How could this be?

[normc]

I'm curious to get some comments on an experience I had with speaker cables. I do realize that educated opinion here says there is not much difference between high priced esoteric speaker cables and good old HD fig 8 lamp cord.

However, whilst doing a major upgrade about 12 months ago, I changed some very old, large gauge, very heavily oxidized twisted pair cable for some newer multi strand OF fig 8 cable. Whilst I certainly don't subscribe to the value of these high priced rip off cables, I was very surprised at the sonic differences and which one came out on top.

The brand new OF cable sounded overly bright, lacking in bottom end, no sound stage, and overall very fatiguing. To the extent I removed it after a few days. The surprising thing was how much better the filthy old oxidized cable sounded in all the above respects.

As I said, I'm not a believer in the value of the overpriced crap but has anyone else experienced anything like this, or can explain the phenomenon?

I think it begs the question, if there's no difference between the high priced and every day cables, how could there be such a noticeable difference between an every day cable and some very old cable, especially when its the wrong way round?

Has had me puzzled for months.

 

[bandphan]

I'm curious to get some comments on an experience I had with speaker cables. I do realize that educated opinion here says there is not much difference between high priced esoteric speaker cables and good old HD fig 8 lamp cord.

However, whilst doing a major upgrade about 12 months ago, I changed some very old, large gauge, very heavily oxidized twisted pair cable for some newer multi strand OF fig 8 cable. Whilst I certainly don't subscribe to the value of these high priced rip off cables, I was very surprised at the sonic differences and which one came out on top.

The brand new OF cable sounded overly bright, lacking in bottom end, no sound stage, and overall very fatiguing. To the extent I removed it after a few days. The surprising thing was how much better the filthy old oxidized cable sounded in all the above respects.

As I said, I'm not a believer in the value of the overpriced crap but has anyone else experienced anything like this, or can explain the phenomenon?

I think it begs the question, if there's no difference between the high priced and every day cables, how could there be such a noticeable difference between an every day cable and some very old cable, especially when its the wrong way round?

Has had me puzzled for months.

Something had to wrong as copper is copper and thats about it, its a conductor and unless some magical box is added to color sound, there shouldnt be a difference..

 

[Rickster71]

Would need some more info as to the exact wire sizes and length of the runs, and of any equipment changes, and whether both runs were installed in the same place away from any high voltage lines.

Is it possible the new cable is picking up interference due to it's installation
or new location?
It's possible there is a difference between twisted pair and what you describe as 'fig 8 cable.'
With the twisted pair having better rejection properties.

 

[normc]

Yes I should have given more details so here they are. The old oxidized cable that performed so well for so long was a very heavy, 4 core twisted multi strand, probably around 8-10awg I suspect. The new one which performed so poorly was a slightly heavier gauge but a simple fig 8 OFC from Jaycar, which is an RS type store here in Australia.

I had really high end gear at that time, KEF 105.2, Hafler mono block Power amps with MF mods and beefed up PS producing the best tonality I've ever heard and a spectacularly good sound stage with heaps of height width and depth. I've since modernized, but downsized and downgraded in some respects to a more practical and attractive HT.

My point is, here on AH, I see posts saying cables don't make that much difference, and while I'm glad to see the debunking of all the BS marketing, I have heard and still hear noticeable differences with cables. I'm currently getting some of the 12awg Belden cable to replace my Audioquest which I'm not happy with as it does lack the above qualities. It will be very interesting to see if I hear any differences as the Belden is $2.90/mtr compared to about $30/mtr for the Audioquest, which I wasn't silly enough to pay for btw.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yes I should have given more details so here they are. The old oxidized cable that performed so well for so long was a very heavy, 4 core twisted multi strand, probably around 8-10awg I suspect. The new one which performed so poorly was a slightly heavier gauge but a simple fig 8 OFC from Jaycar, which is an RS type store here in Australia.

I had really high end gear at that time, KEF 105.2, Hafler mono block Power amps with MF mods and beefed up PS producing the best tonality I've ever heard and a spectacularly good sound stage with heaps of height width and depth. I've since modernized, but downsized and downgraded in some respects to a more practical and attractive HT.

My point is, here on AH, I see posts saying cables don't make that much difference, and while I'm glad to see the debunking of all the BS marketing, I have heard and still hear noticeable differences with cables. I'm currently getting some of the 12awg Belden cable to replace my Audioquest which I'm not happy with as it does lack the above qualities. It will be very interesting to see if I hear any differences as the Belden is $2.90/mtr compared to about $30/mtr for the Audioquest, which I wasn't silly enough to pay for btw.

