Cables can make a huge difference...

[audiopro92]

This post is for newbies and hi-fi veterans alike.

Cables shouldn't, at least in theory, sound different. From their inception, they were never intended to alter the output signal or be the cause of inadvertent variations. So then, why do they sound different?

I've said this before - to many people:
Conductors interact with other conductors. This interaction due to metallurgy can impact sound quality. The wiring in your audio equipment plays in tangent with the cables you connect. You are, in essence, creating an orchestra and one bad performer (weak link in your audio system chain) can make a world of difference!

Top-notch cables (with no design compromises) can allow a system to be fully transparent as if that CD player and Amplifier are ONE unit, rather than TWO. It's like a hard-wired / soldered connection, rather connections than long distances where losses are possible. In theory and in practice, a cable will inevitably experience losses. If the losses are imperceptible to our senses and hearing, then our cables are truly reference-grade.

You can certainly measure them and you will find they appear to be alike. Then a resolving system shows you the truth.

I have heard tonal/sound quality differences in the following types of cables:

RCA interconnects
RCA Y to 3.5mm
Balanced interconnects
Power cables
Coaxial cables
TOSLINK cables
Type C cables
Ethernet cables

Recently I tested two sets of RCA cables -

#1 My custom-made RCAs; 8 inches, silver-plated copper that is mil-spec top-grade made in USA.

#2 Relatively inexpensive no-name cables from amazon - 1m (3 feet) in length, silver-plated copper.

Headphones: Meters Novu-1
Headphone Amplifier: custom-made linear DC amplifier from Japan (made by an electronics engineer).
DAC/Source: Pathos Converto MK1
USB Cable: custom-made common-mode and differential-mode noise rejection cable with passive components and physically segregated data and power lines. (cable is split in two instead of one wire).
Source track: Bush - Testosterone

A Kick drum/guitars lighten up and introduce the track. The bass response and decay should be very linear-sounding and controlled. There is a sense of clarity, space, timing, imaging, and above all dynamics that can be accurately portrayed if the system and cables are up to the task.

My reference cables #1 - Obviously performed exceptionally well. They were able to completely convey all of the above.
The other cables #2 - Additional bass, blurred the bass lines, smeared the guitars, and reduced dynamics substantially.

Volume was matched as I never had to turn the knob beyond where it was. The headphone amplifier has a power on/off switch that is a toggle so I could quickly power off everything and swap cables. I tested myself 10 times in a row, taking notes after 5 minute breaks in between while my house and neighborhood were totally quiet late at night.

My impressions were identical to relatives with good hearing. I also covered the cables each time they visited my listening room to hear the track. So in each case, they had no idea which cables I was using, or even, what they looked like!

They were able to guess or interpret that something was wrong (chose the bad RCAs, #2) 10/10 times! The same as me.

Because auditory memory is so short, I took notes. And I asked them to do the same.
The extent of what we were trying to communicate lined up to a tee. The cables definitely made a difference!

Thanks for hearing me out! I'd be glad to hear cases like this from forum members here who have had similar experiences with cables. It could be any of the aforementioned cables...

 

[DonH50]

Sounds like a bad cable or connector. The only time I have heard substantial difference in interconnects was when something was wrong, often a bad ground connection, or when the cheap cables were not well-shielded and allowed noise to couple to the signal, which could also lead to audible issues.

Inexpensive silver-plated copper cables from Amazon, can you provide a link? Usually "silver" and "inexpensive" do not go together. I have seen some test reports showing misleading advertising for some silver and gold cables.

 

[audiopro92]

Sounds like a bad cable or connector. The only time I have heard substantial difference in interconnects was when something was wrong, often a bad ground connection, or when the cheap cables were not well-shielded and allowed noise to couple to the signal, which could also lead to audible issues.

Inexpensive silver-plated copper cables from Amazon, can you provide a link? Usually "silver" and "inexpensive" do not go together. I have seen some test reports showing misleading advertising for some silver and gold cables.

I sent you a message.

 

[thedudeabides]

Hi,

I assume you know that the vast majority of folks on this forum will not disagree with your basic premise, that being that cables do sound different and do make a difference. FYI, there is a dedicated section on the home page (Audio Cable Forum) containing approximately 720 threads with thousands of posts discussing this topic. Best.

 

[Hear Here]

Cables shouldn't, at least in theory, sound different. From their inception, they were never intended to alter the output signal or be the cause of inadvertent variations. So then, why do they sound different?

As other have said / will say, I don't believe in all these cable claims. All one needs is a "good" cable with decently attached end terminals of "good" quality. That's what is used in professional recording studios, etc. If it's good enough to get the music onto a master to send to streaming and pressing houses, it's surely good enough for us.

Or better (since no cable however costly will ever improve the sound), ditch the cables as far as possible by putting as many modules as feasible (streamer, DAC, DSP, phono stage, preamp, headphone amp, etc) into a single enclosure. Save cost and untidiness and eliminate all the noise or whatever you seem to hear with cables and you're done!

 

[mtemur]

As other have said / will say, I don't believe in all these cable claims. All one needs is a "good" cable with decently attached end terminals of "good" quality. That's what is used in professional recording studios, etc. If it's good enough to get the music onto a master to send to streaming and pressing houses, it's surely good enough for us.

If you think that equipment designed for recording studios is perfect for home, for audiophiles too, I challenge you to listen to music on a pair of Yamaha NS-10Ms. But be warned—it might not be the most pleasant experience. Just like most studio monitors.

Cables used in recording studios are chosen because they’re inexpensive not because they sound good.

 

[audiopro92]

As other have said / will say, I don't believe in all these cable claims. All one needs is a "good" cable with decently attached end terminals of "good" quality. That's what is used in professional recording studios, etc. If it's good enough to get the music onto a master to send to streaming and pressing houses, it's surely good enough for us.

Or better (since no cable however costly will ever improve the sound), ditch the cables as far as possible by putting as many modules as feasible (streamer, DAC, DSP, phono stage, preamp, headphone amp, etc) into a single enclosure. Save cost and untidiness and eliminate all the noise or whatever you seem to hear with cables and you're done!

We don't know what said studio is using to produce music for a particular artist or band. In terms of sound quality, there are plenty of details that often go over-looked in the work many of them do. These details can easily be revealed with audio equipment that is made with high quality parts and lacks engineering compromises.

The purpose of top-notch cables (of any kind) have nothing to do with "improving" sound quality. Rather, they do not add or subtract anything from the original sound. As I said, two components blend together as though they are one unit. I'm not making claims about "better" sound quality; only that better cables will reveal more of what a system is fully capable of. Unlocking full potential....

Excessively sharp snares, post-ringing, sound recorded at the 0:00 mark when we press play such as footsteps, a faint voice, etc. , tons of dynamic range compression when mastering, and even recessed vocals! All of this is present in modern music and recordings from the 80s and 90s to a large extent.

Any generic or basic studio today is using average-quality monitors and consumer-grade products to save money and maximize profits. Unlike, let's say AIR Studios in London, which is probably the best in the world. The gear they use is at the same level (or very close to) the very best high-end audio equipment today. Shops today that sell consumer-grade studio gear are popular and amateur studios and mid-tier (apart from the world's most expensive studios to record/mix/master) are using these products. Riddled with all kinds of engineering compromises and cost savings, they will not be revealing enough to allow you hear the differences in cables.

 

[audiobomber]

In theory and in practice, a cable will inevitably experience losses. If the losses are imperceptible to our senses and hearing, then our cables are truly reference-grade.

If you listen to the top Cardas vs. the top Nordost, they will sound different. I don't know how you would decide which is correct. All we can do is search out cabling that meets our sonic preferences.

As other have said / will say, I don't believe in all these cable claims. All one needs is a "good" cable with decently attached end terminals of "good" quality. That's what is used in professional recording studios, etc.

I bought a 3-ft pair of Mogami Gold interconnects because I thought the above may have merit. What I heard was loose bass, slightly gritty highs and constricted soundstage, compared to even low-level audiophile cables. I tried the Mogami in three separate configurations to make sure there was no compatibility issue. Mogami Gold is very well made and nicely flexible but I am not impressed.

 

[audiopro92]

If you think that equipment designed for recording studios is perfect for home, for audiophiles too, I challenge you to listen to music on a pair of Yamaha NS-10Ms. But be warned—it might not be the most pleasant experience. Just like most studio monitors.

Cables used in recording studios are chosen because they’re inexpensive not because they sound good.

Excellent response.

Transducers (speakers and headphones) are like a window to the outside world. If they are not transparent enough, they will not be able to help you discern the smallest differences in sound. And yes, cables used in most budget or mid-range studios are deployed with cost-savings in mind as are most of their equipment.

 

[audiopro92]

If you listen to the top Cardas vs. the top Nordost, they will sound different. I don't know how you would decide which is correct. All we can do is search out cabling that meets our sonic preferences.

I bought a 3-ft pair of Mogami Gold interconnects because I thought the above may have merit. What I heard was loose bass, slightly gritty highs and constricted soundstage, compared to even low-level audiophile cables. I tried the Mogami in three separate configurations to make sure there was no compatibility issue. Mogami Gold is very well made and nicely flexible but I am not impressed.

That's true. There will be variations because of the interactions between internal wiring as no route is infallible. I can confidently say that the interconnects I use provide consistent results and no discernable colorations.

When guitars sound real, cymbals sound as they should with a sense of air and scale, a mustang engine revving brings you right beside the vehicle, water dripping is almost tangible, and the most complex recordings allow you hear intricate details without smearing, then we know you have a transparent system.

I had the same experience with Mogami gold interconnects. Nothing against the brand. I'm sure many people enjoy them. To each their own, so I won't knock them down with any other impressions.

 

[thedudeabides]

The purpose of top-notch cables (of any kind) have nothing to do with "improving" sound quality. Rather, they do not add or subtract anything from the original sound.

Most folks with hi end systems will use "top notch" cables to "voice" (to some degree) the overall sound to suit their subjective preferences. It goes part and parcel with the "system synergy" tuning process. One can certainly argue that the cabling may alter and likely will add or subtract from the "original" sound (whatever that is because no one really knows absent being present at the original recording session) to match their personal listening biases. To me, that means "improving sound quality" albeit on a subjective level.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Most folks with hi end systems will use "top notch" cables to "voice" (to some degree) the overall sound to suit their subjective preferences. It goes part and parcel with the "system synergy" tuning process. One can certainly argue that the cabling may alter and likely will add or subtract from the "original" sound (whatever that is) to match their personal listening biases. To me, that means "improving sound quality" albeit on a subjective level.

I would agree, I have always looked at synergy and build quality in all my cables. LessLoss for power cables, Analysis Plus and Purist Audio for IC, Purist and Townshend for SC. Yes I have tried going the cheap route and may as well just give the money to my kids to waste.

 

[DaveC]

Most folks with hi end systems will use "top notch" cables to "voice" (to some degree) the overall sound to suit their subjective preferences. It goes part and parcel with the "system synergy" tuning process. One can certainly argue that the cabling will and add or subtract from the "original" sound (whatever that is because no one really knows absent being present at the original recording session) to match their personal listening biases. To me, that means "improving sound quality" albeit on a subjective level.

Yes, until they realize voicing with cables is anti-high-fidelity.

I can't tell you how many times people asked me for a warm cable and I send them a highly resolving cable that isn't warm at all and they end up preferring it.

What they think they want with warmth is actually there when you increase fidelity to a certain level that satisfies the psychoacoustic requirements to sound more real. Warmth doesn't make timbre more realistic, it smothers it and compromises spatial presentation.

A highly resolving interconnect cable is key to achieving high fidelity. Those who think cables don't matter and are using something like a Mogami IC cable do not have a high fidelity system, it simply isn't possible. They may prefer it that way, or they may not care, all of which are perfectly fine and valid, folks should choose an audio system they love at the end of the day.

But we should realize there's a difference between personal preference, not caring about that last bit of resolution, and true high fidelity. For example the last TV I bought was a top-end Sony LCD set. No, I didn't spend several times the cost for a good OLED set because I just don't care. However, I understand my TV isn't the last word in visual high fidelity and I won't go around telling people OLED is snake oil and a waste of money.

 

[audiopro92]

Yes, until they realize voicing with cables is anti-high-fidelity.

I can't tell you how many times people asked me for a warm cable and I send them a highly resolving cable that isn't warm at all and they end up preferring it.

What they think they want with warmth is actually there when you increase fidelity to a certain level that satisfies the psychoacoustic requirements to sound more real. Warmth doesn't make timbre more realistic, it smothers it and compromises spatial presentation.

A highly resolving interconnect cable is key to achieving high fidelity. Those who think cables don't matter and are using something like a Mogami IC cable do not have a high fidelity system, it simply isn't possible. They may prefer it that way, or they may not care, all of which are perfectly fine and valid, folks should choose an audio system they love at the end of the day.

But we should realize there's a difference between personal preference, not caring about that last bit of resolution, and true high fidelity. For example the last TV I bought was a top-end Sony LCD set. No, I didn't spend several times the cost for a good OLED set because I just don't care. However, I understand my TV isn't the last word in visual high fidelity and I won't go around telling people OLED is snake oil and a waste of money.

Another brilliant post.

Warmth is certainly a factor when top-quality microphones are used for voice. Especially with female vocals and smooth, well extended or layered bass. I'm talking about organic warmth and not using an EQ or PEQ to artificially enhance the sound subjectively. We can almost feel warm/cold air on speakers or headphones. It's nearly tangible with great electronics.

You don't hear the microphonics and the recording sounds more like a first-class analog system, when using excellent digital audio equipment. There is a sense of being there in booth or at a live venue, rather than simply listening to an approximation of what the original audio should sound like. Bad recordings tend to sound compressed, digital, and sometimes even lifeless. The soul of music is lost with poorly-mastered recordings, yet can still be revived if we try with unwavering effort!

Regarding fidelity, we know it exists when 2 tracks on the same album that use similar instruments sound unique, rather than more alike. Do a quick search and perhaps the mixing/mastering engineer was not the same person, maybe someone who tuned it for radio so LUFS would be fine for people with basic car stereos. Not so great on a high-end audio system, which will reveal imperfections.

 

[thedudeabides]

Hi Dave. Agreed. You have stated two perspectives, one of which is correct, depending on the individual. And I will let someone else start a thread entitled "What is high fidelity?". Thanks. Best.

 

[treitz3]

Yes, until they realize voicing with cables is anti-high-fidelity.

Is it voicing or tuning the system to the room? Much like one would tune an instrument...

A cable can make or break a system IME. What works in one system, may or may not work in another. Another thing that piques my curiosity is why some folks hold that voicing or tuning a system is somehow bad. That one would want a neutral cable.

Has anyone ever ran across a 100% truly neutral cable?

If they did, then how would they know? What's their reference to be certain of this?

Tom

 

[Atmasphere]

This post is for newbies and hi-fi veterans alike.

Cables shouldn't, at least in theory, sound different. From their inception, they were never intended to alter the output signal or be the cause of inadvertent variations. So then, why do they sound different?

I've said this before - to many people:
Conductors interact with other conductors. This interaction due to metallurgy can impact sound quality. The wiring in your audio equipment plays in tangent with the cables you connect. You are, in essence, creating an orchestra and one bad performer (weak link in your audio system chain) can make a world of difference!

Top-notch cables (with no design compromises) can allow a system to be fully transparent as if that CD player and Amplifier are ONE unit, rather than TWO. It's like a hard-wired / soldered connection, rather connections than long distances where losses are possible. In theory and in practice, a cable will inevitably experience losses. If the losses are imperceptible to our senses and hearing, then our cables are truly reference-grade.

You can certainly measure them and you will find they appear to be alike. Then a resolving system shows you the truth.

I have heard tonal/sound quality differences in the following types of cables:

RCA interconnects
RCA Y to 3.5mm
Balanced interconnects
Power cables
Coaxial cables
TOSLINK cables
Type C cables
Ethernet cables

Recently I tested two sets of RCA cables -

#1 My custom-made RCAs; 8 inches, silver-plated copper that is mil-spec top-grade made in USA.

#2 Relatively inexpensive no-name cables from amazon - 1m (3 feet) in length, silver-plated copper.

Headphones: Meters Novu-1
Headphone Amplifier: custom-made linear DC amplifier from Japan (made by an electronics engineer).
DAC/Source: Pathos Converto MK1
USB Cable: custom-made common-mode and differential-mode noise rejection cable with passive components and physically segregated data and power lines. (cable is split in two instead of one wire).
Source track: Bush - Testosterone

A Kick drum/guitars lighten up and introduce the track. The bass response and decay should be very linear-sounding and controlled. There is a sense of clarity, space, timing, imaging, and above all dynamics that can be accurately portrayed if the system and cables are up to the task.

My reference cables #1 - Obviously performed exceptionally well. They were able to completely convey all of the above.
The other cables #2 - Additional bass, blurred the bass lines, smeared the guitars, and reduced dynamics substantially.

Volume was matched as I never had to turn the knob beyond where it was. The headphone amplifier has a power on/off switch that is a toggle so I could quickly power off everything and swap cables. I tested myself 10 times in a row, taking notes after 5 minute breaks in between while my house and neighborhood were totally quiet late at night.

My impressions were identical to relatives with good hearing. I also covered the cables each time they visited my listening room to hear the track. So in each case, they had no idea which cables I was using, or even, what they looked like!

They were able to guess or interpret that something was wrong (chose the bad RCAs, #2) 10/10 times! The same as me.

Because auditory memory is so short, I took notes. And I asked them to do the same.
The extent of what we were trying to communicate lined up to a tee. The cables definitely made a difference!

Thanks for hearing me out! I'd be glad to hear cases like this from forum members here who have had similar experiences with cables. It could be any of the aforementioned cables...

This problem was solved back in the early 1950s. A series of standards associated with balanced line operation were used: low impedance operation, along with making sure that the equipment didn't reference ground. In this way the shield was ignored and only used for shielding, not completing the audio circuit as seen in a lot of RCA cables.

Most 'high end audio' products ignore the standards for balanced line. Not only are they high impedance but they also reference ground. When the ground is part of the signal chain, it leaves the circuit open to ground loops.

Most studio gear supports the connection standard (AES48) and also the low impedance aspect. As a result, the line level output of studio gear is measured in dBm, which is to say a certain amount of Watts (actually 1 milliWatt) into a 600 Ohm load which is zero VU.

Very little of high end audio supports this. As a result, you hear differences between cables, which isn't supposed to happen. When you see engineers talking about how audio cables don't mess with the sound, its a good idea to keep in mind that they are usually talking about balanced lines in a studio situation.

The thing is, back in the 1950s when tubes were the only game in town, it wasn't practical to make consumer gear with the input and output transformers needed to send a balanced line signal properly. So the consumer gear has mostly been using single-ended connections. They have no termination standard and no standard for driving the cable so its unsurprising that the construction of the cable can mess with the sound.

This is a bad thing. You shouldn't be hearing differences between cables; what that means is the cables you heard in such a comparison were both wrong. Sure one sounds better than the other, but its a sure bet that a more expensive or newer cable from that manufacturer or a competitor will come along to knock it off its perch.

That is why balanced lines. When we first started building balanced line equipment in the 1980s, it didn't occur to us to not support the standards that made it work. We figured out a way to direct couple to the balanced output (for which we now have 2 patents) so we got rid of the output transformer problem. But it seems that no-one cares. It was my thinking that audiophiles would love to not have to change out their cables annually and spend more on the cables than components cost. Boy was I wrong on that and its been amazing to me that I get pushback on the balanced line thing. I see it as a matter of education and I'm not in a position to educate audiophiles on this matter.

So I expect this issue, this discussion, will never go away and we'll continue to hear all the absurd claims and the like.

If they did, then how would they know? What's their reference to be certain of this?

The answer is recordings they made themselves or perhaps live microphone feeds that could be compared to the real thing. That's how we did it. I recommend anyone that wants to really know how things should sound get some decent recording equipment and start doing on location recordings so they have a personal reference. It can be really eye-opening. One thing you learn real quick is that there are excellent microphones, mic preamps and headphones such that you might are likely to be fooled by how real they sound quite often. Its when you record that most of that experience is lost. But at least you know how it was supposed to sound and knowing that you can point to system weaknesses with such a tool quite quickly.

 

[DaveC]

Is it voicing or tuning the system to the room? Much like one would tune an instrument...

A cable can make or break a system IME. What works in one system, may or may not work in another. Another thing that piques my curiosity is why some folks hold that voicing or tuning a system is somehow bad. That one would want a neutral cable.

Has anyone ever ran across a 100% truly neutral cable?

If they did, then how would they know? What's their reference to be certain of this?

Tom

I need to make a post or maybe do a video on this and post it as a sticky on my forum as it comes up so often. '

All cable comparisons are relative as cables are required for the system to work. However, you can listen to determine some aspects of neutrality.

-Resolution is the most obvious aspect of neutrality. Resolution is best listened for in timbre of strings and vocals as well as the system's spatial presentation.

-Colorations or lack thereof. With experience you can identify many different colorations that can be considered distortions, artifacts, and noise. They come from materials and material combinations, impurities in the conductors, interactions with dielectrics, noise generated such as triboelectric noise, noise picked up from emi/rfi via several different routes, etc. Some colorations are fatiguing, like brightness. Some can be exciting, like noise that pushes the soundstage forward or accentuates leading edges. Some can be soothing like warmth. There can be a subjective preference for some colorations, so they are not all bad, but they are not neutral and they do reduce resolution.

I design cables on objective terms and have found the better I make the cable the better it sounds to me. I often do not know how something will sound until I make an objective improvement and then listen to the result. The result of objective improvements is ALWAYS better resolution and less colorations.

If you want to deviate from what's objectively good in order to satisfy a subjective preference, you will sacrifice resolution and introduce colorations, reducing the overall fidelity of the system. If you prefer this result for whatever reason... maybe it sounds more like live music, maybe it makes bad recordings easier to listen to, maybe it compensates for something else that's causing fatigue.... then that's fine, but it's best to know that's what you're doing. In the future maybe you improve an aspect of your system and then you require less deviation from neutral and can enjoy the result of increased resolution and less coloration. It just depends on what you want. There's no rule that says achieving the highest fidelity possible must be your goal, it's your system, do what makes you happy and makes listening enjoyable to you.

 

[DaveC]

This problem was solved back in the early 1950s....

You're a cable denier that shouldn't be posting in the cable forum. I don't think anyone wants to revisit this again.

 

[audiobomber]

I can confidently say that the interconnects I use provide consistent results and no discernable colorations

Which cables are these?