Should all interconnects and speaker cable be from same manufacturer?

[wdomeika]

After reading all this great information on interconnects and speaker cable, remember this tried and true principle...

 

The better any particular brand of interconnects and cables look to you, the better they will sound.

 

Cheers,

 

Bill

 

[esldude]

The better any particular brand of interconnects and cables look to you, the better they will sound.

 

Now one exception to this is when you make your own. Then some pretty ratty looking cable can seem like it provides a pretty good improvement.

 

[Brian A]

Just doing some recreational web ‘surfing before heading to bed.

 

Something I notice about this thread, which has already been alluded to a couple of times but not directly called out, is that “audiophile quality” means different things to different people.

 

It seems to me that some audiophiles are happy to stop at a realistic tonal balance while others chase perfection in the spatial stuff such as sound stage and imaging etc. I would doubt that cables affect the former.

 

Me? I am of the latter camp – that cables matter – and my moment of conversion came many years ago when I changed cables without much thought and unwittingly caused a substantial improvement in the sound stage.

 

To some degree hearing the differences is training and having a room / system that is set-up well, but part of it is also just having a sufficiently athletic mind to be open to the possibilities. In the end though, it doesn't matter; its about the music.

 

I really like "realhifi's" comment, which cuts to the bone; "I feel like I just walked in on a conversation at a meeting of the local Audio Club...circa 1980."

 

I can't see how this current debate can bear much fruit.

 

[Mark Powell]

I don't think there are many of us who think cables don't make a difference. They do in my opinion (and in comparisons I have done). My view is that a 'specialist' cable is not necessarily better than a hardware store one. Some hardware store ones may be better than the most expensive cable on the planet, others won't. It's all subjective anyway - buy whichever you prefer if you can afford it. With any luck you will prefer a hardware store one. But don't fall for the the specialist's 'technical reports'. I usually make up my own, with connectors containing as little metal as possible, because I have a vague idea that great lumps of metal surrounding the signal may not be good. If anyone pursues that can of worms I am not going to join in.

 

No more J boats, I retired ten years ago, so no more IBM days out. We got them for doing 'good things'. Apparently I only did two good things in 34 years. (The other one was retiring.)

 

[Mark Powell]

About forty dollars, but all chosen by listening and all made up by myself. The not so good cable, altogether costing more than that, usually ended up wiring lamps or whatever so was not wasted. Equipment is about 18000 dollars.

 

[Mark Powell]

Crystals. I think you are nuts or taking the mickey. Or are just as much an expensive cable cynic as me.

 

[crisnee]

Commonsense does not have to be long-winded

 

So true. Nevertheless your post is longer than mine. Nah nah!

 

"Surely what I said is totally obvious."

 

Or not. Unless the OP is yanking everyone's chain. By the way, that kind of statement is insulting. It's dismissive, and if properly translated actually says. "Are you so stupid that you don't understand what everyone else does?" I think statements like that keep lurkers from posting in forums like this.

 

-Chris

 

[Mark Powell]

You will note that I did say that I was not criticising the OP, and also said I was just curious where he got it from.

 

The only posts at that time were yours and mine. And I was not criticising you either, so no one was being criticised or told that they were stupid.

 

Maybe I was a touch abrupt. But *surely* it is obvious to anyone that if you think you should use one brand of cable then it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that you should also believe in one brand of equipment? And I am not going to retract from that.

 

So many of these discussions get very long-winded and go around in circles. Doesn't stop them from being interesting, even though they rarely come to a conclusion - its long now, and STILL we have not answered his question. Though I suppose I did with my first post. I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

One post said the OP is naive. At least one has said the question is ludicrous. They are insulting.

 

[papageno]

It really amazes me to witness an "unbelievable " response to a fairly innocuous question. The question was considered "naive", "ludicrous", "lacking common sense" and so on. Perhaps in the spirit of this website ( and I am sure Chris Connaker will agree), we should refrain from being overtly judgmental.

 

As I had alluded earlier, this question specifically was discussed at length by Robert Harley (Editor of Absolute Sound) in the latest edition of his book on high end audio. Harley spends a page explaining that the historic rationale for using different interconnects and cables comes from the recording industry where recording engineers using different consoles for recording and playback as they did not want a sonic signature of any console to exist. I thought this was an interesting statement and my question arose from the above mentioned statement by Mr harley in his book.

