[DougA]

After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal
recommendations?

douga

[Serge Auckland]

"DougA" wrote in message
...
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

S.

[Chung]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"DougA" wrote in message
...
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.


To amplify the point, if the user questions the quality of the power
cord that comes with the electronics, he probably should not buy the
electronics from that manufacturer. It is much harder designing good
electronics than picking a power cord, so shipping a product with a
audibly sub-optimal power cord is a clear sign of incompetence, no?

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

In the US, 12-gauge speaker cable is commonly available and does the job.

[bob]

On Mar 3, 12:11 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"DougA" wrote in message

...



After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

bob

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 7:39�am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. *People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they
have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion.

Scott

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 4 Mar 2007 17:54:43 GMT, wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:39?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. eople who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they
have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion.

Well if I ever felt I had any monopoly on "truth", life has disabused me
in no uncertain terms, many times. In fact over the last 63 years I
have actually discovered that I am embarassingly easy to fool.

In fact I am so easy to fool that I have taken to requiring quite strong
evidence for any particular belief and to trying to ignore beliefs for
which there is no evidence.

Since I also rather think that I am no different from anyone else in
this respect, and indeed have what it to me quite convincing evidence
that this is so, I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they
cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their opinions. And I find
that those who believe in, among other things, astrology and competently
made speaker wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able to
provide any actual evidence for their beliefs I am afraid I remain
rather suspicious that they are fooling themselves.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 4, 7:39?am, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob"
wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the
OP was looking for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult
places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find
like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he
wants to hear.

Certainly there's enough diversity at AudioAsylum for a person to get a
balanced view.

Other forums like AudioHolics seem to be more interested in facts, as
opposed to unsupported opinions.

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of
people who will tell you that what you want to believe
is the truth.

Why, its just good salesmanship!

People who will tell you the actual truth
are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course,
pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who
believe they have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another
person's opinion.

One such group of people that certain vocal audiophiles blithely and proudly
ignore are called "scientists".

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:39???am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. ?People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they
have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion.

I've always been leery of Leary, much less people who are *always* leary.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[bob]

On Mar 4, 10:39 am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

Not that kind of truth.

"I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful
advice. Bad, but truthful. People who believe in high-priced cables
(and even people who think they don't believe in high-priced cables)
can be truly amazed by what they hear.

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT what they are
seeking, wouldn't it?

But, as I suggested above, you don't really mean "truthful" here. What
you mean is, "technically sound." So, to answer a restated version of
your initial question: No, I do not believe that the OP is searching
for technically sound advice. That is why I referred him to places
where he can find the technically unsound advice he is seeking.

bob

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 4 Mar 2007 22:00:44 GMT, "bob" wrote:

"I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful
advice.

I'd go along with you if you said ""I tried cable X and I sincerely
believe it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful advice." But I
would be highly doubtful of anyone who made the statement as you quote
it.

Bad, but truthful.

As I have reformulated it above, I can agree.

Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT what they are
seeking, wouldn't it?

I try to assume that they are until I see evidence to the contrary. But
you may be right.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Mar 4, 10:39 am, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob"
wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the
OP was looking for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

Not that kind of truth.

"I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably)
truthful advice. Bad, but truthful. People who believe in
high-priced cables (and even people who think they don't
believe in high-priced cables) can be truly amazed by
what they hear.

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult
places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find
like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he
wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of
people who will tell you that what you want to believe
is the truth. People who will tell you the actual truth
are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course,
pretty generally ignored.

Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT
what they are seeking, wouldn't it?

There are clearly any number of people who do or should know better, who
cynically do that which is profitable, not that which is in the best and
most complete analysis, right.

But, as I suggested above, you don't really mean
"truthful" here.

As these things are commonly defined, the difference between truth and a lie
is just just the speaker's state of mind. If someone swears to tell the
truth, but everything they know is based on false information, in a common
sense of the word, they are still telling the truth.

What you mean is, "technically sound."

More to the point - reliable information.

