Does it make a difference between high-end interconnect/speaker cables and DIY cable? I was just wondering why the price is so high....just curious...

do a search, and you will find about 20 zillion threads about cables and speaker wire. its a very hot topic

bottomline, in my opinion, any well built, solid interconnector will be fine. the super cheap ones that come in the box when you buy a new dvd player are not that good. but the ones in radio shack that are 1/4 the price of monster cables, and every bit as good. dont get fooled by the hype.

and speaker cable.. just get the $.30 cents a foot 12/14 gauge from home depot.. will work fine for all your speaker wiring needs.

bigjohn

Because they can.

I am willing to admit that some high end cable may sound different, but probably only because they do some really funky things with inductance and capacitance. This could result in rolled off highs that some people like. Of course, I'm just guessing at that stuff. I personally have never heard a difference in cable. Here's the usual article. I built my cables from this, just for fun. I'm pretty sure that 14 gauge (or even 16 gauge!) would work just fine for the 10 foot runs I've got.

Don't waist your time and money on "high end" cables - they are high end purely because they are high-priced.

Is there a correlation between believing in "high end" cables and believing in ghosts? It seems to be an interesting research topic

That's not completely true. A lot of high-end cables are meticulously assembled with high-quality materials and look downright sexy, which partially justifies their exorbitant prices. That doesn't jive with my cable philosophy, though: they should be neither seen nor heard.

This is my favorite way to answer this particular question.

AF, while we don't have to go as far as Mick Loney does in the post Ray links, it does give a rather extreme example of what a trivial problem technically cables and wire are. You might also be interested in something I ran into last night during a slow period on the board. Scanning AVS for something interesting I almost passed it up as just a routine skirmish in the wire wars, and much of it was, but found this post where speco cites a post by dhanson which is one of the best combinations of technical knowledge and just plain common sense on the point that I've ever read.

You can also make your speaker cables look like the expensive ones with the snake skin type. The other day I put a sleeve on my wires and they look cool. I don't know if it will do anything but they said that it should reduce the static. I dont really care if it does or not but it looks like a snake skin Monster cable. It's cheap too (50 cents/ft).

I think some make a difference. Personally I've heard the difference between three seperate coax cables from different brands. So one could almost attest of cables having different "flavors" as opposed to being "good" or "bad" cables.

I also have done several studies and found, that once finding the right coax for you, it to be superior to digital optical. Digital optical's strength is it's linearity. But ultimately coax is a cleaner signal when done right.

The reason for prices being so high with cables can be attested to several things. Firstly, the technology in research and development and cost of materials make up the bulk. Other costs could be included because of name recognition (BOSE anyone?). Another includes people just having enormous markup to rip off the unsuspecting. The first reason I mentioned of course being the most honorable. Its fair to pay a company for a product done well.

If you know how to put a cable together, and you find the parts you like...more power to you. Here's a source that carry's high end components where you can purchase either just the cables, the connectors, both or have them assembled for you. http://venhaus1.com/VH_Audio_Test.html

In reply to:

---

But ultimately coax is a cleaner signal when done right

---

You're talking about digital, right? The jury may me out on whether cable quality makes a difference in analog signals, but the verdict is definitely in when we're talking about digital. With digital, the signal either gets there, or it doesn't. Remember the unshielded fence wire experiment.

Unfortunatly...I must disagree. Like I stated earlier...three cables...three sounds...ALL DIGITAL COAX. And yes...digital optical sounded different yet. I just returned one because it had great highs/lows but a big fat hairy dip in the midrange. How do you explain it? I don't know? Then my friend has a coax with the midrange being bloated and harsh highs. Now I have a new cable..and love it. As linear as can be with a touch of warmth.

There...I said it. But remember...I actually tried all of these cables and heard the differences. It is possible people who don't hear the differences haven't tried it, don't have that great a hearing, or don't have equipment transperent enough to hear the difference. IMHO of course.

