7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

Tekunda: Your analogy to digital printing assumes that there is such a thing as a "high-res" cable. But there isn't. Cables can differ in their impact on frequency response, but except at the extremes that impact falls below the known thresholds of human detection. Interference can be a problem, though I wonder how common it really is. And bad connections make a big difference, although quality of connections is not what the cable "industry" emphasizes, since even zipcord is capable of a high-quality connection.

Are there hi-res cables? I think there are cables with a high resolution factor. On Chesky's sytem test disk, there is one track called the high resolution test. Shakers in the background are supposed to sound differently with every shake performed.
With my HMS cables and the Valhalla, there was no problem detecting this minute sound differences.
Then I went to another cable, which was not cheap ($850) but now it was almost impossible to detect the differences in detail.
Not only was the high-resolution gone, but also the mid- range purity had kind of suffered, the other cable sounded somewhat somber and dark, veiled if you like.
Mr. Strassner of HMS was a big doubter himself, believing that every cable with reasonable performance will deliver, but one day he was given the chance to listen to an excellent cable in an excellent system. That was the day of revelation, and according to him, he set out, with the help of his technical expertise, to see what was causing these differences.
His whole design ideas are created around the knowledge of the impact of the magnetic field and interference of EMI/RFI and some other discoveries regarding the dielectric. The impact on frequency responses is only one of many factors.
Basically one of his biggest inventions is to keep the magnetic forces, which are created in every electric conductor, inside of the cable. He does this with ferrite blocks made out of a special alloy.
Well, he has his ideas, Nordost with the Valhalla have their secrets, but in the right system, both cables make an incredible difference.

Paul, sorry to ruin your day, but i'm going to respond to your post.

First of all, this is a forum open to all members and anybody can respond. Even if you, me or someone else doesn't like the person or what they have to say.

Secondly, you're question pertaining to the "golden age of stereo" was a somewhat rhetorical question. As such, i did not think that it was all inclusive to any other / all your comments or questions that you would make in this thread.

Third, it would be somewhat logical to assume that a recording engineer / studio using "ratty old cheap cables" might also be using "ratty old cheap components and speakers". As such, i may have incorrectly assumed that you were thinking in an exponential manner or following any form of logic. I appologize for giving you that much credit.

Fourth, the tone of your comments assumed that the mass majority of studios make recordings using cables of lesser quality. Your assumed stance from that point of view was that there is nothing to be gained by fancy wires when trying to reproduce the performance in your listening area. The fact that most studios use balanced lines throughout the entire ( or nearly entire ) equipment chain should show that they have in fact taken into consideration the importance of cables, minimizing their influence on the signal while trying to minimize the potential for degradation from sources such as rfi, emi, line loss, etc... This in itself contradicts your initial assumption.

Fifth, some of the vintage recordings that you find of higher than average quality were probably recorded in a simple format in analogue mode with minimal signal tampering taking place. As such, heavy amounts of EQ, compression, digital processing can make ANY recording sound worse, even those of today using high tech modes of operation. Comparing minimalist recordings done in a relative "purist" style to highly complex recordings done in a highly manipulative style would normally result in very different products, regardless of age or vintage.

Sixth, I'll be glad to disregard your less than articulate or specific posts that sometimes border on troll bait. Sincerely, your friend Sean
>

Paul and Sean, I think your both right. A lot of the recordings today by the "factory" studios may indeed care less of the quality than the budget/ profit. The sound of these recordings is placed in history and will never be better than the least component used to create it.

To me the fact that the "Audiophile" labels exist and sound as good as they do is some sort of proof to that. If the master tape is good (often the case in older classic and jazz recordings) then the better equipment will show this quality. If the playback equipment is lesser however the final presentation will also be less.

I guess it depends on your source, if you listen to a lot of the newly recorded "music" from today's mass production studios than forget wire, just sit back and enjoy. If however you have a lot of "audiophile" labels, recorded as purely as possible, then I would recommend using the best possible equipment to take full advantage of the potential left by the studio.

This discussion of cables bores me as a topic, but draws me in with the hope that new audio lovers don't get led astray with wrongful thinking.

I too have auditioned over 40 cables, to claim there is no difference is simple naive and ill informed. This site deserved better.

J.D.

Whoa! This-here thread got away from me in a hurry. I don't know whether to apologize or thank you, so I'll do both.

Being an "outsider" again with old but somewhat fresh eyes for the jargon, I've got two observations to make that some of you may not see because you've kept up with the literature since I dropped out.

First, the WONDERFUL spoof on fishing line actually hooked me. That's really scary. It means somewhere in the dark recesses of my slowly withering pea-brain, cable claims from a decade ago are still lodged and producing a Pavlovian response in my subconscious. Driving to work, I found myself actually wondering if $3,000 fishing line might work -- I'm not kidding! -- even while my conscious, semi-professional self was screaming "If you think that ridiculous thought one more time, I'm driving this car off the next bridge!"

Second, why hasn't the industry put its efforts into figuring out "why" one piece of wire works better than another? I mean, designing a really great amp, tuner, speaker or CD player takes a bit of effort and some genuine smarts. Hasn't anyone wanted to design an active component or an ability within existing components that would give you exactly the same great sound as the most expensive cable using any conductor of electricity? It's got to be easier (and cheaper!) than buying and testing high-end cables until you find something that sort of works better than something else. This isn't rocket science folks (and even if it were, you can hire rocket scientists in Russia full-time these days for about $1200 a month each).

I would think that speaker and component manufacturers would be interested in being the first to claim their units didn't need fussy, expensive cables to sound great.

By the way, yes, yes, I do have about $600 (used) in speaker cables in my system. I'm not a complete Luddite, OK?

You all are the most intelligent, funny and sensible audiophiles (by and large) that I've ever encountered. Thank you for the great entertainment and information!

Respectfully,

Mark Hubbard