So, to answer a restated version of your initial
question: No, I do not believe that the OP is searching
for technically sound advice.

I subscribe to the thinking that there is no need to assume malevolence,
when simple ignorance provides a sufficient explanation. OTOH, if you find
strong evidence of malevolence, well that is a sufficient explanation, too.

That is why I referred him
to places where he can find the technically unsound
advice he is seeking.

Some people seem to be dedicated to finding audio advice in the worst way.
After all, it is their money, and their time. Conspicious consumption
probably finds its highest point in aggressive wastage.

[MC]

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a
power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high
order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

Well said. I don't know why some audiophiles think the last 3 feet of cable
are magical. There may be 100 miles of power cables of one kind or another
between your stereo and the power plant. And, as you say, the power supply
of the amplifier very effectively isolates everything else from the power
line.

[DougA]

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to
mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or
conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to
change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are
unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic
environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference
from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many
reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I
tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good.


2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a
power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high
order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

Again, I tried a few expensive cables and was blown away by the difference
they made. I want to believe that a cord is a cord but my ears won't let
me.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any
load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable
is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30
amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was blown away with the
difference.


S.

[Serge Auckland]

"DougA" wrote in message
...
Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to
mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or
conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to
change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are
unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic
environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference
from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less
than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap
and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many
reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I
tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good.


2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a
power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a
stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high
order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

Again, I tried a few expensive cables and was blown away by the difference
they made. I want to believe that a cord is a cord but my ears won't let
me.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any
load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in
the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable
is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing
on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30
amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect
for
the job.

In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was blown away with
the
difference.


S.

And I am very happy for you, and if you want to spend your money completely
needlessly, there are no end of people out there ready and willing to
relieve you of it.

You have asked for personal opinions and recommendations:- As there is NO
audible difference between cables, any perceived differences are entirely of
your own construction, therefore, listen to as many as you can/want to, then
buy what sounds best to *you*. There isn't a bad choice to be made, except
to your wealth.

S.

[erich]

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many
reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I
tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good.

I am very curious about this demo. Was it conducted using an ABX double
blind methodology, or was some other method used? There are people out
there offering substantial monetary rewards to anyone who can demonstrate
they hear differences under repeatable conditions.

The basics of the matter are that so long as the cable meets basic
electrical criteria such as appropriate resistance, inductance,
capacitance, length and sheilding there is no repeatable measurement
showing that a person can hear the difference. The situation in the audio
industry with 'exotic' cable claims is such that it is ripe for some
enterprising attorney general to blow the lid off the whole thing.

Personally I buy my cables from Ram Electronics. They have fairly priced
examples for a wide range of applications. The customer service can be a
bit flakey at times, but to will make things right if they make a mistake.

[Eeyore]

erich wrote:

The basics of the matter are that so long as the cable meets basic
electrical criteria such as appropriate resistance, inductance,
capacitance, length and sheilding there is no repeatable measurement
showing that a person can hear the difference.

Oh come one !

You know very well that gold plated connectors makes the sound 'shine'.

Graham

[Eeyore]

DougA wrote:

In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered.

Clearly your ears needed a good washing out in that case.

Silver wire may sound sexy but won't influence the sound one iota.

It appeals to ppl who are impressed by 'shiny things' though !

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"DougA" wrote in message


In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was
blown away with the difference.

Please tell us the full, detailed story.

[Eeyore]

DougA wrote:

After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal
recommendations?

What gives you the idea that you can upgrade a cable ?

It's all mostly bunkum. Some cable type can make audible differences *when used
for speaker connections* for perfectly scientific reasons such as cable
resistance and inductancebut it's related solely to cable size and construction
and doesn't requite a fortune spending.

There are no reasons whatever why one decent cable used to connect a CD player
to an amp will sound (or measure) any different to another decent one. I
personally buy the ones on ebay that cost a few pounds each.

Similarly a power cord is quite incapable of making any difference at all. There
is however a huge industry that plays to ppls' gullibility.