Gentlemen, I'm ready to take your questions now

Let me begin by stating that I don't think you're crazy. I just want to know how does one "harshen" a 1 or a 0?

That's like asking me why the sky is blue. Someone knows...I don't. I understand totally where your coming from. I said to my friend the exact same thing. "It doesn't makes sense...it's supposed to be just 1s and 0s." So...I hear you. But...that still doesn't change anything on the reality side. What else can I say. Someone knows what they're doing.

Is there any one who can speak with authority whether different digital cables sound different or not? Alan?

They cannot sound different while passing the same digital bitstream. The only way to change the sound is change the bits.

If certain cables change the bits, that's data corruption. Also it wouldn't be unique to audio. It would be happening with firewire, USB, etc. You'd see certain digital cables that corrupt your computer data and other cables that don't. You don't generally see that.

Exactly. This is one area where I can speak with authority of knowledge. Modern digital optical cables will either work or will not work. There is no middle ground. There is absolutely no chance of outside forces changing this. There is no measurable inductance, capacitance, interference, or other forces involved. An expensive quartz cable will NOT increase your listening pleasure either literally of figuratively. ALL modern D/O cables have the bandwidth capacity to pass ALL data without a problem. You can test this. You can run MD5 cheksums against the data. I GUARANTEE my $17.95 Impact Acoustics Velocity Toslink cable will be as clean as any Toslink cable you put up against it or I will BUY your cable.

A short addendum: Being copper, some outside forces can be applied to digital coax. But they can ONLY either interfere with the bitstream or not. Such interference will be read as an error and either be discarded or show up as a "clip," so to speak. Such is the nature of digital interconnects. One has only to look at the sinewave of a digital signal to understand this. Flat up, flat down. On, off. 0,1. Those who prefer analog connections are hearing whatever "distortions" are added by the copper and the circuitry. I happen to be conflicted by the two. I do tend to think the analog connections can sound more "musical."

That's good to know because I got my 6ft radio shack optical cable at clearance for $8.99 (I am a very cheap guy). Whenever I see the $79.99 2m Monster optical cable at my local BB, I'd go: WTF???

Here's how that cable is described:


Monster Cable 2m Digital Fiber-Optic Cable
Model: ILS200-2M

This 2-meter higher-technology fiber-optic cable delivers accurate bitstream transfer for clear, smooth sound from CD, MiniDisc and DVD players, as well as outboard DACs and digital satellite receivers. The Monster-designed pressure connection keeps fiber in alignment with components. Rugged metal-shell connector cable offers maximum durability. Graded index optical fiber greatly reduces jitter for enhanced clarity and definition. Spring-loaded connector keeps fiber in optical alignment for maximum data transfer.


If digital cables necessarily "sound" the same, the above statement would qualify as one of the biggest marketing BS. Look at the adjectives: accurate, smooth, clear, enhanced clarity and definition, maximum data transfer. All I am interested in is: Do I get my 1s and 0s or not?.

I think Monster even has a THX-certified but shorter version of this optical cable that costs about the same. Because of this reason, THX certification would never ever mean a thing to me.

If we consumers do not stand up and shoot down this kind of marketing BS, other less informed customers will continue to be pick-pocketed everyday in every BB and CC.

Sorry for the rhetoric, but my despise of Monster cables is immense. Need a cold beer, now.

>>If digital cables necessarily "sound" the same, the above statement would qualify as one of the biggest marketing BS. Look at the adjectives: accurate, smooth, clear, enhanced clarity and definition, maximum data transfer.

With the possible (probable) exception of "Graded index optical fiber greatly reduces jitter for enhanced clarity and definition" the rest of the blurb is technically true albeit misleading.

>>delivers accurate bitstream transfer for clear, smooth sound from CD, MiniDisc and DVD players

Yep, it does deliver accurate bitstream transfer and you do get clear smooth sound from CD, MiniDisk and DVD players. You get the same with any cable, but the statement is not incorrect.

>>The Monster-designed pressure connection keeps fiber in alignment with components. Rugged metal-shell connector cable offers maximum durability.