It is like this. Unless you conduct a bias controlled comparison, double blind preferably, your perception is unreliable or can be and most likely it was as many such tests of the past and some recently as last year with gear in the
6+ digits and cables costing 5 digits compared to good old monster or zip cord showed no audible differences.

 

[normc]

I don't agree with mtrycrafts statement much at all, and I'll tell you why. I've been dabbling in audio to varying extents for some 45 years now and can tell you that blind AB tests can be every bit as unreliable as some people ears and perceptions are. They depend very much on the test conditions and the subjects listening skills, many of which have been flawed. I have a very good audible memory and have been know to identify minor changes in systems with six months between listenings.

At the risk of being labeled an imaginary, I've just completed changing Audioquest spkr cables for 12awg (can't get 10awg here in Oz) Belden (aka BJC) in my HT and would like to share the following observations. Firstly, the Belden significantly changed the tonal balance of the whole system to the extent I reduced the sub output by about 5db. I confirmed this with the SPL A vs C measurement provided earlier by Savant, so this was not just my perception. Bass dynamics have improved noticeably and so has low level detail. This to the extent that the differences between studio recording characteristics and production techniques are more discernible. The Audioquest seems to have given the highs a bit of a harsh edge which over emphasized them. The Belden doesn't do this. Maybe the Audioquest would more suit equipment that was lacking a bit in the top end, but that's actually masking one problem with another.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that it is necessary to spend a lot of money on interconnect or cables. The above improvements have come from a $3/m cable vs a $30/m cable so we can put that to rest. However, I have noticed a consistency in this exercise which might benefit from further scientific scrutiny and that is that heavy gauge twisted cable seems to perform better than fig 8 type configurations of the same or lesser gauge (which category the Audioquest also comes under). I can also see a perfectly reasonable rationale for this. Twisted pair cable displays less inductance than fig 8 and the heavy gauge less resistance. Both desirable for all the reasons stated in the relevant articles here on AH.

So my view is that whilst there is still no reason to believe the BS advertising from the high priced cable marketers, there can be audible differences between speaker cables. However, the differences may be overshadowed by poorer quality equipment in the system and even in a better quality system, you may need a well educated ear to pick up on them.

 

[rob.hughes]

I had sort of the opposite experience as the OP. I went from old, heavily oxidized OF 12ga speaker cable that I originally got at rat shack to some generic OF 14ga speaker cable that I picked up that the local Fry's. The old stuff was really old, like around 15 years old or so, and the insulation was actually cracking off when I picked it up. The new stuff does sound much better, with more clarity in the highs and more definition in the bass. It may be nothing more than a placebo effect, as I don't yet have the equipment to do subjective testing, but I like it better.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I don't agree with mtrycrafts statement much at all, and I'll tell you why. I've been dabbling in audio to varying extents for some 45 years now and can tell you that blind AB tests can be every bit as unreliable as some people ears and perceptions are. They depend very much on the test conditions and the subjects listening skills, many of which have been flawed. I have a very good audible memory and have been know to identify minor changes in systems with six months between listenings.

At the risk of being labeled an imaginary, I've just completed changing Audioquest spkr cables for 12awg (can't get 10awg here in Oz) Belden (aka BJC) in my HT and would like to share the following observations. Firstly, the Belden significantly changed the tonal balance of the whole system to the extent I reduced the sub output by about 5db. I confirmed this with the SPL A vs C measurement provided earlier by Savant, so this was not just my perception. Bass dynamics have improved noticeably and so has low level detail. This to the extent that the differences between studio recording characteristics and production techniques are more discernible. The Audioquest seems to have given the highs a bit of a harsh edge which over emphasized them. The Belden doesn't do this. Maybe the Audioquest would more suit equipment that was lacking a bit in the top end, but that's actually masking one problem with another.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that it is necessary to spend a lot of money on interconnect or cables. The above improvements have come from a $3/m cable vs a $30/m cable so we can put that to rest. However, I have noticed a consistency in this exercise which might benefit from further scientific scrutiny and that is that heavy gauge twisted cable seems to perform better than fig 8 type configurations of the same or lesser gauge (which category the Audioquest also comes under). I can also see a perfectly reasonable rationale for this. Twisted pair cable displays less inductance than fig 8 and the heavy gauge less resistance. Both desirable for all the reasons stated in the relevant articles here on AH.

