Cable Consistency or Don't Break The Chain

[Khorn]

There is a widely accepted premise that different brands and models of cables such as interconnects have a specific sound or electrical properties unique to themselves. It is also widely believed that these properties can either compliment or detract from the sound depending upon what combination of equipment they are used with.

Given the above, would it not follow that consistency be maintained in using the same interconnects throughout the system? By using different brands of interconnects you could quite possibly create a situation where the different cables could be additive or subtractive in properties and provide too much or too little in certain areas.

Another point, if you were to try to audition/assess different cables by only changing let's say the ones from the source to the pre-amp how do you know what effect the rest of the cables in the system have on the ones that you are auditioning?

I would gather from the above that if you were to change cables such as the interconnects it makes sense to have all the ones in the system EG: source to pre-amp and pre-amp to amp as close to identical as possible.

Any thoughts on this?

[krabapple]

Originally posted by Khorn
There is a widely accepted premise that different brands and models of cables such as interconnects have a specific sound or electrical properties unique to themselves. It is also widely believed that these properties can either compliment or detract from the sound depending upon what combination of equipment they are used with.

Given the above, would it not follow that consistency be maintained in using the same interconnects throughout the system? By using different brands of interconnects you could quite possibly create a situation where the different cables could be additive or subtractive in properties and provide too much or too little in certain areas.

Another point, if you were to try to audition/assess different cables by only changing let's say the ones from the source to the pre-amp how do you know what effect the rest of the cables in the system have on the ones that you are auditioning?

I would gather from the above that if you were to change cables such as the interconnects it makes sense to have all the ones in the system EG: source to pre-amp and pre-amp to amp as close to identical as possible.

Any thoughts on this?

Yes, one should start by verifying that the 'widely accepted premises' are in fact true.

Oddly enough, no cable manufacterer has provided scientific evidence for either premise. And oddly enough, it's not an issue that bedevils the information transmission industries, where tolerances are much more critical, nearly as much as audiophiles.

[Dave]

Khorn,

To simplify it...yes, yes, you don't know for reasons you've stated, yes & I agree fully. :)

[SamS]

I think it's a good idea, but can get expensive fast!

I recently put two pairs of Grovers in. One from the two-channel output of my SACD player to pre-amp, one from pre-amp to my two-channel amp. To upgrade the rest of my cables would constitute another 9 pairs, which my current ones are all identical.

I'm wrestling with the thought of mixing and matching my some of my current non-Grover 9 pairs with my previously better-than-average cables that the Grover's replaced. So, this begs the question: How much better would the interconnect need to be to justify a mix 'n match for let's say a 5.1 output from my SACD player?

[Dave]

Originally posted by SamS
I think it's a good idea, but can get expensive fast!

I recently put two pairs of Grovers in. One from the two-channel output of my SACD player to pre-amp, one from pre-amp to my two-channel amp. To upgrade the rest of my cables would constitute another 9 pairs, which my current ones are all identical.

I'm wrestling with the thought of mixing and matching my some of my current non-Grover 9 pairs with my previously better-than-average cables that the Grover's replaced. So, this begs the question: How much better would the interconnect need to be to justify a mix 'n match for let's say a 5.1 output from my SACD player?
Ah Sam, the old what's the point of diminishing returns question.


NG-;)

[sgraham]

Originally posted by krabapple


Yes, one should start by verifying that the 'widely accepted premises' are in fact true.

Oddly enough, no cable manufacterer has provided scientific evidence for either premise. And oddly enough, it's not an issue that bedevils the information transmission industries, where tolerances are much more critical, nearly as much as audiophiles.
It's quite verifiable that cables have different electrical characteristics. Which of them are of interest for ordinary audio use is debatable. Some cables do seem to me to sound "better" than others (and I *really* didn't want them to!) but the manufacturers' explanations for why this might be so, insofar as any explanations are offered, are often sheer mumbo jumbo.

[Khorn]

Originally posted by SamS
I think it's a good idea, but can get expensive fast!

I recently put two pairs of Grovers in. One from the two-channel output of my SACD player to pre-amp, one from pre-amp to my two-channel amp. To upgrade the rest of my cables would constitute another 9 pairs, which my current ones are all identical.

I'm wrestling with the thought of mixing and matching my some of my current non-Grover 9 pairs with my previously better-than-average cables that the Grover's replaced. So, this begs the question: How much better would the interconnect need to be to justify a mix 'n match for let's say a 5.1 output from my SACD player?

The question here would be: is it better to use less expensive fully matched cables vs a mix and match with some being "better" that the others.

