Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Let me clarify my response a bit.

Changing from Cable A to Cable B can IMPROVE the performance of a system, not necessarily take it "sideways" or "tune it" as per someone's personal preference. The cable change can achieve this by actually improving the loading conditions of the component that is feeding it. The improvement would come from increased signal transfer with lower amounts of reactance. The cable change could do this via presenting a load that was more suitable to what the source ( not necessarily the "front end" but the component actually feeding the signal into that specific cable ) wanted to see.

Just as a power amp loads into speakers, a cd player or dac loads into a preamp, a preamp loads into a power amp, etc... If you don't think that changing speaker cables will affect the load that the amplifier sees, try taking a look at the article that Nelson Pass wrote and WhoCares makes reference to. As Mr Pass demonstrates, the differences in loading characteristics that various cables present when using the same set of speakers as a point of reference is very measurable. The same thing occurs with line level components, etc.. i.e. cable changes can make measurable differences in signal transfer. Taking this to another level, i personally feel that those measurable results are also audible. So says the "subjective objectivist" in me : )

Since cables are a necessity, it only makes sense to find those that are best suited for both accurate and musical reproduction within the confines of your system. This does not mean that each cable will be the same from component to component ( digital to preamp, preamp to power amp, etc... ) or that the same cables will work in similar fashion in another system. Nor does it mean that the "best" cable in any given situation need be expensive, make use of fancy geometries and materials or be an "audiophile approved" brand name.

As far as introducing tone controls to the circuit, these will typically introduce a multitude of negatives in terms of our goal of "accurate reproduction". Having said that, it is sometimes nice to be able to "tweak" up the bottom end and turn down the top end ( or vice-versa ) on some of the less than perfect recordings that we have to deal with. As such, better components may not include tone controls but do allow the provisions for the installation of such devices by simply taking advantage of a specialty "processor loop" designed for such. What type of processing one chooses to use is obviously at the discretion of the end user. Sean
>

I believe cables and components are equally important in order to maximize your system. In addition, good wall outlets help too. I have found that achieving good sound is not a numbers game. Inotherwords, the most expensive cables and components does not always produce the best results. Obtaining synergy requires the right power cords, cables, and components. Certain amplifiers may work best with the type of speakers you are using (i.e. - low powered amplifiers (SET) has good synergy with high effeciency speakers). Lastly, I am a believer of good power cords as an effective tweak. I have a preference in using certain power cords with different components, achieving a lower noise floor, obtaining good bass, and enlarging the sound stage.

Sean, you bring up some interesting points. However, you're actually agreeing with me in that a cable can only influence the performance of a component in an adverse way. I wouldn't dismiss a component as "junk" because its' performance is negatively affected by the load of the cable (or downstream electronics). I'm not that arrogant! In such a case, the cable is merely poorly suited to the source. I absolutely agree with you in your contention that trying to "tune" a system into much more than it is with cables is a futile undertaking.

I have great respect for Nelson Pass and his regular posts here are always well worth reading. Unfortunately, I don't think the article referenced above is his most valuable contribution. The date 2/1980, means that it necessarily misses the great advances touted by the wire industry for the last twenty years. The analysis is the classic RLC/impedance matching analysis that has been the bane of those trying to find reasons to pay huge amounts of money for wire. It inevitably leads to the conclusion, in all but a very few instances, that there is no reason. This is why you so often hear cable proponants argue so strongly that measurements don't matter.

His conclusion seems to indicate that he could have been a great politician as well as a great audio engineer. After saying basically that he cannot "assess" the differences except at the "extremes" (he doesn't define extreme but leaves the impression he means very long runs of wire) he falls back on "who am I" to judge line and says money spent on "quality" cables is money "well spent." Never saying what a "quality" cable is or what is a reasonable amount of money to spend.

Was he running for office in early 1980? I'da voted for him had I known.

I remain,

Thsalmon, we are probably just looking at it from different perspectives i.e. you saying that the signal only degrades after it leaves the component and me thinking that it can be "better presevered" by using more suitable cabling. In effect, i think we are both acknowledging that the cable can't improve the signal i.e. "make something that is not there", but we can work with various cables to transfer the signal as best possible with the least amount of losses or colouration. If the cable was "making something that was not there", it would simply be a distortion of the signal. As we've all come to learn, some distortions can be quite pleasant and euphonic though : ) Sean
>