 

Now if one thinks this is an answered question and an absolute truth...that is another matter but likely not...as a substantial number of repliers in this forum differed in the answers to this question..moreover if one thinks this is stupid, don't waste one's time in answering it.

 

So in my opinion terms such as "naive", "ludicrous", lacking common sense are perhaps harsh and insulting terms for a forum where ultimately we want to maintain a congenial atmosphere and serves no purpose but to discourage posting from potential future posters, who love music no less but have less expertise in its playback.

 

My expertise is in science and as a professor at a top notch US university (publishing regularly in top journals), I entered this website to gain some insight in the playback of music (only and sole reason). And the only reason why people can be dogmatic here is that sonic quality is a non-measureable quantity!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Plase don't feel 'got at'. Many here does it all the time. Hadn't you noticed

 

To me, Harley's comments about sonic signature sound perfectly valid as far as they go. But they do not go far enough. He seems to miss the (to me) logical conclusion that if same make cables might result in a sonic signature then same make amplifiers, speakers, sources are likely to as well. Unless anyone thinks that all the difference is in the cables and none in the rest of the equipment, which, to me at least, is very unlikeky.

 

As a matter that may be of interest, though they have moved away from it now, Naim Audio here in the UK had a very pronounced sonic signature in their early days. It seemed to be very much liked, as although very expensive then, they became very popular, even to being some sort of 'standard', as in a quote from an early 1980's review "The performance rises to a level with which very few other designs can compete".

 

Regards

 

[wgscott]

I'm Reviewer #3

 

[thesurfingalien]

For the sake of the arguments, let's assume cables do make a difference. Weather you believe that or not is up to you, and does not add anything to the question of the OP.

 

If we are talking about a link that exists between different types of cables, being of the same series, I have always assumed the correlation is based on the price. I am not sure, but could it be that there is a ratio involved here in the sense of "if someone is willing to spend US$ 800 on an interlink, he is also willing to spend US$ 1500 for 2 x 2 meters (average) on loudspeaker-cable and US$ 600 on a power-cables?" If I was a manufacturer, I would do research on this topic!

 

For a sonic match between series I don't know... I would think that would be rather hard for them because the combination of "what's connected to what" is infinite.

 

Moreover, I also believe that the best cable does absolutely nothing to the signal; it just transports it from A to B unmodified.

 

With that in mind, I believe cables from the same series share a level of "transparency possible for a given price"

 

Peter

 

 

 

[wgscott]

Moreover, I also believe that the best cable does absolutely nothing to the signal; it just transports it from A to B unmodified. With that in mind, I believe cables from the same series share a level of "transparency possible for a given price"

 

[wdomeika]

The closer a given interconnect or speaker cable (or power cord, for that matter) is to the diameter of a fire hose, the better it will sound.

 

...except for interconnects and speaker cables that are like 1/16" thick and 4" wide, it which case the flatter and wider it is, the better it will sound.

 

When deciding between the two, please refer to sound advice priniciple #1:

 

...the better it looks to you, the better it will sound.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Bill

 

[Mark Powell]

The voyage continues, along the endless thread sailed so many times before and never finding a destination. Despite the captain wisely abandoning ship.

 

My glass cable from V-Link to DAC, purchased this morning under the unintended guidance of 'Reviewer #3' sounds better than my previous plastic one.

 

[thesurfingalien]

I would take an extraordinary length of a cable (say, one mile) and run it through the factory (static path), passing heavy machinery and other apparatus with "disturbing influences".

 

Then do the regular (THD, IMD etc...) measurements. When using normal length runs of cable, the measurements will likely turn out the same, but with an "up-scaled" method, differences will become more measurable.

 

The best cable wins!

 

Peter

 

[wgscott]

I have to admit I was dead wrong about optical cables. I still almost don't believe that a glass cable could be any better than my $0.31 cheapo cable, but when it comes to 96kHz signal transmitted vs. not transmitted, the difference is objective.

 

The weird part is that the el cheapo cable works perfectly fine transferring a 96kHz signal to my Marantz AVR.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi papageno - Your comments are spot on and echo my sentiments exactly.

 

Some of the responses in this thread have the ability to keep newcomers to this hobby away. If I were A newbie thinking of posting a question and saw some of these responses I would likely climb back into my uneducated turtle shell.

