Audio Cables - which is Best?

[Chris F.]

Is there any advantage to using expensive audio cables, compared to cheap
patch cords? Seems unreasonable to me, to pay $30 or more for a pair of
oxygen-free, digital cables as compared to some $2 patch cords. Obviously
the expensive cables are more rugged, but do they produce a better sound?

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris F. > wrote:
> Is there any advantage to using expensive audio cables, compared to cheap
>patch cords? Seems unreasonable to me, to pay $30 or more for a pair of
>oxygen-free, digital cables as compared to some $2 patch cords. Obviously
>the expensive cables are more rugged, but do they produce a better sound?

It depends a lot on the cables.

Many of the audiophile cables are specifically intended to alter the sound.

Some of them aren't.

In general, we use low-Z balanced connections so that cable differences are
minimized anyway. But when you're running a couple thousand feet of mike
cable, the sonic effects of the cable reactances can build up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Is there any advantage to using expensive audio cables, compared to cheap
> patch cords?

Yes. They don't fail as often. But "cheap patch cords" and "expensive
audio cables" are really two ends of the scale. I see no reason for
someone who wants reliable audio to get from one place to another to
use either. Well made cables aren't expensive. Cables designed by the
marketing department do need to be expensive. Cheap cables work fine
as long as they work, but are more likely to fail when you need them.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[philicorda]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:56:58 +0000, Chris F. wrote:

> Is there any advantage to using expensive audio cables, compared to cheap
> patch cords? Seems unreasonable to me, to pay $30 or more for a pair of
> oxygen-free, digital cables as compared to some $2 patch cords. Obviously
> the expensive cables are more rugged, but do they produce a better sound?

I would say that great cables do not improve the sound, but bad ones
degrade it.

I was always of the opinion that 'cable is cable' until I had the
misfortune to use some XLRs made by a company called 'Stagg'. There was an
audible difference between these really cheap cables and my cables. I
checked them with a multimeter, and they showed no unusual resistance or
faults, they just sounded really bad. The Stagg multicore had the same
problem.

They did not sound bad as in 'Oh, I can hear a distinct thinning
of the high mid', they sounded bad as in 'I never want to use these cables
ever again.'. I do wish I'd kept a few as an example that there is
something to good cable design after all.

A big reel of starquad and a bucket of decent connectors is not expensive
if you have a little time and soldering ability.