Are High-End Audiophile Cables Worth the Investment?

[jobyts]

But these are speaker cables. There is no processing. All they are doing is serving as a conductor between the amplifier and the speakers. Even if there is a difference that can be measured with sophisticated equipment, the relevant question is, can it be detected by a human ear? If not, then what is the point of spending the extra money?

The thumb rule is, if you close your eyes and listen to the music, do you feel like the singer is singing live in front of you. If not, there is still room for improvement that your ears can detect. I don't know how much improvement the cable alone can do, I'm talking about the overall path - from the recording studio->cd->cd player->amp->speaker->ears.

Another point to note is, an audiophile electronics (amplifier etc.) uses audiophile level cables to internally interconnect the components. The electronics companies do not specify about the brand of cables internally used, so I do not think it's a marketing thing.
People usually open the electronics and figure out.

 

[turbo]

Another point to note is, an audiophile electronics (amplifier etc.) uses audiophile level cables to internally interconnect the components. The electronics companies do not specify about the brand of cables internally used, so I do not think it's a marketing thing.
People usually open the electronics and figure out.

This is definitely not the case. There are no fancy-schmancy conductors used in amp construction. Until the signal gets to the output devices (either transistors or tubes at the end of the signal-path) the signal is pretty small, and is adequately carried by small-gauge wire or thin traces on printed circuit boards. I have built amplifiers, and there is no advantage (only added expense) to using heavy conductors early in the signal path. The only time I used large conductors in amp-building was to span the backs of all potentiometers, jacks, etc, to provide a reliable path to ground.

 

[russ_watters]

The thumb rule is, if you close your eyes and listen to the music, do you feel like the singer is singing live in front of you. If not, there is still room for improvement that your ears can detect. I don't know how much improvement the cable alone can do, I'm talking about the overall path - from the recording studio->cd->cd player->amp->speaker->ears.

But these are speaker cables...! A human ear cannot detect a difference between audiophile cables and regular decent quality ones. The issue also is getting more straightforward as digital signals proliferate. Though they sell auidophile digital cables, the data you get is exactly the same as from a regular cable.

 

[FredGarvin]

My $10,000 Pear USB cables will be here next week.

 

[negitron]

My $10,000 Pear USB cables will be here next week.

Sweet. I hear you can get a huge increase in performance, as much as 1 part per trillion better than those $5 Wal*Mart ones!

 

[vociferous]

But these are speaker cables...! A human ear cannot detect a difference between audiophile cables and regular decent quality ones. The issue also is getting more straightforward as digital signals proliferate. Though they sell auidophile digital cables, the data you get is exactly the same as from a regular cable.

I actually thought that the "better" digital cables (like fiber optic TOSLINK, HDMI, et cetera) lost less packets of data. But, with digital, there is so much error-correction and similar technology built-in that signals usually get resolved despite lost information until they reach a certain threshold, then they drop-out altogether until the signal strength improves (like cell phones) or seriously diminish in quality (like digital video, which will become blocky or CD's, which pop).

I think that the important point here though is that we all agree that there is no point of increasing the "quality" of a signal, even if it can be detected, so long as the quality does not influence the ultimate use of the signal (which in home audio is the quality that reaches the listener). Essentially, if there is no double-blind test of the actual influence of a cable on the perception of the user, then any claims made are pretty dubious.

 

[fillindablank]

There is a better way to transmit analog sound than buying expensive cables. Professional audio is sent balanced. RCA connectors or any 2 conductor audio cable is unbalanced, 3.5mm 3-conductor stereo plugs and BNC connectors are also unbalanced. A balanced audio signal requires 3 conductors (+, -, GND). One of the greatest possible sources of noise in an audio system is induced onto an unbalanced audio pair. In professional AV equipment most of it can be had with balanced stereo inputs and outputs. Balanced stereo requires 5 conductors (GND is common). The way it works is that noise is induced equally on the 2 audio conductors (the third is ground) which have a 180 degree phase difference. This enables the noise to be completely canceled by the phase difference while the audio signal is left untouched.

You will spend more on equipment that has balanced audio but just about any shielded pair wire will probably sound better than the best unbalanced audiophile cable at any price and the connections will work perfectly with just a captive screw connector, no fancy gold plated RCA's required.