So my view is that whilst there is still no reason to believe the BS advertising from the high priced cable marketers, there can be audible differences between speaker cables. However, the differences may be overshadowed by poorer quality equipment in the system and even in a better quality system, you may need a well educated ear to pick up on them.

Well, you certainly do not have to agree with me

As to everything else, you are allowed to have those misconceptions as well, no big deal. Acoustic memory for small differences lasting for 6 month? LOL, you really don't know human psychoacoustics, do you. And, that 45 years is not an immunity from bias, nor a certification that one can beat the human factors.
As to your posted experience with this new Audioquest, that is still unreliable unless it was under a credible DBT, period, end of story, incontestable to boot. Just imagined.
James Randi offered $1mil to an audiophile who made some interesting claims for audio cables. The test never happened I guess the pot was not big enough.

Don't feel badly though, you are not alone with your type of claims

 

[mtrycrafts]

...It may be nothing more than a placebo effect, as I don't yet have the equipment to do subjective testing, but I like it better.

Either the oxidation right at the contact point caused issues or the placebo is at work. Cracked insulation, unless it shorted and that would cause other issues is not an issue for audible differences.

 

[normc]

mtrycrafts,

No problems. I don't feel badly at all.

Given that you believe we humans have such poor aural memories though, perhaps you could explain to me how or why most of us are able to distinguish the voices of friends and loved ones over the phone, usually with no more than a word such as "hello" or "hi". Most (I'll bet even you) can do this even though the system has extremely limited bandwidth and very high distortion. (Must be magic). How can we recognize the telephone voice of a loved one when we may not have heard from them in a week, a month, or more? (Magic again I guess). The blind can perform feats of hearing the sighted can't even get close to. How can they do this? (Maybe they're all witches). Hopefully, you will have noticed how much better you hear with your eyes closed, than when they're open?

Come on, open your mind. It's the most sensitive tool that exists and we don't even utilize 50% of it.

I am a musician, but I don't attribute much of my (apparently) extraordinary listening skills to that. Just a bit of common sense and a willingness to accept what my ears tell me, just like you accept what your eyes tell you.

Try the following experiment at your next opportunity. Place a blindfold on a subject and have a person at the other end of a room speak a short sentence, facing in a number of different directions. The subject will be able to tell 90% or more of the time, in which direction the speaker was facing. Some can even tell if the speaker is smiling or frowning. It's not magic. It's a simple demonstration that we aren't as deaf or dumb as many would have us believe.

We used to think that 1db was the smallest discernible difference in SPL that could be heard. We now know that depends on the test conditions and that some can hear as little as 0.1db difference under certain conditions, myself included.

I'm not debunking any of the great work that's been done here on exposing the speaker cable shams and rip offs, but please let's keep an open mind. Just because we don't yet understand how to measure something, that doesn't mean it isn't measurable or that it doesn't exist. It may just mean we need to understand more about how to measure what we hear. The day we stop learning, we may as well roll over and die.

Also, please ensure you get the facts straight. You said "As to your posted experience with this new Audioquest". It wasn't the Audioquest that was new, it was the A$3/m Belden.

 

[mtrycrafts]

mtrycrafts,

No problems. I don't feel badly at all.

Given that you believe we humans have such poor aural memories though, perhaps you could explain to me how or why most of us are able to distinguish the voices of friends and loved ones over the phone, usually with no more than a word such as "hello" or "hi". Most (I'll bet even you) can do this even though the system has extremely limited bandwidth and very high distortion. (Must be magic).How can we recognize the telephone voice of a loved one when we may not have heard from them in a week, a month, or more? (Magic again I guess).

Those are not small audible differences you are talking about nor is it applicable in detecting the small audible differences we are talking about. And most is through repeated exposure to those large differences.

The blind can perform feats of hearing the sighted can't even get close to. How can they do this?

You are over exaggerating about the blind and their hearing ability. Do some research, not depend on urban legends.

Hopefully, you will have noticed how much better you hear with your eyes closed, than when they're open?

Yes, that is because you are not distracted by your other sense, your sight which can confuse your brain.

Come on, open your mind.

I think it is you how need to open your mind to reality, science and not get confused by mythology and voodoo.

It's the most sensitive tool that exists and we don't even utilize 50% of it.

You are talking about the ears? Again, you are confused. It is rather poor and the brain doesn't help it bu filling in stuff that is not real, in other words, it imagines things.

I am a musician, but I don't attribute much of my (apparently) extraordinary listening skills to that.

So? That gives you abilities beyond the known sciences in acoustic? Like what?