 

 

 

 

[Jud]

@papageno, certain topics, and cables (especially digital cables) are one, tend to bring out dogmatic absolutist responses, rather than the sort of practical guidance I assume you were going for.

 

With this particular topic it is more necessary than usual to separate the practical "wheat" from the dogmatic "chaff." Perhaps the person who gave the most concise practically helpful answer was barrows, who said there is no rule that you must get your cables from the same company, but it wouldn't be shocking if you happen to like cables from a particular manufacturer.

 

Try to listen at length if you can to various cables (home auditions if possible are ideal) and make your decisions based on what your ears tell you. You're the one who's going to be listening to the results, perhaps for a long time (I have 20-year-old cables in my system), so you're the one who needs to be happy with the sound.

 

[esldude]

So in my opinion terms such as "naive", "ludicrous", lacking common sense are perhaps harsh and insulting terms for a forum where ultimately we want to maintain a congenial atmosphere and serves no purpose but to discourage posting from potential future posters, who love music no less but have less expertise in its playback.

 

I am the one who called your question naive. That was uncalled for and not helpful. I wish I could take it back. I actually went back after a few minutes to remove it, but it had been replied to already and I could no longer change it. Your criticism of such comments is very valid. My response in that case did not enhance the discussion by calling it naive and it would reduce the chance someone would ask such questions in good faith in the future.

 

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Maybe correctly and I accept that. But I still stand by the "logic" of what I said.

 

However, should you look elsewhere you will find that I have gone to considerable lengths to answer the questions of new people. I may be new to this site, but I am not inexperienced in computers or audio, and I have made no errors that might mislead them. I answer them quite deliberately, as I have noticed than many (not all of course) of self-appointed, long term 'experts' rarely do, particularly so if the questioner makes it clear that they are on a low budget.

 

But I consider some of the 'experts' fair game. Such as the one recently who talks, not directed at me, but in general terms, of others 'ignorance', his own 'experience and expertise' (without any noticeable evidence of either) and so on. He had a go at a modest but experienced guy very recently. Does not bother me, he just makes me laugh at his arrogance. On the other hand, there are some who I respect for their obvious and visible expertise, particularly, but not limited to, some of the software guys.

 

As some of the subjects seem to be a religion (the Apple fanboys about your Aurender test for example) as much as anything else, and some are strong believers, and others enjoy poking not-so-gentle fun at religions, you have a minefield. Not many of us who would take it on, I suspect.

 

[thesurfingalien]

Hi wgscott,

 

I am not sure if he difference comes from the material. One of the things that troubles optic signal receiving is the way the fiber is cut to !EXACTLY! at 90 degrees and cut-surface smoothing after that.

 

AFAIK, with glass this requires special equipment, but the results can be more accurate (as in better) than with plastic.

 

It could very well be that your Peachtree has a more picky receiver.

 

Peter

 

[monteverdi]

Sound is a perceptional thing and can not be measured by looking at electronic parameters. One can easily measure electric parameters of cables like LCR, dielectric absorption etc. but one can not relate them as far as I see to the perception of sound as long these parameters do not reach exceptional high values. Can one measure the sound differences of different OS systems, music player software, SSD versus HD.

Why one needs to find "measurable" differences for cables but not for computer audio?

 

[wgscott]

The hope is that one could find measurable differences for any detectable difference, cable or from computer audio (e.g.: SSD vs. conventional HD).

 

Also, if you want to design and engineer a cable or anything else for that matter, you have to have a fairly clear idea of what it is that you want to create, and that involves measurable quantities and specifications. If you can't measure differences, how do you do quality control in manufacturing?

 

I can't think of a single example of something I can hear but not measure, yet I can think of many examples of things I can measure that I cannot hear (i.e., whether a file is 24-bit, 48 kHz or is 24-bit, 88 kHz sampled). The measurements are very unambiguous, but the adult human ear isn't so good at picking out frequencies above 16kHz. Hence the reliance upon objective data and measurement.

 

[Julf]

I think these kind of statements are exactly the problem. "Sound *is* X". And "can not be measured". Maybe not in your view, but that is your opinion. *Perceived* sound is a perceptional thing. But by saying that sound can not be measured, are you saying that distortion, frequency response, jitter and delay are not important in any way?

 

There might be things we can't currently measure, but until we figure out how to measure them, we won't know how to improve them, or ensure our products consistently provide what we claim they do.