 

[jreelawg]

I think that really expensive cables are bought by serious recording engineers. It doesn't matter if they can hear the difference, if there is a difference, they will pay for it. There is some reasoning behind it. For example, when you record 16 tracks, all the imperfections add up. Then you are going to master it.

Some people say there is no point in recording in 24 bit 192k, when you can't notice the difference from 16 bit 44HZ. But recording engineers record in the highest possible resolution partly because when they apply plug ins, like EQ's, compressors, reverbs etc. The sound is curved so to speak, and the higher the resolution the finer the curves are. So while you won't notice a difference between recording one track un-mixed, 16 tracks mixed and mastered is a different story.

I do know that I spent 2000.00 on a 4 channel microphone pre-amp, and I notice a big difference.

As for digital cables, I have little experience, but you have to consider that a serious recording studio is going to be processing a whole lot of 1's and 0's, and they aren't going to tolerate lost data. I could imagine why a cable could cost 500, because very few people will actually need or want cables of this quality, so the market is very small. They are going to have to charge a lot to make it worth it to make them.

 

[jobyts]

There is a better way to transmit analog sound than buying expensive cables. Professional audio is sent balanced. RCA connectors or any 2 conductor audio cable is unbalanced, 3.5mm 3-conductor stereo plugs and BNC connectors are also unbalanced. A balanced audio signal requires 3 conductors (+, -, GND). One of the greatest possible sources of noise in an audio system is induced onto an unbalanced audio pair. In professional AV equipment most of it can be had with balanced stereo inputs and outputs. Balanced stereo requires 5 conductors (GND is common). The way it works is that noise is induced equally on the 2 audio conductors (the third is ground) which have a 180 degree phase difference. This enables the noise to be completely canceled by the phase difference while the audio signal is left untouched.

You will spend more on equipment that has balanced audio but just about any shielded pair wire will probably sound better than the best unbalanced audiophile cable at any price and the connections will work perfectly with just a captive screw connector, no fancy gold plated RCA's required.

I've dynaudio speakers, and they don't support bi-wiring/bi-amping. Their top-of-the-line speaker, Evidence Master, costs more than 90K. (I don't own that, of course
In their website FAQ (http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/systems/faq3.php?sid= ) , they answer why they don't support bi-wiring.

 

[Blenton]

Wouldn't fiber optics be a better solution? No interference.

 

[vociferous]

Again, these are speaker cables. The only thing that they affect is the electrical connection between the amp and the speakers.

 

[fillindablank]

I should have mentioned that balanced wiring is only for between active components, you need a differential amp at the receiving end to cancel noise, so it isn't for speaker connections. Generally it's used to feed line level audio, like from a DVD/VCR to a surround sound system. I don't think you have to worry about noise on a speaker cable, the signal level is very high and there is no amplification at the receiver (speaker).

 

[Burnsys]

I still don't get it, why spend $500 in a premium UTP cable, when you hasn't demagnetized your cds ?
-------------------------------
http://www.tweekgeek.com/_e/Acoustic_Revive_Tweaks/product/RD-3/Acoustic_Revive_RD_3_Disc_Demagnitizer.htm

Acoustic Revive RD-3 Disc Demagnitizer Treating CD's with the RD-3 will help remove the electronic glare that magnetism causes. Use the RD-3 in conjuntion with the RIO-5 Negative Ion Generator to remove the glare, and extract the maximum resolution from your CD collection.
The RD-3 improves audio quality, and increases the level of surround separation and dynamics. You are able to listen to detailed sounds that you never heard before and the human voice is more realistic.
These effects on sound and picture quality are more and more evident with increasing quality of equipment used in the system. You can use the RD-3 for video cables, power cables and sound cables which further enhances the effects of demagnetizing.

 

[turbo]

I still don't get it, why spend $500 in a premium UTP cable, when you hasn't demagnetized your cds ?
-------------------------------
http://www.tweekgeek.com/_e/Acoustic_Revive_Tweaks/product/RD-3/Acoustic_Revive_RD_3_Disc_Demagnitizer.htm

At least they could have integrated a CD re-winder into that gizmo.