Need advice on cables for full TAD setup

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
The big problem with "tuning" via cables rather than simply selecting the most neutral cables is that cables are passive devices and there are clear tradeoffs in any deviation from neutral. For example, you want a warm cable, ok... it won't be as resolving and it will "smear" fine detail. There is absolutely no way around this. I use gold to add warmth in my high end ICs, I feel it's far better vs using copper but the price is higher and there is still a tradeoff. I do feel like a small amount of warmth is required in many system as recording studios generally use warm cables and so playback using a totally neutral system will deviate from what the artist intended, circle of confusion and all that... So I actually have three different high-end ICs depending on how much warmth you want!

You argumentation is centered on two things that are non-existent in stereo - neutral gear and the possibility of listeners knowing what were exactly the artist intentions. However it is very clarifying to know your perspective and how you tune your cables. I have no doubt that people who share your preferences will be very happy with such cables. The Crystal Dreamline cables also use gold to add some warmth - too much of it in some systems, IMHO.

I feel you're far better off with more neutral cables, clean AC power and choosing the source, amp and speakers from there. That said, it's super rare for anyone to actually do this. It seems like you select your gear using cheap, colored garbage cables with no regard to AC power and then you deal with the rest. The problem is it's all a SYSTEM and doing it that way isn't treating it as such. It's very common for folks to buy a system without regard to the cables and then, when they try neutral cables, they can hear issues with the system they previously didn't recognize.
You assumptions are completely wrong, no point debating your fertile imagination. IMHO using the word garbage in this subject does not help a proper exchange of points of view, the winners are the cable skeptics.

I think one big issue is information overload and the fact people often can't recognize, understand or define what neutral is. The thought that the cables studios and live sound venues use are the definition of neutral is an example, and it's so common, Ron himself has said he wants to start with Mogami, which is very warm and reduces resolution to a shocking degree vs an actually neutral cable. IME such an IC cable alone can cripple a system.

Nice to see we agree on the impossibility of finding an accepted reference for neutral wires. So all is left is picking the non-neutral we prefer or create a never ending inconclusive thread on cables that we think are neutral.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Speaking of the R1, all three sections, woofer, mid and tweeter, have the exact same wiring. What’s the point of the article? That there is some sort of intermodulation distortion occurring when the bass and treble are running on the same cable so this requires a different type of expensive cable? That the bandwidth of the bass is somehow using up bandwidth that’s needed for the treble? That’s not how analogue signals work.

The point was mainly that no common speaker cable can transmit accurately the full bandwidth of audio (10 octaves) , but manages to transmit smaller partial bandwidths. BTW, Philip Newell is a supporter of active speakers.

Anyways, my point is still not that cables don’t make a difference. Cables can make a difference, and there are good and bad cables out there. But the science behind making good cables at short lengths at audio frequencies has been known for many decades. It’s not difficult or exorbitantly expensive to make a great cable. And this has been the case for many years. If this were not true, then how were the fantastic recordings of the 1950s and 1960s done?

Basic science will tell us that cables don't make a difference according to the "how analog signals work" you referred. But science does not cover the interface between cables and extremely diverse equipment in the presence of noise and RFI or the preferences of audiophiles.

I agree that as long as you define what is a great cable it not difficult or exorbitantly expensive to make a great cable. I made and own a lot of them ... ;) And the moldy argument that fantastic recordings were carried with common cables is too naive to be discussed again in WBF.
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
You argumentation is centered on two things that are non-existent in stereo - neutral gear and the possibility of listeners knowing what were exactly the artist intentions. However it is very clarifying to know your perspective and how you tune your cables. I have no doubt that people who share your preferences will be very happy with such cables. The Crystal Dreamline cables also use gold to add some warmth - too much of it in some systems, IMHO.


You assumptions are completely wrong, no point debating your fertile imagination. IMHO using the word garbage in this subject does not help a proper exchange of points of view, the winners are the cable skeptics.



Nice to see we agree on the impossibility of finding an accepted reference for neutral wires. So all is left is picking the non-neutral we prefer or create a never ending inconclusive thread on cables that we think are neutral.

