Audio Video Revolution Forum  

Go Back   Audio Video Revolution Forum > Audio-Video Electronics > Cables

Cables It's all about connections. Discuss everything about audio cables ranging from balanced to unbalanced, speaker cables to interconnects and beyond.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2008   #31
Super Member
 
Loves2Watch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lost Causes, Mew Nexico
Posts: 153
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post
Please provide the details for these experiements. Otherwise, I'll continue to trust my own ears.
There is an overabundance of proof on the internet. Do some research and I hope your placebo continues so you can empty your wallet to all of the snake oil salesmen.
__________________
Anthem, Conrad Johnson, Dish Network/JVC, Dynaudio, Infinity, Integra, JL Audio, Klipsch, Magnepan, Marantz, Martin Logan, Onkyo, Oppo, Outlaw Audio, Panasonic, Paradigm, REL, Sumiko, SVSound, and Toshiba are the brands equipment I currently use. I have owned/used and tested equipment made by just about any manufacturer you can name.
Loves2Watch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2008   #32
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

all things digital have been eternally demonized by many audiophiles. Apparently, you are one of them.

Actually, I am kind of the reverse from this statement. I jumped on the SACD bandwagon hoping like hell it would surpass analog in many different ways but I just don't think it is there yet...multichannel or otherwise. One has to remember the resurgance of vinyl recently isn't just about high prices and money, there have been strides in the analog world, just like digital, that have made the format sound better over time. SACD and Blu Ray still have time to get their collective crap together and maybe, just maybe , might offer something in terms of better fidelity over analog but...hard to say. I went back to vinyl because I felt from a fidelity standpoint, it still had more to offer than the "high res" digital formats. Sure there is some extra "ambiance" on alot of the high res multichannel recordings but again...the standard of recording comes into play here. One guy wants to use 25 mics and downmix to 5...one guy wants to use 7 mics and downmix to 5...sample rates...converters...40 microphones down to 7.1...blah, blah ,blah. There is NO standard for multichannel recordings. It's a free for all and my ears tell me that the best I have heard multichannel try to "get" concert hall sound...still falls short of the best I have heard in plain ol' two channel analog. I'm not trying to come across as the arrogant audiophile...I really hope someday there is a digital format that can surpass good analog.

Wasn't this a cable forum?? Sorry all...done with the analog/digital thing...
nedrudrelyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2008   #33
Super Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 140
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loves2Watch View Post
There is an overabundance of proof on the internet. Do some research and I hope your placebo continues so you can empty your wallet to all of the snake oil salesmen.
Hold it my friend!

I consider this crossing the line. I see absolutely nothing informative in this remark other than a mean spiritedness
i30krab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008   #34
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 68
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

Quote:
Originally Posted by nedrudrelyt View Post
all things digital have been eternally demonized by many audiophiles. Apparently, you are one of them.

Actually, I am kind of the reverse from this statement. I jumped on the SACD bandwagon hoping like hell it would surpass analog in many different ways but I just don't think it is there yet...multichannel or otherwise. One has to remember the resurgance of vinyl recently isn't just about high prices and money, there have been strides in the analog world, just like digital, that have made the format sound better over time. SACD and Blu Ray still have time to get their collective crap together and maybe, just maybe , might offer something in terms of better fidelity over analog but...hard to say. I went back to vinyl because I felt from a fidelity standpoint, it still had more to offer than the "high res" digital formats. Sure there is some extra "ambiance" on alot of the high res multichannel recordings but again...the standard of recording comes into play here. One guy wants to use 25 mics and downmix to 5...one guy wants to use 7 mics and downmix to 5...sample rates...converters...40 microphones down to 7.1...blah, blah ,blah. There is NO standard for multichannel recordings. It's a free for all and my ears tell me that the best I have heard multichannel try to "get" concert hall sound...still falls short of the best I have heard in plain ol' two channel analog. I'm not trying to come across as the arrogant audiophile...I really hope someday there is a digital format that can surpass good analog.

Wasn't this a cable forum?? Sorry all...done with the analog/digital thing...
Well, I am sorry that you have had so many problems with SACD. I am positively delighted by it. There may have been many equipment choice and recording choice issues that could account for your negative experience. I have only been a multichannel SACD guy for 6 months, and my experience was instantly and overwhelmingly positive and has remained so with many different recordings on different labels.

I understand that there may be some 600 watt behemoths that do not sound all that terrific. Maybe there is a 14 watt SET somewhere that sounds really great too, but I have not heard it. I have quite a few audiophile friends who have been enamored with SET's, and every time I have heard then demo one that they thought sounded terrific, I have had to shrug my shoulders in non-enthusiasm. The noise, distortion and lack of dynamic range are always too obvious for me to overlook even through the best of efficient horns.

