Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Hshapiro on to tone... What I said was surely very confusing. Especially since most people perceive tone as a pair of knobs which add or subtract from bass and treble.

To me, tone is much more significant in that it encompasses or provides for the nuance, subtleties, emotion, timbre, dynamics, and transparency of music. While the list of what tone does goes on - I am limited for time tonight. :)

I have been trying to select a good analogy to describe tone to you and its been tough but I think I've got a good one...you'll have to do a little creative thinking and imagining to understand.

Take a familiar image - say the Mona Lisa and lets imagine it as a drawing made from pencil - maybe even us drawing it. With a pencil there is a limit to how dark and how light the colors (tone) can be. Ultimately the paper on which the image is drawn becomes the clearest - brightest surface to work with and a hard pressed pencil produces the darkest blackest tone of shadowy silence possible.

Are you with me?

Creating the truest shape and the life-like form of the Mona Lisa in pencil would then become simply a matter of using everything in-between the bright white and dark black to produce the shades of gray that ultimately define the image you see. Every nuance is described by a different gray... Long gradients of light to dark show us the gradual change from height to depth while short gradients provide us with insight into the detail and sudden drops.

If we imagine the frequency spectrum as Black being bass - til silence and White being treble til silence. We can better view how all the tone in-between shapes the sounds we hear. Its the millions of grays that describe the context of the music.

These grays tell us the difference between a Krell and a Jadis, or a Sony DVD player and an Audiomeca Mephisto. They also tell us the full emotional story about the music being played in a full 3D soundstage.

Every change to a system effects the way the grays are interpreted by you, the listener. You perceive those changes and try to describe them with a limited vocabulary... No offense - I am sure you have a great vocabulary but, can you describe 3 million or so grays individually? How about 16+ million in a full color portrait? Not to mention the fact that the English language offers very little for describing what we hear.

SO without the words to describe exactly what we here we are forced - to use visual cues.

That said, the word tone can in fact mean many things and in audiophile terms it is quite broad since most of the things that audiophiles hear are defined by the millions of grays in-between the sharp contrasts of black and white.

You guys are way out of my league. I am not an electrical engineer but isn't it silly to talk about $300 cables on $30,000 systems. I'm pretty sure no one is talking about a disparity like this. I guess I was assuming a certain level of quality that most of would consider to be HiFi (I know, I know, I'm going to get ripped for this statement). I think most of us would agree that the majority of the equipment available is pretty good right now. Most of the purchases of equipment beyond mid-fi is personal preference.
The point I was raising was on a level playing field upgrading cable is more cost effective than upgrading electronics. I wondered if this was a consensus issue or if there was still a lot of arguement about it.
After all this I'm still not sure.

Nrchy - Cables are a controversial subject and people get their feathers in a bunch when a topic like "Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck" hits the forum.

There are so many perceptions, so many quasi-theorys and lots of BS floating around. Every now and then I try to stir things up to get people thinking outside the box - ironically it rarely works with those who cling to science yet still have no sensible method of explaining what they hear.

With variables like personal preference, room accoustics, components, parts, and budget... Science will never satisfy all of us. As a result, measurements are meaningless and SPICE simulations on cables are a joke because people who love music and invest in audio don't really care to impress their friends with a specifications sheet or the SPICE tests on some guys website. They would much rather impress themselves (and their friends) by enriching their lives with the music that inspired this passion in the first place.

This is why I state that what's best is what sounds best. Seems like a lame, no-brainer statement to me, but if you read this thread, you'll see how much heat I got.

I think you are one of those who IS sure. You experienced the PAD cable in your system and it made an amazing improvement. You are the only person who can determine if the level of improvement was worth the price.

In my experience, cables are huge. Whether they be tone controls or superconductors it's irrelevant. It's how they sound man! and how their signature effect the components they're attached to that matters.

You may already know my answer... YES.. dollar for dollar, on a level playing field, and within reason($), cables are in-fact the best way to improve a system and perhaps even counteract some of the nasties encountered by the acoustics of a listening room.

Bwhite said:
Hshapiro - for a guy with Spectral gear and who has been "required" to use MIT cables for a long time... until you risked using VD.... You sure seem convinced that you know a lot about cables.