Wow, so besides the snide and condescending tone of your response, I see you have no idea what neutral is nor have you been able to develop criteria to assist you with such judgements. This explains a lot actually...

Your assertion that my assumptions are completely wrong is at odds with the fact my cables are competitive with the best in the industry. Also, the way you sidestep any real justification for your insult by disparaging me is pretty horrible. Once again you've made WBF a worse place by your responses, and made me regret posting anything in response to you.

Also, we absolutely DO NOT agree on the impossibility of finding an accepted neutral reference for a cable, although there will always be those who disagree, which is fine. People can do what they please and believe whatever they like. Most people have never experienced a wide variety of gear yet many seem to have strong opinions based entirely on their own experience with one system. So I have little interest in trying to generate some sort of consensus in the industry.

There are certainly objective criteria for determining what neutral is:

- The degree of resolution
- The absence of identifiable artifacts and distortions
- Immediacy of dynamics, such that they aren't rounded off
- Overall quality of soundstage
- Distinct timbre of instruments
- Doesn't homogenize recordings

That's just off the top of my head, and is by no means a complete list of criteria I use to build and test my cables, which have a decade or so of excellent results and happy customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nirodha

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
Basic science will tell us that cables don't make a difference according to the "how analog signals work" you referred. But science does not cover the interface between cables and extremely diverse equipment in the presence of noise and RFI or the preferences of audiophiles.

This is just so wrong. Basic science explains exactly how cables can make a difference in many different ways, as well as how noise, RFI, etc. works, how equipment interfaces work, and it even goes a long way towards explaining preference. It may not explain everything but your assertion here is off the deep end.
 

PGA

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2013
81
37
248

This above is a worthwhile read and it’s an extremely well written piece.

My point has never been that cables don’t make a difference, instead it is that in my opinion, which I’m entitled to have, you need not spend exorbitant amounts of money to obtain excellent results with cables. Your time and money is better spent elsewhere.

I propose that it would be highly unlikely that anyone that has not studied engineering could design and build an amplifier, DAC, active crossover or preamp. Maybe such a person could follow a cookbook recipe to assemble a passive preamp or crossover, but not a great one.

But anyone with a creative imagination can design a cable, and then tell us how special it is and how they are the only ones that understand how it works. It may very well sound different than cables and connectors designed by engineers at Mogami, Canare, Gotham, Belden, WBT, Neutrik. But is it better? What are the odds that it’s more accurate or neutral?

Ponder this. Many of these expensive cables are made by companies that mostly make cables and accessories. Their designers claim to have insights into electromagnetic wave theory that are above and beyond measurements and common engineering techniques. But if they are indeed so brilliant, why aren’t they building equipment that actually requires engineering knowledge? Why do most companies that actually have talented engineers working there rarely make exotic cables, especially since the highest margin products are the cables?
 
Last edited:

PGA

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2013
81
37
248
The point was mainly that no common speaker cable can transmit accurately the full bandwidth of audio (10 octaves) , but manages to transmit smaller partial bandwidths. BTW, Philip Newell is a supporter of active speakers.



Basic science will tell us that cables don't make a difference according to the "how analog signals work" you referred. But science does not cover the interface between cables and extremely diverse equipment in the presence of noise and RFI or the preferences of audiophiles.

I agree that as long as you define what is a great cable it not difficult or exorbitantly expensive to make a great cable. I made and own a lot of them ... ;) And the moldy argument that fantastic recordings were carried with common cables is too naive to be discussed again in WBF.
I believe you share my admiration of Peter Walker and the ESL57 and ESL63. Why would a man that was so brilliant and ahead of his time not invented fancy speaker and power cables to go along with his components and speakers?
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Wow, so besides the snide and condescending tone of your response, I see you have no idea what neutral is nor have you been able to develop criteria to assist you with such judgements. This explains a lot actually...