Graham

[DougA]

We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the
arguments based on theory?

Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave
about cables are full of beans? Are bought by the high end cable companies?
All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables?

"DougA" wrote in message
...
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 14 Mar 2007 23:40:06 GMT, DougA wrote:

Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave
about cables are full of beans? Are bought by the high end cable companies?
All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables?

I think you are all just as gullible as me. One caveat though - if you
think you cannot be easily fooled then I conclude you are even more
gullible than I.

Those of us who recognize how easily human beings in general (and
ourselves in particular) are fooled tend to insist on properly
controlled comparisons before they reach such conclusions. Those who
don't, I think, are living in a fool's paradise.

I do admit to the bias of thinking audio magazine reviewers are
especially easy to fool, but I have as evidence their own words.

[Chung]

DougA wrote:
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

We're happy for you that you are in a strong enough financial position
to spend that kind of money on cables.


Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained? Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no? For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in
audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like
cellular communication systems for instance?


Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the
arguments based on theory?

A lot of us have tried high-end cables. Some of us have tried controlled
testing: via carefully controlled listening tests or via measurements.
By the way, theory is an excellent place to base ones aruments on.


Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave
about cables are full of beans?

In short, yes.

Are bought by the high end cable companies?

That I am not sure about. The raving can be simply due to lack of
understanding of the effects of perception bias, or lack of appreciation
for the importance of controlled testing when differences are subtle.
Ever read a review of cables where they actually show (a) measurement
results, or (b) controlled listening test results?

All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables?

Well, yes. But if you find happiness in high-end cables and do not mind
the expense, who are we to judge?


"DougA" wrote in message
...

After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote:
DougA wrote:
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm
Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained?

How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements?

Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no?

Indeed we can.

For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc.

OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no measurable
effect within these tolerances? I was under the impression that there
were readily measurable differences between various cables. Are you
suggesting that SOTA measurements fail to detect any measurable
differences between cables?

A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in
audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like
cellular communication systems for instance?

What does that have to do with anything? Just because they can be made
quite simply does not mean they are all free from distortion.

Scott

[Chung]

wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote:

DougA wrote:

We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm
Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained?


How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements?

The OP said so...Maybe you should ask the OP.



Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no?


Indeed we can.


For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc.


OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no measurable
effect within these tolerances? I was under the impression that there
were readily measurable differences between various cables. Are you
suggesting that SOTA measurements fail to detect any measurable
differences between cables?

You fail to understand one key issue. There may be differences in cable
length, inductance, capacitance, etc. What is important is the voltage
that is delivered to the load, be it speaker terminals or inputs of the
power amp. If two cables deliver the same voltage within tolerances that
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then
the two cables must sound the same to us. Unless you claim to have
hearing acuity finer than those differences.



A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in
audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like
cellular communication systems for instance?


What does that have to do with anything? Just because they can be made
quite simply does not mean they are all free from distortion.

You don't understand the point. If we do not understand what difference
a cable makes to an audio signal, we would have no chance to be able to
design all those electronic systems that are orders of magnitude more
complex, that really push the science of transporting energy from one
point to another via cables or other media.


Scott

[Steven Sullivan]

Chung wrote:
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then

more like 0.1 dB.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 15, 11:37 pm, Chung wrote:
You don't understand the point. If we do not understand what difference
a cable makes to an audio signal, we would have no chance to be able to
design all those electronic systems that are orders of magnitude more
complex, that really push the science of transporting energy from one
point to another via cables or other media.

I have stayed out of this donnybrook until now, but two observations:

a) Those who have invested an obscene (or even a mere insane) amount
on cabling are required to believe that there are audible and
significant differences that are in direct proportion to the cost.
b) There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. Those who
simply do not hear the difference will seek proof that there is one.
"I hear it so it must be so" is not an acceptable proof to them.

Overall, I refer the assembled multitude to Clarke's Third Law: Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

In the realm of Magic, either you 'get it' or you do not. Discussion
is futile.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote:

DougA wrote:

We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm
Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained?