Having only two cables in your system, how did you get so much knowledge and become such an expert?

We haven't been discussing the pros and cons of specific cables. I have had three cables in my Spectral system, including custom-made, solid-core pure silver multi-conductor braided cable that a friend of mine produces in Chicago. I have never professed to be an expert on specific cable brands, nor is it necessary to make my point. I have, however, used other cables in other systems I've owned over the past twenty-five or so years. Besides MIT 750 Plus, MIT 330 Plus and VD cables, I have used Kimber 8TC, Linn, Wasatch CableWorks, Audioquest Diamond, and even Monster Cable and Mogami Cable in older systems I've had. I haven't taken a warranty risk by not using the so called required MIT cables with Spectral, as my two Spectral DMA-80 amplifiers are out of warranty. According to my dealer, the so-called problem can only occur with Spectral power amplifiers and is related to an inductor that MIT places in the cables, while Spectral leaves it out of their power amplifiers. My new Spectral DMC-20 preamplifier is not at risk. Incidentally, Rick Schultz of Virtual Dynamics told me this would happen; my Spectral amplifiers now run much cooler with VD cables than they did with MIT. This, I am told is the result of a reduction in mechanical resonance in the cables. As the amps run cooler, I am more comfortable with the safety of the amps now than I was with the MIT cables. Incidentally, I'd be interested in knowing what characteristics of the VD cables you didn't like in your system.

Bwhite said;
First - regarding the NORDOST demo. You misread what I wrote. They are not removing internal wire from within the Boom-Box. They ARE removing and replacing the speaker wires only. Re-read it.

You are right. I stand corrected.

Bwhite said:
The combined general concensus on Audiogon and one that I agree with (and fight diligently to defend) is that there is no single cable that will work best in every system.
Which means that the best cable for any given system is dependent upon what the system is.

This is about synergy, which I have said many times I agree with.

Bwhite said:
In my collection of "systems" I have what I call a pretty cheap and crappy system . It might retail for $500 total... But maybe less.. This system uses Audioquest Lapis cables (which retailed for about $800 - I think). In my honest oppinion, the Audioquest cables help the system tremendously - in fact, the improvement is huge.

This experience seems to contradict what YOU repeatedly state that, "good cables cannot help a bad system". So each time you state that, you are telling me that I cannot hear, I cannot determine for myself what sounds better and I resent that.

Although you have not quoted me exactly, I will withdraw my prior statement that a good cable can't make a bad system sound good. I suppose it can make it euphonically sound better. What I should have said is that a good cable can't make a bad system more accurate. Please don't ask me to define accurate. Had I put it that way, you may not have resented my statement. However, there is a difference between saying you have a good cable that is synergistic in combination with a mediocre system, and saying that you have a cable that has high enough resolution, which if the rest of your system is flawed, can reveal those flaws. The latter point is what I have been saying, and that alone. In my experience, if you have a good cable and inferior electronics, the result is that the resolution of the cable can magnify some of the other problems. Let's just say that your experience differs from mine and leave it at that.

The following is based on your second post:

Bwhite said:
First off, you either mis-quoted me or mis-interpreted what I said. You can either go to the post I made on: 08-26-02 or read what I wrote below:

Biggest bang for the buck? Argh! Tough question but - I would have to say the right cables can make a sad system sing and a great system sound utterly magnificent.

You seem to think I said something different:

No. I copied and pasted it from one of your later posts. Remember, I didn't enter into this discussion until 9/9. Whew, this thread has been going for quite a while! However, I don't feel that the slight difference in words is meaningful to our discussion.

Bwhite said:
Okay... Well I didn't say that a "GOOD" cable will make a bad system do anything. I said THE RIGHT CABLE can make a sad system sing. Key word = RIGHT!

Ok, I see your point when you use the word, RIGHT. When you establish that your cable is right, you are saying that it's synergistic with the "sad" system.