Your assertion that my assumptions are completely wrong is at odds with the fact my cables are competitive with the best in the industry. Also, the way you sidestep any real justification for your insult by disparaging me is pretty horrible. Once again you've made WBF a worse place by your responses, and made me regret posting anything in response to you.

Also, we absolutely DO NOT agree on the impossibility of finding an accepted neutral reference for a cable, although there will always be those who disagree, which is fine. People can do what they please and believe whatever they like. Most people have never experienced a wide variety of gear yet many seem to have strong opinions based entirely on their own experience with one system. So I have little interest in trying to generate some sort of consensus in the industry.

There are certainly objective criteria for determining what neutral is:

- The degree of resolution
- The absence of identifiable artifacts and distortions
- Immediacy of dynamics, such that they aren't rounded off
- Overall quality of soundstage
- Distinct timbre of instruments
- Doesn't homogenize recordings

That's just off the top of my head, and is by no means a complete list of criteria I use to build and test my cables, which have a decade or so of excellent results and happy customers.

Apologies if you find my response condescending - it is not meant to be so. These are just opinions on stereo sound subjects and I am always happy to discuss them.

What you call objective criteria are just subjective aspects. Surely they could be transformed in objective data, but no one has done it because the resources to carry such listening in adequate conditions with statistical value are beyond what can be expected for stereo sound reproduction.

I have not commented and do not comment on your cables as I have never listened to them. You insist on centering the discussion on the performance and success of your cables, something that does not interest me. But I would love to read your list of "neutral" gear.

I do not think my posts make WBF a worse place, unless people are not prepared to have a fair debate or think that well known scholars in audio that many times influence my posts should be avoided.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I believe you share my admiration of Peter Walker and the ESL57 and ESL63. Why would a man that was so brilliant and ahead of his time not invented fancy speaker and power cables to go along with his components and speakers?

Easy. Peter Walker never assumed that his products were the best for everybody or the best. He assumed that they could please a large majority that were not interested in particular aspects of stereo sound.

Consider the SME room built and perfected by Alastair Robertson-Aikman using ESL63. He raised its performance to a level surpassing the originals, using high-end equipment, including tweaks and high-end cables.

I have lived with ESL63 several times, still own some Quad speaker cable. I always preferred their sound with audiophile cables, chosen according to the matching equipment and room.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal

This above is a worthwhile read and it’s an extremely well written piece.

My point has never been that cables don’t make a difference, instead it is that in my opinion, which I’m entitled to have, you need not spend exorbitant amounts of money to obtain excellent results with cables. Your time and money is better spent elsewhere.

I propose that it would be highly unlikely that anyone that has not studied engineering could design and build an amplifier, DAC, active crossover or preamp. Maybe such a person could follow a cookbook recipe to assemble a passive preamp or crossover, but not a great one.

But anyone with a creative imagination can design a cable, and then tell us how special it is and how they are the only ones that understand how it works. It may very well sound different than cables and connectors designed by engineers at Mogami, Canare, Gotham, Belden, WBT, Neutrik. But is it better? What are the odds that it’s more accurate or neutral?

Ponder this. Many of these expensive cables are made by companies that mostly make cables and accessories. Their designers claim to have insights into electromagnetic wave theory that are above and beyond measurements and common engineering techniques. But if they are indeed so brilliant, why aren’t they building equipment that actually requires engineering knowledge? Why do most companies that actually have talented engineers working there rarely make exotic cables, especially since the highest margin products are the cables?

Thanks - this part of the book addresses the same points that the authors refer in the HifiCritic article.

The critical point is that as soon as we accept that cables sound different the subject becomes a matter of preference. And sorry to say, I never got the particular sound excellence of some top cables with "reasonable" cables by the brands you refer - and I own a few of them.

Perhaps I am crazy and all this is an illusion. But if I have an expensive set of cables that makes the boundaries of my room disappear and create a more realistic layering in depth in a way that I could not expect my large speakers do in my room why should I prefer a more constricted soundstage to keep engineers happy? Particularly as other aspect such as micro-dynamics, timbre and bass reproduction also improve.