How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements?

The OP said so...Maybe you should ask the OP.

Oh you are taking his word for it? then there is nothing more to
discuss. cables sound different.








Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no?

Indeed we can.

For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc.

OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no measurable
effect within these tolerances? I was under the impression that there
were readily measurable differences between various cables. Are you
suggesting that SOTA measurements fail to detect any measurable
differences between cables?

You fail to understand one key issue.

No, I'm just calling you guys on what I see as a straw man argument by
inference. The laws of physics have been envoked and our superior
ability measure beyond the human thresholds of hearing have been
envoked. The thing that wasn't mentioned is that those very laws of
physics actual dictate that not only do cables distort an audio signal
they *must* do so by those very laws envoked. It also isn't mentioned
that those very sensitive measuring devices actually do measure
differences between cables as dictated by those laws of physics. That
is the real irony. Lets talk about physics and sensitive measurments
let's
just casually ignore what they really say.

There may be differences in cable
length, inductance, capacitance, etc.

Gotta love that "etc." It could mean a lot of things.

What is important is the voltage
that is delivered to the load, be it speaker terminals or inputs of the
power amp. If two cables deliver the same voltage within tolerances that
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then
the two cables must sound the same to us.

But alas they don't deliever the same exact signal. Certainly not
within a 0.01 dB tolerance.

Unless you claim to have
hearing acuity finer than those differences.

No my claim is quite simple. The posturing about the "laws of physics"
and the ability to measure beyond the thresholds of human hearing are
a meaningless burning straw man because the "laws of physics" dictate
that cables will distort an audio signal and the measurements that
extend beyond the threshold of human hearing bear that fact out. Once
those facts are disclosed all the hand waving about those measurements
and the laws of physics are reduced to a non-argument at best. THE
ISSUE. The ONLY issue is whether or not the real world distortions
(predicted by "the laws of physics" and supported by the imperical
measurements) are within or beyond the threshold of human hearing.
That is my point. Nothing more nothing less. If there are studies that
have measured all parameters of cable distortion and there is
sufficient listening tests for the thresholds of human hearing for all
those distortions then we have something to talk about. But no one is
talking about that. Why not?




A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in
audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like
cellular communication systems for instance?

What does that have to do with anything? Just because they can be made
quite simply does not mean they are all free from distortion.

You don't understand the point.

No I do understand the point. there is an apparent attempt to
misrepresent the laws of physics and the measured evidence of cable
distortion. This is just another angle. Just because something is
simple doesn't mean it is distortion free. Plain and simple.

If we do not understand what difference
a cable makes to an audio signal, we would have no chance to be able to
design all those electronic systems that are orders of magnitude more complex,

That is simply not true. Are you suggesting that *All* the distortions
that happen in an audio cable had to be fully known and understood
before anyone could design any circut? I think that is an absurd
claim.

that really push the science of transporting energy from one
point to another via cables or other media.

In the end none of my questions were answered. Funny that. I beleive
they were avoided because the answers would expose the burning straw
man for what it is.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 10:49 pm, Chung wrote:
DougA wrote:
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

We're happy for you that you are in a strong enough financial position
to spend that kind of money on cables.



Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained? Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no? For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in
audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like
cellular communication systems for instance?



Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the
arguments based on theory?

A lot of us have tried high-end cables. Some of us have tried controlled
testing: via carefully controlled listening tests or via measurements.
By the way, theory is an excellent place to base ones aruments on.



Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave
about cables are full of beans?

In short, yes.

Are bought by the high end cable companies?

That I am not sure about. The raving can be simply due to lack of
understanding of the effects of perception bias, or lack of appreciation
for the importance of controlled testing when differences are subtle.
Ever read a review of cables where they actually show (a) measurement
results, or (b) controlled listening test results?

All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables?

Well, yes. But if you find happiness in high-end cables and do not mind
the expense, who are we to judge?





"DougA" wrote in message
...

