Which Cables Are of Most Importance?

Just revisiting this thread. Almarg, you said:

****the converse is also true. Any information that is lost or distortion that is added by a downstream component or cable cannot be corrected by anything further upstream!****

Absolutely true. But the reasoning behind my comment, and it's suggestion that if a compromise must be made (budget-wise), it makes more sense to keep the signal as pure as possible, for as long as possible, by using the best possible IC. IOW, assuming that NONE of the cables in the system are total garbage (unlikely these days; thankfully), and barring any gross technical incompatibilities, it seems to make sense that the end result will be better if the speaker cables are asked to pass a signal that is less distorted by the IC (better IC), than to have a better (more revealing) speaker cable revealing the problems of a lesser quality IC.

I welcome your thoughts.

Hi Frogman,

The question is reminiscent of the age-old debate about "speakers first" vs. "source first." As many past threads have made clear, a reconciliation between the two opposing positions seems unachievable.

FWIW, I happen to be in the camp that believes that a chain is as strong as its weakest link, regardless of where in the chain that link may be located. In the case of speakers vs. source, I believe that in general the choice of speakers will make a greater difference in the character and quality of the sound that is heard than the source component, which I believe means in turn that the speakers are more likely than not to be the link that should be given the most focus, and the higher priority. I recognize that there is an opposing philosophy, with which I agree to disagree.

In the case of cables, the issue is further muddled by the dependence of many cable effects on the design characteristics of the components the cable is connecting, and the unpredictability that results in. And that dependence, in turn, is one reason (among others) for what IMO is a considerably lower degree of correlation between price and performance in the case of cables, in comparison with the degree of correlation that exists in the case of components and speakers. Which muddles the issue still further.

The bottom line, as I see it, is what I said in my previous post:

IMO the lack of consensus in this thread confirms what Philjolet said early on: "There are too many variables in personal stereos to have a fair consensus for comparison."

Many technical factors could be cited in support of that position, including the dependency of many cable effects on the input and output impedances of the components that are being connected, balanced vs. unbalanced interconnections, ground loop susceptibility of the components, the rfi/emi environment, use of feedback in the components, power supply design, AC power characteristics, the lengths of the cables, etc., etc.

The reasoning you stated in your last post, while perhaps appealing in the abstract, does not take into account this multitude of variables and dependencies, and also seems to make what I consider to be the incorrect presumption that there will be a high degree of correlation between cable performance in a given system and cable price.

IMO. I recognize that other opinions can and will differ.

Best regards,
-- Al

System dependant. However, for me: 1. Power (by far), 2. Interconnect, 3. Speaker.

Great post, Al. I agree with your positions. I have always maintained that the speakers should be the highest priority in any system, and I agree with your comments on cables as well. I happen to agree with Robert Harley's suggestion that cables/interconnects should cost no more than 5% of a total system budget, no matter what that budget may be. IMO, all other parts of the system are far more important.