Just a bit of common sense and a willingness to accept what my ears tell me, just like you accept what your eyes tell you.

You see, that is your downfall, gullible, accept unreliable perceptions at times.

As to me accepting what I see, actually I get very skeptical at times, like when I placed that steel pie in that 5 gallons of water in a bucket. I saw it bent right in front of my eyes, and when I pulled it out the air straighten it.
And I should accept that sight induced perception?

We used to think that 1db was the smallest discernible difference in SPL that could be heard. We now know that depends on the test conditions and that some can hear as little as 0.1db difference under certain conditions, myself included.

Ah, you do know a small bit, too bad you don't fully accept the power of placebo.
Yes, under very controlled conditions one can hear .2dB difference, with special test tones and special conditions. So what? You certainly cannot do that with music and that is what you listened to, right?
You should check what is realistic with music. How about closer to .7dB under the right conditions?

I'm not debunking any of the great work that's been done here on exposing the speaker cable shams and rip offs, but please let's keep an open mind.

Open mind? It is your mind that is closed shut to what is known.

Just because we don't yet understand how to measure something, that doesn't mean it isn't measurable or that it doesn't exist.

Oh, please, not this tired mambo jumbo, we don't know what to measure or how. When was the last time you set down for a credible DBT? How can you claim something with no credible evidence to back you up?

It may just mean we need to understand more about how to measure what we hear. The day we stop learning, we may as well roll over and die.

This has nothing to do with measuring what he hear and everything to do with your ability to differentiate audible differences between wires. And no, your experiments have been totally flawed, unreliable and useless; it just feeds your unreliable perceptions.

Also, please ensure you get the facts straight. You said "As to your posted experience with this new Audioquest". It wasn't the Audioquest that was new, it was the A$3/m Belden.

No big deal, still the same outcome, imagined.

PS, why don't you contact Elliot in Australia, he can test you under DBT protocols, perhaps. Good luck and be prepared to have your eyes opened, or not.

http://sound.westhost.com/index2.html

 

[highfigh]

I don't agree with mtrycrafts statement much at all, and I'll tell you why. I've been dabbling in audio to varying extents for some 45 years now and can tell you that blind AB tests can be every bit as unreliable as some people ears and perceptions are. They depend very much on the test conditions and the subjects listening skills, many of which have been flawed. I have a very good audible memory and have been know to identify minor changes in systems with six months between listenings.

At the risk of being labeled an imaginary, I've just completed changing Audioquest spkr cables for 12awg (can't get 10awg here in Oz) Belden (aka BJC) in my HT and would like to share the following observations. Firstly, the Belden significantly changed the tonal balance of the whole system to the extent I reduced the sub output by about 5db. I confirmed this with the SPL A vs C measurement provided earlier by Savant, so this was not just my perception. Bass dynamics have improved noticeably and so has low level detail. This to the extent that the differences between studio recording characteristics and production techniques are more discernible. The Audioquest seems to have given the highs a bit of a harsh edge which over emphasized them. The Belden doesn't do this. Maybe the Audioquest would more suit equipment that was lacking a bit in the top end, but that's actually masking one problem with another.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that it is necessary to spend a lot of money on interconnect or cables. The above improvements have come from a $3/m cable vs a $30/m cable so we can put that to rest. However, I have noticed a consistency in this exercise which might benefit from further scientific scrutiny and that is that heavy gauge twisted cable seems to perform better than fig 8 type configurations of the same or lesser gauge (which category the Audioquest also comes under). I can also see a perfectly reasonable rationale for this. Twisted pair cable displays less inductance than fig 8 and the heavy gauge less resistance. Both desirable for all the reasons stated in the relevant articles here on AH.

So my view is that whilst there is still no reason to believe the BS advertising from the high priced cable marketers, there can be audible differences between speaker cables. However, the differences may be overshadowed by poorer quality equipment in the system and even in a better quality system, you may need a well educated ear to pick up on them.

If the sound was that different, it would be measurable. Also, you had been listening to the system with the old cable for so long that any changes would have been obvious and when using a different cable, the differences are usually caused by some problem that exists which, as you said, would be oxidation. The mind does indeed add/ignore a lot of what we hear and ears are definitely not as sensitive as test equipment. Most people can't hear a 1dB change but test equipment can measure a nanovolt, or less. Being a musician doesn't guarantee good hearing acuity, either and in the case of musicians who are exposed to high SPL over a long time, it's very likely that hearing damage has occurred.