After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their
ideas with little experience to back up their points. Comments like
"surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false.
One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and
flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same
inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the
more expensive table. There are amps, preamps, and everything
electronic the like measurements that sound completely different. The
ear is the final arbeitor

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 15 Mar 2007 22:34:13 GMT, wrote:

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their
ideas with little experience to back up their points. Comments like
"surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false.
One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and
flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same
inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the
more expensive table. There are amps, preamps, and everything
electronic the like measurements that sound completely different. The
ear is the final arbeitor

And yet when the eye is blocked the ear becomes unable to tell the
difference. Strange, that.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 8:35�pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 15 Mar 2007 22:34:13 GMT, wrote:

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their
ideas with little experience to back up their points. *Comments like
"surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false.
One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and
flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same
inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the
more expensive table. *There are amps, preamps, and everything
electronic the like measurements that sound completely different. *The
ear is the final arbeitor

And yet when the eye is blocked the ear becomes unable to tell the
difference. *Strange, that.

Really? You have done or know of DBTs or even SBTs between a Rega P25
and a VPI Scoutmaster where no differences were detected? Or are you
just making assumptions here?

Scott

[bob]

On Mar 15, 6:34 pm, wrote:
Comments like
"surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false.

In an age of electron microscopes, would you say that the human eye
can see things we can't measure?

In an age where cosmologists have used tiny ripples in temperature to
confirm the Big Bang hypothesis, would you say that our skin can feel
things that cannot be measured?

Then how in the world can you possibly believe that our ears can hear
things we cannot, in this day and age, mesure?

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 6:34 pm, wrote:
Comments like
"surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false.

In an age of electron microscopes, would you say that the human eye
can see things we can't measure?

In an age where cosmologists have used tiny ripples in temperature to
confirm the Big Bang hypothesis, would you say that our skin can feel
things that cannot be measured?

Then how in the world can you possibly believe that our ears can hear
things we cannot, in this day and age, mesure?

bob

Most of us wouldn't....but we might say that there is not consensus on
*what* should be measured....no verified science tying the measured
phenomenon with subjective aural ratings when it comes to reproducing music.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


Comments like "surely we can test more
accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to
listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow
and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster
with the same inaudible wow and flutter to hear the
absolutely superiority of the more expensive table.

The fallacy here is very obvious. Flutter and wow are not the only
parameters that characterise the sonic performance of a turntable.

There are amps, preamps, and everything electronic the
like measurements that sound completely different.

This is a false claim because at some level of detail no two amps measure
the same. Heck, the left and right channels of stereo amps are generally
measurably different.

The ear is the final arbeitor.

No arguement there.

It is possible to *fully* characterize audio gear in such a way that
equipment that measures to be accurate enough to be sonically transparent,
can be tested by ear and found to be sonically transparent. Yes, this
means that some equipment not only sounds the same but can also pass a
straight-wire bypass test.

[ScottW]

wrote in message ...

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their
ideas with little experience to back up their points. Comments like
"surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false.
One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and
flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same
inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the
more expensive table.

There is a lot more to TT performance than wow and flutter which
I can't recall hearing since I ditched my BSR changer for an AR-XA
at the age of 12.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

wrote in message
...

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of
people give their ideas with little experience to back
up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more
accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to
listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow
and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI
Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to
hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive
table.

There is a lot more to TT performance than wow and
flutter which
I can't recall hearing since I ditched my BSR changer for
an AR-XA
at the age of 12.

It's quite possible for an AR-XA to have audible wow and flutter. I'm
surprised you never heard it.

[Chung]

wrote:
snip


A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their
ideas with little experience to back up their points.

If you are talking about those who believe in cable sound or power cord
sound and try to explain their beliefs in a technical manner, you're
probably right. In fact, below there you gave a perfect example...

Comments like
"surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false.

How so?
One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and
flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same
inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the
more expensive table.

