Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

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.

Bwhite wrote:

If a cable conceals a weakness that is a good thing. The system will sound better... if a cable highlights a weakness whos to say that the real weakness didn't come from the cable?

Usually, when a cable conceals a weakness in a system it does this by corrupting the sound in some way or adding coloration. I dont see how this is an improvement.

Audioengr wrote:

Usually, when a cable conceals a weakness in a system it does this by corrupting the sound in some way or adding coloration. I dont see how this is an improvement.

Ya... but if a system has a weakness... the sound is already corrupted! So who the hell cares!!??!!

If the cable makes the system more listenable - THAT IS A GOOD THING!

I guess I would have to lower my standards in order to not care. This is analogous to owning a Mercedes for 20 years and then replacing it with a Yugo when it wears out. A hard pill to swallow at best.....

I recently did a project with focus groups that involved digital audio playback. I found that I could not stomach what MP3 did to the music. I had to use .wav files ultimately.