Probably all true. Again, nothing out of the ordinary but nothing incorrect here.

>>Spring-loaded connector keeps fiber in optical alignment for maximum data transfer

Um... I think that is part of the TOSLINK standard

>>Graded index optical fiber greatly reduces jitter for enhanced clarity and definition

This one makes the BS light go on. Doesn't seem to be any real world evidence to support the contention that jitter below the level of "mucking up the signal completely" affects clarity or definition.

Some companies pay their engineers more than their ad copy writers. Some companies don't. I would rather see my money go to the engineers

I just don't know what to think sometimes. I ran my cd player through my soundcard switching between the optical and coax inputs. Recorded "Time" by Pink Floyd and "Take Five" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. All parm's were the same. When finished I ran a diff between the two and they are EXACTLY the same. So far, things are looking as they should.
Next, borrowed a friends cd player as mine has only Toslink. Played the same songs as above with the same discs and sure enough, they sounded different. OK then. Yanked a BJC cable from the SACD cable bundle and tried it. The other was an Impact Acoustics Velocity. Both 3'. Again, sounds different. It makes NO sense. No sense at all. Is the circuitry between the cd transport and the dig. outs somehow different? Between the dig. ins and the dacs? From the dacs through to the power output stages? The first 2 SHOULD make no difference. Is this a case of me hearing things that don't really exist? I mean, it is just plain strange. I need to get a couple of people over here for a DBT.

Some of the things I read here do raise my eyebrows at times. Assertions that all receivers are equally transparent especially set off alarms in my head. If you think about it, they really couldn't possibly unless they used the exact same circuit designs, the same amount AND exact same make/part number of transistors, resistors, capacitors, transformers, etc... Any change in the formula could easily change the sound. This whole thing reminds me of the story of John Warnock at Xerox PARC before the founded Adobe systems. He was fascinated by the quality of type achieved by old-fashioned typesetting and equally appalled at computer printer type. So he went and spent months developing a page description language (eventually to become Postscript) that would create the beautiful type achived the old-fashioned way. Problem was, even the best printers of the day couldn't recreate what the PDL was directing it to print. It looked horrible. But he didn't notice. All he saw was the perfectly produced type his program was producing in theory. The PDL was working perfectly, ergo the type was perfect. I think I'm susceptible to this same phenomenon as well as many others here.

Sorry for the mis-statement... recorded all with my friends CD player. I really need to preview when I'm writing posts at 11:30. Started the project with my player before I remembered (by way of getting out the coax and trying to find the jack) it has no dig. coax out. Although the files were still the same. I also seem to have too much time on my hands lately. Subwoofer showdowns, testing optical vs. coax digital.

In reply to:

---

Assertions that all receivers are equally transparent especially set off alarms in my head. If you think about it, they really couldn't possibly unless they used the exact same circuit designs, the same amount AND exact same make/part number of transistors, resistors, capacitors, transformers, etc... Any change in the formula could easily change the sound.

---

Just a short comment. When an engineer designs a reciever, he starts with the basic assumption that his unit will take an input signal from a source, and present an exact copy of that signal at a larger amplitude (volume) to the listener. Assume that there are 10 engineers from different companies designing 10 different recievers. They all start off with the same exact goal in mind, which is producing a distortion free copy of an input signal at the output stages of the amps. If all of them achieve what they set out to do, then you should have 10 recievers that sound exactly the same. The only way to change the sound is to introduce distortion. "Distortion" generally includes any change to the signal caused by the circuitry, including amplitude. They intentionally distorted the amplitude, because that is the whole purpose of the amplifier. Any distortion that would make the reciever sound differently comes from something altering the frequency or shape of the signal. During the design and testing of the circuit, the engineer would correct anything in the circuit that would be causing significant distortion. Here's where the differences between high end and consumer grade come into play. Rotel is going to allow FAR less "acceptable" distortion than the manufacturer of your typical Wal-Mart HTIB system manufacturer will. They extra dollars you pay out going to getting a more precise copy of the original signal. Better components, extra filters where needed, etc.. If they get it "perfect", then it should sound the same as every other "perfect" reciever out there.