You can only draw the (somewhat shaky) conclusion that the difference in
sound from those two turntables might not be due to the wow and flutter
specs. That does not in any way prove that we cannot test more
accurately than we can hear.

In fact, if there is any audible difference, it has to show up in
measurements: record the two outputs digitally and compare waveforms. If
differences are greater than thresholds of audibility, then you or
someone will hear differences.

BTW, how do you know that the wow and flutter performance of those two
are identical, or indistinguishable, if you don't use measurements? You
take the manufacturers' specs for granted?

There are amps, preamps, and everything
electronic the like measurements that sound completely different.

Then you are not making the right measurements, or understanding the
measurements.

The
ear is the final arbeitor

Whatever that means...but make sure you give your ears the best chances
of being able to detect differences.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 8:38?am, Chung wrote:
wrote:

In fact, if there is any audible difference, it has to show up in
measurements:

Well that really does depend on the fact that the right things are
being accurately measured. Until we know that has happened then no
fact either way has been established.

record the two outputs digitally and compare waveforms. If
differences are greater than thresholds of audibility, then you or
someone will hear differences.

Ah, the thresholds of audibility. that is something i think needs to
be accurately reported. Just what are the thresholds of audibility
when it comes to every known form of distortion? How about someone
actually reporting the scientific literature on this. Cite the source
and *quote* the relevant data in it's proper context. That would be
helpful. I'd love to see something more than inference and gossip.


BTW, how do you know that the wow and flutter performance of those two
are identical, or indistinguishable, if you don't use measurements? You
take the manufacturers' specs for granted?

How do you know the manufatcurer's specs are not based on accurate
measurements?


There are amps, preamps, and everything
electronic the like measurements that sound completely different.

Then you are not making the right measurements, or understanding the
measurements.

Which begs the question wjhat are the right meausrments and how should
they be interpreted?


The
ear is the final arbeitor

Whatever that means...

IMO it means in the end what matters is what can and cannot be heard
by the human ear.

Scott

[MC]

"DougA" wrote in message
...
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and
passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ah, audio interconnects. Some of us were talking about power cables.
Interconnects are much more subject to minor degradation.

With audio interconnects, there's a real possibility that your old cable had
dirty contacts, or weren't connected firmly, or something like that.
High-end cables ought not to be better than mid-range cables, provided they
are in good condition. You might try cleaning the old cable and putting it
back in. Better yet, get someone else to *either* do this or not, and see
if you can tell, by listening, whether they did it.

[Arny Krueger]

"DougA" wrote in message


We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR
interconnects.

Given the pricing, I can see that a consortium of buyers might be required.
;-)

A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of
cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel
more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be
quantified and measured.

I suspect that one has to conjur up quite a bit of passion in order to pay
just under $1,000 per meter for interconnects. Once you've conjured all that
passion up, it probably doesn't dissipate immediately after the sale.

Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home
systems or are all the arguments based on theory?

I've definately auditioned a variety kinds of high end and tweek home-made
cables in what should be the ideal envrionment - systems belonging to people
who advocate this sort of thing.

Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and
reviewers who rave about cables are full of beans?

In private its common to use a bit stronger language, but you've obviously
got the basic idea. ;-)

Are bought by the high end cable companies?

I doubt that there is much outright bribery. OTOH, how many high end
reviewers are using cables (and other equipment) that were "loaned" to them
by the vendor?

I know a bit of personal information about some high end reviewers - most
don't make a pile of money doing high end reviews. If they actually bought
all the equipment they use to review high end gear, their reviewing
operations would probably be major cost centers for them. "Loaned" equipment
is often a major source of capitalization for their reviewing operations.

All audiophiles
are wasting their money on high end cables?

Only the ones who actually fall for this scam. Not all do. Don't get me
wrong, I think that at least some of the people who promote this sort of
thing are doing so sincerily.

Of course, their sincerity doesn't prevent them from suspending disbelief,
being hard to convince of basic scientific principles, and in the case of
the vendors - marking up inexpensive raw materials in well, highly
imaginative ways. ;-)