argument is the ad hominem attack. A trademark of a weak argument in a scientific or technical area is the extent to which the opinion relies on subjectivity without objective findings, relies on other than logic, and is presented in emotional terms, as these are of no relevance to technical subjects. When the original poster decides what probative weight to assign to the various opinions, he or she may wish to take into consideration these factors.