Bwhite said:
When you say that a good cable reveals problems upstream it's idiotic - and the kind of thing you hear folks say who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Just when I was starting to like you, you have to say something like that. :) In your previous post you're complimenting me for being a great contributor to this site. In your next post you're lumping me together with folks who don't know what the hell they are talking about. Wasn't it you who said in your previous post:

I have read many of your posts and believe you are a great contributor to this site and seem like an awful nice guy. Therefore it troubles me to be in such a heated and at times - confusing, discussion with you.

Why so uncivil? All that I have been saying all along is that a good cable can reveal problems that exist upstream. You may laugh at this as being mid-fi thinking, but that kind of attitude only impresses the audio elitists! I wasn't saying that a good cable will reveal problems that DON'T exist upstream. In a good system, there should be no real problems upstream, so our discussion is moot in that instance.

Bwhite:
This is why I kept quizzing you on which of the cables I named, were good. Not having tried the cables and LISTENED TO THEM YOURSELF, you would have nothing other than the opinions of others, price, and perhaps reviews to base your decision.

What decision? It's not necessary for me to base my opinion (decision?) on whether good cables always improve bad systems on just YOUR cables? My arguments are valid despite not haven't listened to all of YOUR cables. I'm not commenting on YOUR cables. It's not personal. I believe in the philosophy of trying to find neutral components. Using a neutral cable can be like a clear window to the rest of the system, much like an excellent speaker, should be a clear window to everything before it. I am saying, if the system is flawed, this clear window can help reveal it. Please hold your laughter until after the discussion is over. We're never going to agree on this, but who cares!

Bwhite said:
Here are three scenarios:

1) you buy and expensive cable, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link?

2) you buy a cable that received a great review, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link?

3) you buy a cable that everyone is talking about, put it in your system and it sounds bad. Does that mean your system has a weak link?

How do you as the audiophile deduct that the cable is good and your system is bad?

As these are actually all the same questions with a bit of peer pressure thrown in for good measure, I will give you the same answer. Yes, it means that the system has a weak link, IF you believe that the cable is neutral. It's always based on personal opinion as to whether any component is neutral, but through listening to a variety of components, we make decisions as to what does and what doesn't sound like a convincing illusion of the real musical event. At some point, it's an act of faith. As both of us have said before, there are no absolutes. Otherwise, we're locked into a meaningless chicken and egg argument.

Bwhite said:
The asinine assumption that a cable will "show" you a weak link just makes me laugh. That is such a mid-fi way of viewing high-end.

Laugh all you want, and thanks for exhibiting your elitist audiophile side again. Please define the "mid-fi way of viewing high-end?"

Bwhite said:
As Rcrump put it to Sean - (two guys who I believe in by the way), "Sean, the quote is all wire is crap, but some are less crappy than others." The cables themselves are in many high-end systems - the most likely candidate as the weak link.

Yes, when the system is high-end, then by definition it can be considered without flaws. I was only referring to flawed systems not being corrected by good cables.

Bwhite said:
Perhaps this will help you - if you already own the VERY BEST SYSTEM in the world & there are no possible upgrades for ANY of your components. And you put what you consider the very best, most highly rated cable at any price in that system and it sounds bad.... what do you do?? Oh my lord!!!!

You buy another cable!

Can't help the sarcasm, can you? Your example uses the very best system. I was discussing a cable revealing flaws in a flawed system.

Bwhite said:
If you have an OKAY system or one like Audioengr's which sounds like systems costing 10x more!! And you put what you consider the very best, most highly rated cable at any price in that system and it sounds bad.... It becomes an issue with TRUST... I think you stepped up to the plate in one of your posts and talked about having a level of confidence in your system vs. the cable. This is good and I think its a fair way to judge performance. What your gut tells you is usually not far off. Needless to say, I don't trust Audioengr's system and therefore I would keep the cable and ditch the system. But that's a rare case! :)

Now you're being nice? It's not important whether one trusts his system or his cables. Given someone feels the need to improve something in their system, at some point, they will need to make a decision on which component represents the weakest link.