I suggest we keep marketing arguments out of this exchange of posts - they are too ridiculous to deserve any discussion. Many cable manufacturers produce brilliant products, unfortunately they also produce childish pseudo-science to attract the attention of audiophiles.
 

PGA

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2013
81
37
248
Easy. Peter Walker never assumed that his products were the best for everybody or the best. He assumed that they could please a large majority that were not interested in particular aspects of stereo sound.

Consider the SME room built and perfected by Alastair Robertson-Aikman using ESL63. He raised its performance to a level surpassing the originals, using high-end equipment, including tweaks and high-end cables.

I have lived with ESL63 several times, still own some Quad speaker cable. I always preferred their sound with audiophile cables, chosen according to the matching equipment and room.

This above is a worthwhile read and it’s an extremely well written piece.

My point has never been that cables don’t make a difference, instead it is that in my opinion, which I’m entitled to have, you need not spend exorbitant amounts of money to obtain excellent results with cables. Your time and money is better spent elsewhere.

I propose that it would be highly unlikely that anyone that has not studied engineering could design and build an amplifier, DAC, active crossover or preamp. Maybe such a person could follow a cookbook recipe to assemble a passive preamp or crossover, but not a great one.

But anyone with a creative imagination can design a cable, and then tell us how special it is and how they are the only ones that understand how it works. It may very well sound different than cables and connectors designed by engineers at Mogami, Canare, Gotham, Belden, WBT, Neutrik. But is it better? What are the odds that it’s more accurate or neutral?

Ponder this. Many of these expensive cables are made by companies that mostly make cables and accessories. Their designers claim to have insights into electromagnetic wave theory that are above and beyond measurements and common engineering techniques. But if they are indeed so brilliant, why aren’t they building equipment that actually requires engineering knowledge? Why do most companies that actually have talented engineers working there rarely make exotic cables, especially since the highest margin products are the cables?


All six chapters are worth reading, but I found 4 and 6 particularly interesting. I agree that below 2m, it just does not matter as long as the cable is not horribly made. Using solid, clean connectors also is important. Biwiring is helpful. Active crossovers, properly implemented, also can offer big improvements.
 

PGA

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2013
81
37
248
Thanks - this part of the book addresses the same points that the authors refer in the HifiCritic article.

The critical point is that as soon as we accept that cables sound different the subject becomes a matter of preference. And sorry to say, I never got the particular sound excellence of some top cables with "reasonable" cables by the brands you refer - and I own a few of them.

Perhaps I am crazy and all this is an illusion. But if I have an expensive set of cables that makes the boundaries of my room disappear and create a more realistic layering in depth in a way that I could not expect my large speakers do in my room why should I prefer a more constricted soundstage to keep engineers happy? Particularly as other aspect such as micro-dynamics, timbre and bass reproduction also improve.

I suggest we keep marketing arguments out of this exchange of posts - they are too ridiculous to deserve any discussion. Many cable manufacturers produce brilliant products, unfortunately they also produce childish pseudo-science to attract the attention of audiophiles.
If it makes you happy, then that is what matters, right?

For many years I couldn’t get my room to sound like I wanted. It started out with Cello Stradivarious Grand Masters that Mark himself convinced me to buy. Great marketing, very mediocre speaker. Then Dunlavy 6s. Great speakers but the sound was not right. Then got Spectral electronics, ASC traps and MIT. It got a little better. Then got the TAD M1. Still not there. It was bright. Bass not right. Switched from Spectral to Pass and from ASC to RPG. Things got a little smoother, but still mid bass was off. Then got MSB electronics. Bass still off. Went to Magico Q5 when the M1 was recalled by TAD. Q5 was the worst speaker and client experience ever. Switched to Berkeley DACs, R1s and Constellation amps. A little better, but timbre was still off.

So what finally fixed it? Hired Mitch Barnett of Accurate Sound to measure my room and design a Roon based convolution filter. Wow. That made a huge difference.

