Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

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?

Regarding my comment

That is such a mid-fi way of viewing high-end.

Hshapiro wrote:

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

I will try to define the "mid-fi" way of viewing high-end without an elitist perspective.

Once an audiophile has chosen his/her path and selected components from within the available spectrum - everything between black and white - or since I used Krell and Jadis before - everything between Krell and Jadis... The goal is to make the system sound as close to ideal as possible - based on listener preference, room conditions, etc.

At the higher end, audiophiles select components based on what sonic signatures they prefer and in most cases try to tune their systems as best as possible - to bring out every last bit of performance. I used the analogy of Black Jack in one of my posts above...whether they know it or not, folks in the high end are trying to get a 21. They don't want to bust - go over 21 - because that would be too much. They view 21 as a winning hand - perfection - and each baby step they take toward that number is a small victory.

A cable which turns out to be too low-rez could set someone back to 15 or 10... but likewise cast them into the 22 or 23 range (depending on choice of components). The same thing can happen with a cable that is to high-rez, again, depending on choice of components. Its an almost never ending cycle. Often components are changed for better or worse but the audiophile must determine if they actually improve the sound (get closer to 21), deduct from the sound (loose a few points), or go over the top - damn! I went bust!

IF 21 is equal to the perfect resolution then you can view 22 as being too detailed or analytical and 20 as being slightly compressed.

Make sense?

Mid-Fi - Pretty difficult to explain and pretty risky since I will be required to make some tough statement... but...I'm a glutton for punishment so.. here it goes...

I characterize mid-fi as a phase where folks don't exactly know where they're going with their system. Their goal is often making their system sound like systems costing 10x more! (which isn't a bad thing) Like most of us - including myself - they do not have the dollars required to venture into the highest of high end and therefore are easily swayed in their opinion of their system. Even if they did, they wouldn't know where to go... They have less of an idea of what is good or bad about their system - and the lack of trust in their components often keeps them bouncing back and forth. They tend to be easily excited by dramatic changes and regard the results of the changes as a result of the component (or cable) they view as being the most competent - instead of trying to build a synergy!

Mostly, I view mid-fi as not having direction, not knowing what component to upgrade, cable to buy, etc. The stress of mid-fi is overwhelming and I think its mostly because these people for the most part, haven't been exposed to really high-end (20's, 21's and 22's) so they just don't yet know what they truly enjoy.

Once a mid-fi person chooses the direction, everything becomes clear and the steps required to accomplish the goal become evident.

This is why when someone says, "reveals problems upstream" they are talking mid-fi. its a very vague statement (what problems?) and typical of someone who doesn't know where they're going with the system - and doesn't trust it. If the mid-fi person had direction in their system, or a goal - they would know whether or not the addition of the new component or cable put them closer to 21 or further away.

A lot of writing goin on here! I'll repeat what RCrump said a number of posts up because it says it in 3 lines.

Quote "Spend your dollars on better gear before you think about better wires.....10% of the cost of the system will get you down the road just fine for wires.....There sure seem to be a lot of folks out there that have 15K in their systems with 1/3 of that in wires which is just ludicrous..." End Quote.

I remain,

Bwhite- I don't have much time, as I'm off to see a client. I too am sorry if I sounded like I was from the typical objectivist, accuracy is everything crowd. I can get carried away with logic, sometimes.

It does all come down to personal preferences, and as always, perception is reality.

I too have read a number of your posts, and believe you to be a very nice guy, as well. It only proves that we have a passion for this hobby, which is a good thing.

Bwhite said:
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.

Same here. One of my pet peeves is when people use adjectives such as always or never to describe how they perceive things. I sometimes lose sight of the point of the discussion and start unconsciously arguing against those adjectives.

Bwhite said:
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.

Thanks, and I didn't mean to sound as if a good cable cannot make an otherwise mediocre system sound better. Again, I got caught up in a logic argument.

Bwhite said:
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.

I do agree with that. I have always chosen my electronic components first, since they are responsible for the retrieval of music, which cannot be compensated for further down the chain.

Bwhite said:
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?

Yes. If a "low rez" cable helps make a "low rez" system sound better, then the result is positive. I have heard some "high rez" cables that did not interact synergistically with other "high rez" equipment, so it can go either way. It seems like we have come to a meeting of the minds and I feel a whole lot better.

Hshapiro - GREAT! I think we have come to a meeting of the minds. Thanks for your objectivity! Hey.... Not to stir things up again but regarding your last statement:

Yes. If a "low rez" cable helps make a "low rez" system sound better, then the result is positive. I have heard some "high rez" cables that did not interact synergistically with other "high rez" equipment, so it can go either way. It seems like we have come to a meeting of the minds and I feel a whole lot better.

Usually - on the high(er) end - low(er) rez cables make high(er) resolution systems sound better. There are some VERY, VERY GOOD cables out there which may be perceived as low rez by some. Most cables deemed high-rez do not work well with high-rez systems. High-rez cables are great for low(er) rez systems.

On the lower end - lower rez cables will make harsh sounding systems sound better - easier on the ears - and high rez cables make muddy systems sound more transparent.

On the highest end - when a synergy has been formed - lean toward the most neutral cable for the system. Its impossible to fine a 100% purely neutral cable and unlikely to hear a 100% purely neutral component. At this level, one really wants to listen to the music and not the cables or components. Given that the quality of sound reproduced by such components is typically superior but not absolutely perfect, it becomes a delicate balancing act to add the RIGHT cable into the mix which has the most neutral presentation possible without leaning the wrong direction.
Even at this level (20 or 22) its possible to be too sterile or too rich with the components. At this level, high-rez is just as bad as low-rez.