All well designed, high quality, recievers should sould the same, IF the engineers started off with the goal of producing a larger, but otherwise unaltered copy of the input signal at the output stages. All bets are off if they started off with the goal of producing a "tailored" sound, which some probably do. Bose comes to mind. They make no attempt at all to produce an exact copy of the input at the output. They intentionally emphasize some frequencies so as to "trick" the mind into thinking that the ears are getting the whole signal when they really aren't. Other reciever manufactures may intentionally emphasize certain frequencies or ranges of frequencies, or otherwise alter the signal slightly to add "warmth", "depth", etc.. Bottom line is that you have to know what the engineer was TRYING to build, before you can compare his unit against another unit.

The designers of one of the other brands of speakers that I was considering before buying my Axioms clearly stated in an email to me that he designed the sound of the speakers to suit his personal tastes. I didn't buy those because I want an exact copy of what the artist put on the CD coming out of my speakers. Now, can the 2 speakers scientifically be tested "against" each other? Yes and no. You could, but they were built to do different things, so you are kinda wasting your time. They ARE going to sound different because one of them started off on paper with the goal of producing a different sound (which is "distortion", and why I didn't buy those speakers).

Ok... That wasn't so short, but opinions are like... well, you know. I've never tossed my hat in this ring before so I had to vent.

Ok then. But I must ask, why bother auditioning different receivers or components of a common class, price, and feature set? Further, are you referring to "distortion" in the figurative sense that the sound gets altered or in the literal sense that measurable noise is introduced into the signal path?

Warning -- totally unconfirmed personal hypothesis follows :

My best understanding is that within "normal operating parameters" (not such high volume that the peaks are even approaching clipping level, not such low volume that class AB/B crossover notch is a factor, speakers with reasonably flat impedence curve etc...) there isn't much difference between "good" receivers and the best amps. As you start to get closer to the edges, however, the design nuances start to make a difference.

I'm pretty sure I heard a subtle difference (that "more solid bass" thing) going from a moderate power HK stereo receiver to the HK 630, although I have *not* done A/B testing to confirm that. I also have collected enough anecdotal experience over the decades to believe that a big honkin' high quality power amp *is* going to make a difference in sound over a lower power amp or receiver, even if you're not clipping the lower power amp.

The best component amps tend to be "overdesigned" and conservatively rated, which is where I think the sonic differences come from -- more than any inherent advantage of discrete components over an integrated amp or receiver.

If you have enough overkill in your receiver (eg you listen at volumes which a 1705 could handle but you bought a 3805) my guess is that adding a separate power amp wouldn't make much difference. On the other hand, if you have challenging speakers to drive, a large room, and good enough speakers that cranking the volume is a pleasure, you can probably start to get near the limits of even a high end receiver and *that's* where the sonic differences start to creep into your listening room.

Anyways, this is just my 2 cents. Never had time to do enough testing to prove anything.

I just sold my car to buy some new cables. The results have been amazing. Turns out that my Axiom speakers are only as good as the wire used to connect them to my amp. While listening to my favorite MP3 downloads on my tape deck, I immediately noticed that the sound is much warmer, more articulate, musical, forward, backward, smoother, more transparent, has a wider soundstage, more palpable, real, seamless and truthful.

Of course, my perceived sonic benefit has nothing to do with the amount of money I paid for the cables. The truth is, the more expensive, esoteric and mysterious the science behind a cable, the better it sounds. Regardless of the basic laws of physics, packaging and price tags make cables great. I am riding the bus now, but boy, my speakers sound great!--Andy

I sense no sarcasm whatsoever...

In reply to:

---

I sense no sarcasm whatsoever...

---

That's debatable. Consider this sentence: "I just sold my car to buy some new cables."

I sense no humor detection mechanism whatsoever...

peter man.... you got a million of 'em..

bigjohn