Bwhite
But when you stoop down to a lower level system - lets say something like a Philips CD player, an Outlaw Audio Home Theater Receiver, and Low End Speakers. Cables make a dramatic difference in sound. Yes, it can be very much like painting a $200 car with $2000 in paint - but no joke, the difference in sound is astonishing. In fact, I would have to say that the RIGHT cables in a cheap system will have more impact on a percentage scale than GOOD interconnects in a high(er) end system. Hard to believe? Well... I don't know for sure but experience tells me it is possible.

I agree with you, that if you find the RIGHT (synergistic) cables, they can make a big difference in even a cheap system. It makes sense that the greater improvement would be the right cables in a cheap system, since there is so much to improve upon. I know first hand, since I first replaced my zip cord with Monster Cable over twenty-five years ago in my Luxman system. They worked quite well at the time. Improving a high-end system becomes a case of diminishing returns at a certain point.

Bwhite said:
Keep in mind - cheap systems are harsh, bright, muddy, ugly sounding pieces of doo-doo. This is where the effects of cables can be quite profound.

You are listening to the euphonic, but pleasing effect that the cable has on the entire system. I'm starting to see where you're coming from.

Bwhite said:
REMEMBER - I never said GOOD CABLES WILL MAKE A CHEAP SYSTEM GOOD... I said SING. Maybe its Karaoke night kinda stuff, certainly not gospel - definately not REAL good.. but entertaining... often surprising... obviously better than doing nothing and more fun than listening to the cables they ship with the gear.

If you have a crappy system. Try it.

Now that I have read your comments in greater scope, I believe I understand what you have been saying. I mistakenly thought your were saying that a good cable is all that it takes turn a bad system into a good system. I can relate to making the bad system euphonically pleasing with good cable. I think we have been arguing semantics.

Bwhite said:
Did you re-read what I wrote about the Nordost demo? That's important because they change the speaker cables on a boom-box and the differences are amazing.

If you don't have a crappy system, do you have a VCR? Try switching the cables on your VCR with your Virtual Dynamics and see if you can hear a difference. Not sure if your TV speakers are capable but you might hear an improvement.

You probably won't believe me, but a few months ago I gave my son, who has a Sony cheapo system, my custom-made silver speaker cables and found that it made a fairly good improvement. I was never arguing that point. I know that you disagree with me, but I was only saying that high-resolution cables can reveal other shortcomings in a system that low-rez cables can't.

Hshapiro - now we're getting somewhere. Sorry for coming across as having an elitist attitude. In a way, all audiophiles are to some extent elitist in their views. We would be hard pressed to find a dedicated audiophile who was satisfied with the same audio gear the rest of the world had.

When I complimented you, I meant it. However, I was a little squirmish when I read comments similar to "...highlighting the weakest link..." and "...pointing out problems..." because they didn't seem to fit your standard logic and intelligent way of describing what you hear.

I have a couple pet-peeves or things which cause me to cringe when I read 'em. For example - when someone says, "shows you problems upstream" or "sounds like systems costing 10x more" - I freak out. Perhaps I should better contain my reaction.

Anyhow, I see your point in regard to whats *perceived* as a good cable showing flaws in an otherwise untrustworthy (or flawed) system - one which the owner may perceive as having a weak link after installing a cable they feel is "good" or "better" than the rest of the system.

I guess it all has to do with what your goal as an audiophile is. If you put a good or better cable in any given system and it "highlights a problem" it becomes an issue of how much you want to spend to resolve the problem-or how far you're willing to go.

I'll ask a couple rhetorical questions to make a point. If you have a Krell amplifier and put in a fine silver cable, it could sound lousy... does this really mean that you need to change your Krell to a Jadis in order to keep the cable? What if you start off with a Jadis and put in a GOOD cable that sounds bloated, does that mean you go out and buy a Krell?

There is a lot of room between what's good for Krell and what's good for Jadis. The goal should be finding the cable that is RIGHT in either situation. Hence my suggestion to most people is NOT to upgrade components based on what cables do to a system, instead change cables based on what they do to the components - based on what you, the listener, feel is right.

And if down the road they upgrade components, change cables accordingly. Its simple.

Just because a cable is as some may put it, "low rez" does not mean its bad. Likewise, if a cable is "high rez" it might not be that good. Depends on the usage.

Make sense?