The mix approach could present the incompatibility scenario that I eluded to in my initial post. In the mix & match I would always put the "best" cables at the head or front end of the chain and work down towards the amplification all the time hoping the subsequent cables are not working against therefore negating the qualities of the better ones.

A system of "matched" cables should in theory have close to identical attributes and therefore offer consistency in signal transfer.

[SamS]

All good points, Khorn.

I'm thinking mixing (they're at least the same brand) is not as big of a deal when you consider other factors. I have different speaker wire for my L/R as I do my center and then again different from the surrounds. Also, my L/R speakers are not identical to the center, nor the surrounds--they are all in the same "series" and meant to match up. So, wouldn't you think those differences would counteract anything but the most dramatic cable/interconnect mismatch?

[Grant]

Originally posted by krabapple


Yes, one should start by verifying that the 'widely accepted premises' are in fact true.

Oddly enough, no cable manufacterer has provided scientific evidence for either premise. And oddly enough, it's not an issue that bedevils the information transmission industries, where tolerances are much more critical, nearly as much as audiophiles.

*I* can hear the differences. That's all I need to know.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Grant


*I* can hear the differences. That's all I need to know.

Absolutely... Its one of those "if it sounds good to you, then it is good" situations.

[Grant]

I find that using a certain brand of interconnects throughout my system does not cause a cumulative build-up of distortion, but the cheaper ones do. Also, some brands of cable get alongbetter with other certain brands. Perhaps all of the cables that work together have better matched impedences.

I'll give Krab that there is a scientific explaination for what we might hear, but the bottom line is that I DO hear differences that are verifiable.

[krabapple]

Originally posted by Grant
I find that using a certain brand of interconnects throughout my system does not cause a cumulative build-up of distortion, but the cheaper ones do. Also, some brands of cable get alongbetter with other certain brands. Perhaps all of the cables that work together have better matched impedences.

I'll give Krab that there is a scientific explaination for what we might hear, but the bottom line is that I DO hear differences that are verifiable.


The only scientific explanation for that would be if the cables are not competently designed. Alas, I'm told by engineers that there are some 'high end' cables that actually *roll off * treble frequencies. This would be an example of incompetent design, marketed as its opposite.

All real differences should be verifiable...how have you verified the ones you report above?

[krabapple]

Originally posted by Drew


Absolutely... Its one of those "if it sounds good to you, then it is good" situations.


So...if I were to present you the same cable, twice, without you knowing it, and you said one sounded beter than the other (which is quite likely, btw),
then that's 'true' as far as you're concerned?

'If it sounds good, it is good' was spoken by Ellington (IIRC), in reference to subjective evaluation of *music* -- you can't 'objectively' determine if a song is good or not.

By comparison, you can objectively determine if two songs sound different.

[krabapple]

Originally posted by sgraham

It's quite verifiable that cables have different electrical characteristics. Which of them are of interest for ordinary audio use is debatable.

Differences between nominally competent cable of comparable length and thickness have never been shown to be audible. Even demonstrating audible differnece due in unequal comparison, tends to require well-tailored test material (e.g. pink noise); in these cases it's debatable whether the difference would be audible with musical material.


Some cables do seem to me to sound "better" than others (and I *really* didn't want them to!) but the manufacturers' explanations for why this might be so, insofar as any explanations are offered, are often sheer mumbo jumbo.

Two presentations can almost always be perceived as sounding different, regardless of actual difference; humans are apparenlty built to *over*detect patterns and differences. The demonstrable unreliability that can result from this trait -- namely, reporting difference where there is none -- is the reason controls are always implemented by psychoacoustics researchers and some scientifically savvy audio component manufacterers. (And more broadly, expectation bias requires the use of controls throughout the sciences).

The trait I'm talking about is possibly familiar to many audiophiles, from those times when they've *thought* something was different but found later that it *couldn't have been*...e.g., they didn't change that cable after all, or they didn't throw that switch, or they didn't insert that other CD.

[Holy Zoo]

No dbt/abx/subj-obj debates.

Krab, you trying for another suspension? :)

[Holy Zoo]

(that was a rhetorical question, by the way - please don't start debating the rules in this thread)

[pigmode]

subj-obj debates? You mean like: Is my system listening to me while I listen to it?

Khorn, In audiospeak you're talking about coherence.

[Tullman]

Originally posted by Holy Zoo
No dbt/abx/subj-obj debates.

Krab, you trying for another suspension? :)

Krab just loves this debate.:D

[Beagle]

OK I'll try to work my way around this.

Just hook up your system with basic affordable cable and enjoy it. The cables you use won't stop this from happening unless they are defective. The signal will travel through the wire, not caring at all who made it or how much it cost.