Adding treble makes bass less apparent. If the oxidation caused a drop in high frequency content with the old cables, the new ones would seem overly bright but it takes more than a short listening period to determine of anything is actually lacking. Again, if it was that obvious, it should be measurable.

 

[mr-ben]

Norm says his cables sound different. I believe him. He even says that he measured it with a SPL meter and compared the A vs C weightings, and it showed that the sound changed. Why all the harsh comments?

 

[bandphan]

Norm says his cables sound different. I believe him. He even says that he measured it with a SPL meter and compared the A vs C weightings, and it showed that the sound changed. Why all the harsh comments?

Maybe he should mesure with a spectrum analyzer cause Spl doesn't show anything but spl As for harsh comments, they are not, its reality. Just like pilots taking off over the ocean are trained to trust their instruments not their eyes. The speaker cable myth has been debunked so many times its not funny, even Roger Russell says that as long as the gauge is right lamp cord works just fine.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Norm says his cables sound different. I believe him. He even says that he measured it with a SPL meter and compared the A vs C weightings, and it showed that the sound changed. Why all the harsh comments?

Comparing A weight and C weight is foolish, not comparable.
Harsh comments? Hardly, just some facts of audio science.

As to believing him? Should I believe someones psychic experience too? Really? Seems like he may want to justify a perception that in this case is unreliable at best.

 

[normc]

Been away for a while without access to a computer so apologies for not responding sooner.

Most of the 'harsh' comments above have been misinterpreted by the readers to their own ends. I'd strongly suggest they re read what I wrote but I won't waste my time. I've met many people like mtrycrafts over the years who haven't learnt how to listen (in the conversational sense) and who's main purpose in a discussion is to win their point. We all know the type. They never let anyone finish a sentence and continually interrupt with their own opinions. It's impossible for them to concede any point in an argument and they must win regardless of the cost. The possibility that another point of view may be valid never occurs to them. Usually people with a reasonable IQ but a very low EQ because they don't have the maturity to listen.

For example, this statement "Those are not small audible differences you are talking about nor is it applicable in detecting the small audible differences we are talking about. And most is through repeated exposure to those large differences". This is nothing but a load of rubbish.

Do the experiment before arriving at such outlandish conclusions. You may just learn something although I doubt it. In most cases the differences are more subtle than we are talking about and what makes you think we don't become familiar with the sound of our own systems. You've destroyed your credibility with such complete and utter nonsense.

Although the entire concept of relying entirely on measurements to determine the worth of any audio system was debunked eons ago, I'm sure mtrycraft still makes his purchasing decisions based solely on specs. If not, then he is defeating his own argument, but good luck to him. I hope he enjoys listening to his test tones and frequency responses. Must play havoc with his mind if a piece of music ever invokes any kind of emotional response. (Quick someone find me an audio analyzer so I can measure what that was). Give me a break.

Don't bother with a response as I for one have no interest in reading it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...Don't bother with a response as I for one have no interest in reading it.

Hey, that is the way to discuss things, or keep a closed mind. What a guy, pick up your toys and go home, right?

As to credibility, yours can be found where?
I guess you are not interested in contacting Elliott? Might have to eat crow?

 

[rob.hughes]

Comparing A weight and C weight is foolish, not comparable.
Harsh comments? Hardly, just some facts of audio science.

As to believing him? Should I believe someones psychic experience too? Really? Seems like he may want to justify a perception that in this case is unreliable at best.

A lesson I learned long ago is that perception is reality for most people. And marketing influences perception. So whatever side of marketing you go for, whether it's a claim of "more extension in the highs, and deep, tight bass", or a chart showing frequency response curves and .pf/ft, it's still about manipulating perception.

I didn't spend a lot on my new cables (~.30/ft.), but I like it better. If nothing else, I don't have pieces of insulation falling off when I move the cable now. That alone seems worth what I paid.

 

[jamie2112]

I love this thread...........go mytry.......

 

[sawzalot]

A lesson I learned long ago is that perception is reality for most people. And marketing influences perception. So whatever side of marketing you go for, whether it's a claim of "more extension in the highs, and deep, tight bass", or a chart showing frequency response curves and .pf/ft, it's still about manipulating perception.

I didn't spend a lot on my new cables (~.30/ft.), but I like it better. If nothing else, I don't have pieces of insulation falling off when I move the cable now. That alone seems worth what I paid.

Congrats to you Rob.I believe you are now eligible to post links,sorry to go off topic this thread is very interesting.
What cables do you use @ .30 per foot if you dont mind me asking..