Certainly, there is a romance in vinyl, SET's, etc. I go back about 50 years as an audiophile and I have pretty much gone through it all. It's kind of like seeing a black/white photograph or movie. The performances can be utterly unmatchable for and can sound deeply affecting, nostalgic, etc., but to my ears give me hi-rez multichannel any day for closeness to the sound and musical experience of the original.
fitzcaraldo215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008   #35
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

Hi all! This is my very first post in this community, thanks for all the good information.

I have to try to do some convincing here.

With regard to comments like: "Screw the math and measurements, I can hear a difference and therefore this cable is better than that cable", ignorance is costing you thousands of dollars. Let me explain a few flaws that might change your mind.

Hypocrisy: The most blatantly wrong thing in that statement is the hypocrisy. MATH is used to design components. You want all the folks with engineering degrees who design these pieces of equipment to do so without math and measurements? I'd like to see that. I'm sure once they just throw it together because it looks right it will sound AMAZING.

Logic, math, and physics are the reasons we all get to enjoy reproduced music. It is what defined the requirement of conductors being used in the first place. The pure definition of electronically reproduced music lies in the math behind it. There are measurable known quantities that will change the output of the audio. These are known because without knowing them we would never have had stereos to begin with!! Do you see what I'm trying to say here? The designer knows what will affect his system because HE DESIGNED IT. Please don't tell the engineer to put his math away when it's the math that defines the whole entire system.

Using logic. With respect to digital cables only: Would you say that dying your hair purple makes you a faster runner because it feels like you're running faster, when in fact the stop watch records the same time on average? Of course not! Stop correlating non-correlating subjects, that's just stupid.

Here is an example to prove my point:
Assuming a CD reader and writer are in good working order, is the copy of an audio CD (non-scratched, perfectly readable) to another CD lossy? NO. You can check them, they will be BIT for BIT identical. Go ahead, make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc... and they will BE IDENTICAL 100%. And a computer is a WAY more complicated and noisy environment than a home audio setup, it has lots of steps -- take the track, read it with a cheap transport, run the data through a bus controlled by software onto a hard disk medium (through multiple buffers) and back off the hard disk to the CD, where it is burned by yet another CHEAP transport. NO LOSS. All over CHEAP ASS 22 gauge or LESS wire inside the computer, with no AC filtering or anything else and hardly any shielding! That 90th copy of a copy still sounds great in your home audio setup, doesn't it? So what makes you think that the digital stream your receiver PRODUCES (in the DAC) from your CD player isn't 100% the original stream as recorded on the disc?

Here is another example. How come I can fetch data through the internet which uses thousands of miles of cheap ass wire, through multiple computers and switches, through different conversions for interface (ethernet, fibre, coax) all the way on the other side of the world, and have it be 100% the same as it was there? BECAUSE IT'S DIGITAL. It's either 100% or 0%.

With respect to analog cables:
It is true that noise introduced into an analog cable will affect sound quality, that should never be denied, but to what lengths you go to shield this noise from entering the wire is up to you. Wire gauge is the most important factor, followed by shielding. There are many white papers you can read by very very talented and qualified designers discussing the importance (or lack thereof) of quality interconnects that will open your eyes.

Finally, and this is my last pet peeve, the aim (goal) of a high quality sound system is to reproduce the sound AS RECORDED. People often miss that maybe half the music they have is recorded so ****ty that even a perfect (ideal) audio system will still sound ****ty. GIGO (garbage in = garbage out). You're high dollar interconnects wont help if the recording is junk!
hedge605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008   #36
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Default Re: Dispelling audio myths, the cable lie

Posted by fitzcaraldo215:

Quote:

Well, I am sorry that you have had so many problems with SACD. I am positively delighted by it. There may have been many equipment choice and recording choice issues that could account for your negative experience. I have only been a multichannel SACD guy for 6 months, and my experience was instantly and overwhelmingly positive and has remained so with many different recordings on different labels.

I understand that there may be some 600 watt behemoths that do not sound all that terrific. Maybe there is a 14 watt SET somewhere that sounds really great too, but I have not heard it. I have quite a few audiophile friends who have been enamored with SET's, and every time I have heard then demo one that they thought sounded terrific, I have had to shrug my shoulders in non-enthusiasm. The noise, distortion and lack of dynamic range are always too obvious for me to overlook even through the best of efficient horns.

Certainly, there is a romance in vinyl, SET's, etc. I go back about 50 years as an audiophile and I have pretty much gone through it all. It's kind of like seeing a black/white photograph or movie. The performances can be utterly unmatchable for and can sound deeply affecting, nostalgic, etc., but to my ears give me hi-rez multichannel any day for closeness to the sound and musical experience of the original.



This will be my last post in the cable forum on the analog/SACD/digital debate...promise.

Well, I guess the 10+ years I spent in high end retail taught me nothing.

Fitzcaraldo215 reminds me alot of the consumers I dealt with as basically their minds are made up before they walk in the door. I had so many people come in with snappy quotes from days gone past about old technologies being surpassed by new ones with no thought really of how the fidelity is affected and how it came to be. Does SACD and future digital have the ability to surpass good analog? Well sure it does...not yet. Just like all of the older technologies fitzcaraldo215 had mentioned like analog cable...phone lines...mikes...etc...etc...etc...sure, these new technologies had surpassed the old ones OVER TIME. SACD?... not yet. Maybe Blu Ray will?? I don't know but what I've heard so far...they have a lot of work to do.

We used to do experiments in the store when someone would persist that the latest and greatest modern technologies were better. We'd sit them down with certain recordings in CD, SACD/DVD-A stereo or multichannel and the same repressings done on vinyl whether classical or whatever genre the customer wanted. I would have to say that close to 8/10 times they chose the vinyl every time. Why is that? Are they wrong? That, to me anyway, says quite a bit. No, they didn't run out and spend $8000 on a new analog rig, they just acknowledged that fact that the fidelity was better and more lifelike. I could barely believe it myself until I started spending more time with it. And like I said in one of my previous posts, some of those multichannel systems approached and were well over $200,000.

The only "problem" I have with SACD is that it was not as good as I thought it was going to be. I thought..."we're finally here" but to no avail. Now that the classical labels are leaning towards Blu Ray, SACD should go the way of the dodo where it belongs. Now that it is a corporate toy for the classical labels to exploit in the advent of Blu Ray audio recordings, there is no need to support SACD in any way, shape or form.

I'm not too sure what you are hearing on those mutltichannel recordings that 8/10 missed in the store. But then again, when someone has themselves convinced that something is better, they will find a way to make it so...even if it isn't. But again, different ears for different folks...that's what makes this hobby wacky...

Maybe look a little deeper and just maybe, the resurgance of vinyl and tube products is about SOUND...and FIDELITY. Not so much about nostalgia. And remember, one could spend $3000 on a decent analog rig today that would have cost $8000 15 years ago. I went back to tubes because they provided me with greater fidelity. I went back to analog for the same reasons. And I had a damn decent SACD setup. I still listen to CD/SACD in stereo only but again, vinyl puts me in that hall. Doesn't it stand to think that maybe some of these people are doing it for the same reasons? Taking the nostalgia route is a cop-out I think. Maybe your vinyl rig was never as good in comparision to what you spent on digital? Hard to say but your quote on redbook really said it all to me on your approach to fidelity...

"It was a toss up between redbook and analog" Wow...I mean, WOW. What exactly are you hearing that the rest of us aren't? I recently did a demo for a guy comparing the AC/DC digipack remasters and the new vinyl reissues on 180g audiophile press. Bear in mind that these "redbook" cd's are top-quality remasters with current studio technology. He was so dumbfounded at how much better the vinyl sounded I believe he was actually ****ed off. What does that say about the 26 years of "redbook" advancement?

I really am happy that you have found solace with the SACD bandwagon but MANY North American manufacturers have dismissed it as a marketing ploy and have acknowledged the fact that the fidelity isn't where it should be. Even the ones that produce VERY expensive SACD rigs...you'd be shocked really but they understand how money is made and can still be made off of dead formats. And SACD is dead in the advent of BLU-RAY.

Back to cables:

But, you have somehow convinced yourself that $200 "bettercables" are the good fit for your $50,000 stereo setup. I just don't know what else to say.

'Nuff said.
nedrudrelyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Tags
audio, av, cable, cables, channel, debate, definition, high, lie, limits, multi, myths, range, speaker, video, wire

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Furutech Launches Ag12 Tonearm Cable Scull Communications Cables 1 04-11-2012 12:43 AM
Cable between TV and Receiver (when using multiple sources)? gundam91 Cables 6 07-30-2008 09:45 PM
Agreement may mean end of cable set-top boxes Ken S Satellite Receivers, DVRs & Cable Boxes 9 06-14-2008 09:26 AM
signal cable Robinson_A Cables 1 02-15-2008 05:59 PM
Biggest cable disaster? AVRevForum.com Cables 12 12-21-2007 03:50 AM




SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1