Then next level was to bi amp the TADs with the help of Andrew Jones. That really took the speakers to another level, for all the reasons explained by P Newell. We kept the cables simple and tuned the system by varying the target curve. Dynamics, timbre and imaging are great. I’m using a Meitner MA3 and Benchmark amps, big fan of these, but the game changer was the DSP. Berkeley and Constellation are fine products.

Forget everything you knew about DSP until you have someone like Mitch design a convolver for your room.
 

PGA

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2013
81
37
248
If it makes you happy, then that is what matters, right?

For many years I couldn’t get my room to sound like I wanted. It started out with Cello Stradivarious Grand Masters that Mark himself convinced me to buy. Great marketing, very mediocre speaker. Then Dunlavy 6s. Great speakers but the sound was not right. Then got Spectral electronics, ASC traps and MIT. It got a little better. Then got the TAD M1. Still not there. It was bright. Bass not right. Switched from Spectral to Pass and from ASC to RPG. Things got a little smoother, but still mid bass was off. Then got MSB electronics. Bass still off. Went to Magico Q5 when the M1 was recalled by TAD. Q5 was the worst speaker and client experience ever. Switched to Berkeley DACs, R1s and Constellation amps. A little better, but timbre was still off.

So what finally fixed it? Hired Mitch Barnett of Accurate Sound to measure my room and design a Roon based convolution filter. Wow. That made a huge difference.

Then next level was to bi amp the TADs with the help of Andrew Jones. That really took the speakers to another level, for all the reasons explained by P Newell. We kept the cables simple and tuned the system by varying the target curve. Dynamics, timbre and imaging are great. I’m using a Meitner MA3 and Benchmark amps, big fan of these, but the game changer was the DSP. Berkeley and Constellation are fine products.

Forget everything you knew about DSP until you have someone like Mitch design a convolver for your room.
Reason for my very long response is to make a point. The room makes a huge difference and it’s unlikely you can fix room problems by switching cables or electronics. You simply need a more powerful tool. And with today‘s computers we can do things in DSP that were science fiction a few years ago. But you need a real acoustic engineer. Otherwise it’s very hard to get right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Young Skywalker

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
I do not think my posts make WBF a worse place, unless people are not prepared to have a fair debate or think that well known scholars in audio that many times influence my posts should be avoided.
You assumptions are completely wrong, no point debating your fertile imagination...


Yeah, ok...

Your apology seems quite hollow given the above, and you also don't understand the differences between objective and subjective criteria. Again, no surprise.

Either you're out and out lying about your intentions or you can't even understand what you're writing.
 

Avidlistener

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2013
156
64
933
Any opinions on charging the cables with DC like audioquest does?
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Yeah, ok...

Your apology seems quite hollow given the above, and you also don't understand the differences between objective and subjective criteria. Again, no surprise.

Either you're out and out lying about your intentions or you can't even understand what you're writing.

Unfortunately you fail to understand that the subjective data when properly analyzed becomes objective data, associated to error margins and confidence intervals. F. Toole explains these matters clearly in the introduction of his great book. Surely some statistical knowledge is needed to understand such data.

A pity you do not want to debate audio matters and opinions in a civilized way. My intentions are understanding and learning as much as we can about high-end stereo, humbly accepting that there is a lot we do not know in the high-end, and alaways avoiding pseudo-science, childish arguments or misleading analogies.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Are you (....) ?

You wrote " It seems (you) like you select your gear using cheap, colored garbage cables with no regard to AC power and then you deal with the rest."

I answered

"Your assumptions are completely wrong, no point debating your fertile imagination." As far as I know I never told you how I select my gear, you only can imagine or guess it.
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
You wrote " It seems (you) like you select your gear using cheap, colored garbage cables with no regard to AC power and then you deal with the rest."

I answered

"Your assumptions are completely wrong, no point debating your fertile imagination." As far as I know I never told you how I select my gear, you only can imagine or guess it.

I wasn't talking about you specifically.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I wasn't talking about you specifically.

Then please do not write:

"It seems you like you select your gear using cheap, colored garbage cables with no regard to AC power and then you deal with the rest."

when directly answering to my argumentation in my post.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing