Age old question for me , but curious on the standing of the forum.

mhardy6647

"Interconnects"? Not a hill worth dying on as far as I am concerned. I make my own for serious purposes, or use whatever's available for everything else. The one difference, of course, being low capacitance cables for phono cartridge cabling.

newrival

mantis wrote: »

Good deal , lets break it down.
Lets talk about Analog signal transfer. Lets keep it even simpler , lets send a Cd 16 bit 44.1 over to a preamp. What analog cables will pass the entire signal without coloring , changing or adding to the signal? Then can that same Cable send analog audio from a preamp to a amp with the same abilities? At what level is this done and when does getting a better or more expensive cable yield no results?
After that lets talk about speaker wire , How can I get this done? I got an amp with 200 watts of power , I got to go 8 feet from bind post to binding post , speakers are 4 ohm load and lets say 88 db. I just need a speaker wire to do that job and do it correctly. Pass the signal , not take in anymore and not lose any on the way. Thats it.

I don't care who makes it , I don't care what it costs to do this , I just want to know if it can be done correctly.

I don't see the point of this exercise. How could anyone possibly know outside of matching measurements. There is no way to listen to the CD without using cables, so any recommendation is simply conjecture.

But even beyond that logical paradox, the whole thing presupposes that the CD possesses "live sound" in the first place.

Let's, for the sake of conversation, we can make the impossible possible, and fabricate a cable that passed electrons with perfect efficiency and conservation, what do you have to say about all the components in between the reticle of the cd player and the analog outs?

newrival

The absolute most life-like event I have ever heard reproduced by an audio system utilized JTR Noesis speakers, Wyred 4 Sound Amplification, And a Musical Fidelity preamplifier. I've heard more pleasant setups from systems costing hundreds of thousands, but I've never felt/heard something so live as the music I heard that day.

I've always enjoyed the sound of Emerald Physics as they are known for having a live-audio sound.

headrott

mantis wrote: »

I think everyone missed the actual question but it's cool I'll break it down.
So lets make this a super simple question. At what level IC meaning analog Interconnect do you get the job done? At what point are you wasting you money are you are no longer getting sonic benefits.
Here's the deal with analog Interconnects , You have a signal to pass from lets say a Preamp to an amp. I don't care what pre and amp , it makes no difference at this point. Who has found a IC that can fully pass the entire signal coming out of the preamp to the amp? Is is possible in a single ended RCA? Or would one choose to use Balanced due to it's superior Noise canceling abilities?
What level of either cable is the job done and now your buying better materials , cooler looks , bragging rights etc? Would lets say $500.00 bucks get it done? Length will change price so lets keep it at 3 feet or 1 meter.
lets start there shall we?

Let me add something to it. There are many Kimber , Audioquest , MIT guys on this forum fans , what cable in those respected lines get the job done? Is only their flagship cable the only one in the entire line that can fully pass the signal correctly? Wouldn't everyone like to know which cable is the best for the job?

Dan, I think you missed the point of Tom's post(s) (or maybe I did?). He was trying to convey the idea that depending on what type (or types) of listening you do, it will affect your answer to your question(s). I am not sure that any one IC cable will give all the sonic benefits a listener is listrening for. This was the reason Tom posted the different types of listeners (and there may be more types than he listed). That is, to convey the idea that depending on the sonic "signatures" one is listening for (i.e imaging, detail, transparency, coloring (or lack thereof), etc. etc.) this will affect the type of IC cable that one would choose. Some IC's would do better with certain sonic aspects than others, but I am not aware of an IC that satisfies all the listener types listed by Tom. Some IC's may satisfy more and some less, but all? To pass a "perfect" signal? I don't know that exists in a physical realm. Perhaps others will disagree with me.

treitz3

You nailed it, headrott.

Tom

mantis

headrott wrote: »

Dan, I think you missed the point of Tom's post(s) (or maybe I did?). He was trying to convey the idea that depending on what type (or types) of listening you do, it will affect your answer to your question(s). I am not sure that any one IC cable will give all the sonic benefits a listener is listrening for. This was the reason Tom posted the different types of listeners (and there may be more types than he listed). That is, to convey the idea that depending on the sonic "signatures" one is listening for (i.e imaging, detail, transparency, coloring (or lack thereof), etc. etc.) this will affect the type of IC cable that one would choose. Some IC's would do better with certain sonic aspects than others, but I am not aware of an IC that satisfies all the listener types listed by Tom. Some IC's may satisfy more and some less, but all? To pass a "perfect" signal? I don't know that exists in a physical realm. Perhaps others will disagree with me.

I didn't miss Tom's point , it was a very good read and I fall into so many of those.
My point to this entire thread is going through an entire system and finding where it can be done correctly if thats even possible.

treitz3

Hello, Dan. Even if we were to pick a cable or set of cables that [in theory] passed a signal or signals correctly, it would also depend on the gear one would hook it up to. Just for an example....many here seem to like the end result of MIT cables. I personally like Transparent cables. Both MIT and Transparent have cables within the upper lineup that either have switches to match certain criteria for optimal playback or you order the cables built to specifications based upon the gear you have. So, let's say that I order a set of cables for my rig and somehow [again, in theory] we are able to show that they pass the signals correctly. What's gonna happen when these cables get switched to a rig that they weren't designed for? For instance a tube pre and amp -vs- a SS pre and SS amp. Then what might happen when you add in a completely different variable load from a different set of speakers? All of a sudden, that same set of cables that passed the signals [in theory] correctly will not.

Then you have to think about the things beyond the signal that are currently not measurable. Like the perception of the sound stage, imaging, spatial locational cues, depth and perceived height to name a few. Even if the cables that in theory passed the signals correctly and worked wonders in my rig, that does not necessarily mean that all of these qualities aforementioned will be the same in another rig. I don't think anybody here or elsewhere will argue that there is one "best" cable or cables which, if I'm understanding you correctly, is what you are trying to find out.

Tom

mantis

Hi Tom ,
If in theory a cable passes all the signal correctly , then there is nothing more any other cable can provide to make anything better. If MIT cables at whatever series this is true , passes the entire signal from a preamp to a amp , then going with a higher end cable will yield no better results. So if MIT makes a mid level cable that is correct , going with the next one up will yield no benefits.
Cables are not supposed to provide better sound stage or imaging. They can hinder these things by not providing the correct signal. If you are using a cable in your system that gets in the way of it's job , then yes getting a better cable will yield these result due to the fact that the signal in it's entirety is making it to the other end.
When you buy a cable and it sounds a certain way , then change to another cable and it sounds very different , one of these cables might be very colored or not doing the job correctly. One of them might be doing the job right.

What I'm trying to figure out is sending the signal from one point to another without any coloration or change. I want the cable to basically do it's job , don't "tune" my sound I want to hear what was recorded and thats it. I don't want a cable company to give me more bass or take something away. Just so you know a cable can't add bass , it can only restrict other parts of the signal to fool you into thinking you have more bass , you don't , you have less mids and top end. This is what cables do. Companies will"tune" a cable to sound a certain way. Sure this can benefit many systems that lack in certain areas. But why construct a system that lacks? Why do we feel the need to change what is? None of that really matter in my quest as I want to know if it's possible to build a system that has the ability to play what is and not have the system be "Bright " or "warm" or " fill in the blank" audio term. I want it to be true to the sound.
I'll say it again. I'm a musician , I want to play a single note on my guitar , record it and then replay it on a system. With all factors being equal like room acoustics etc , I want to hear that note exactly as it was recorded. I know recording isn't perfect but what was recorded as it was recorded I want to hear that. Not boost up the bass or thicken up the mid range due to my personal taste.
If you can play that recorded note exactly as it supposed to be , then want to AFTER then by all means. I just want to start from flat or neutral.
In order to build a FLAT system , all pieces in this system need to work together to preserve that signal from source to loudspeaker. For some reason , this is a impossible up hill battle that no one in this industry agrees on how to get this done. I'm trying to weed out the male bovine excrement and get down to the essence of sound.
So forget about MIT , Audioquest , B&W , polk and any other brand name you want to throw in there. I don't care about that for this topic. I just want to figure out how to get the job done correctly with no personal preference. What does it take to do so? Can it even be done? I'm gonna say that it can , I think collectively , we have some sharp cats on this forum , we can figure out how to get that done. If one wants a colored system , cool , thats not what I'm looking to do.
In the future , I plan on building this system if I can figure out all the right pieces. I don't care what brand anything is.

tonyb

In audio terminolgy Dan, your looking for a neutral sounding cable then. It's practically impossible to not color the sound because audio is basically a bunch of colorations suited for each individuals ears. Every aspect, from cables to gear, speakers, the room, colors the sound. Purists will keep the signal path with the least amount of coloration, meaning the least amount of gear to get in the way of the sound.

I know what your saying, trying to get the exact sound recorded, heard in your environment, but there's just too many variables to adress to do that. At best, we hope to just recreate the sound that suits our individual tastes and just enjoy the music. Hence you have such a variety of gear to do just that. Has nothing to do with recreating the artists intentions.

Think about it, your asking for a recorded colored sound, to be recreated with the same coloration in your room. Not going to happen my friend. Cd's as we all know, are mixed or should I say colored, to be listenable to the majority on the majorities choice of playback gear. Which today amounts to car radios, Ipods, other MP3 devices. Nowhere, aside from some niche sources, is high end audio required. Sure, you have some high rez sources for downloads, SACD, even well recorded redbook, but all still a niche in todays society. High end audio in itself is a niche industry, but at least one with plenty of choices still. Experiment Dan, find the sound you like and enjoy the tunes. Chasing your tail in all this will just lend itself to a never ending chase.

tonyb

Damn, double post again.

On a side note Dan, the best you can hope for is to assemble the most neutral sounding gear you can. I've been reading up on this Lightspeed pre amp you may want to look into. Little in the way of componants, single source, great neutral sound, and not expensive. Some discussion on Audiogon about it and a few other places. Of course when using passive, you then have to be concerned with gain issues, impedence.

BlueFox

mantis wrote: »

If in theory a cable passes all the signal correctly , then there is nothing more any other cable can provide to make anything better..........

You were given detailed technical information on this issue in post 10. What else do you need?

gwh

I like to just put on some Ratt and crank it up :cool:

mantis

BlueFox wrote: »

You were given detailed technical information on this issue in post 10. What else do you need?

To put the entire rig together.

headrott

Dan, In my opinion based upon experience, technical knowledge, and common sense (which compared to some others on this forum is limited, except hopefully the common sense ) it is physically impossible to perfectly record, transfer, process, replay, re-process, transfer again and emit a "perfectly recorded and perfectly reproduced" signal. It's just not going to happen in our physical realm. As I stated in my last post at the end (and as Tony said), there are simply to many variables invloved that affect the signal between the live performance and the sound coming out of your speakers. There is too much degredation, coloration, etc. involved to "perfectly" reproduce a live performance, again IMO.

Again, some IC cables, power cords, and equipment can record, process, and reproduce a live performance better than other IC's, power cords, and equipment. So, let's ask the question..... "What IC's, power cables, equipment, etc. affect the audio signal the least amount?" Does that seem reasonable Dan?

BlueFox

Maybe a battery operated all in one boombox with no cables is the ideal piece of gear.

treitz3

Not if the performance includes an organ, kick drum and the like. The omission of frequencies doesn't qualify as realistic playback.

Tom

tonyb

mantis wrote: »

To put the entire rig together.

Only your ears can do that Dan. Nuetral to me may be a tad sterile to you and so forth. The best you can do is take advice on one product that the majority agree on being neutral and try it out yourself. Again, I can say a cable is nuetral in my system, in my room to my ears but that can be a totaly different story on another system in another room to someone elses ears. No fault of the cable, just different variables effecting the outcome.

Truth of the matter is, coloration is a good thing. I know the audio gods frown on it, but there's no getting away from it. There's a certain musicality that comes with coloration otherwise recordings would be dry and sterile. That is what tubes bring to the table, musicality, depth, tone, a 3d sense of stage. Get yourself a decent tubed pre, a dac you like, and a good musical SS amp, and your going to be as close as can be to your desired outcome. Belles gear has musicality up the ****, along with other fine amps and pre amps from Cary, Rogue, Bat, Joule, Vac, AR,....and a host of others. Cheaper side would be Cayin, Yaqin, Dared,and again a dozen or so others. Amps, I like some for their musicality like Butler, Belles, McCormack, Bat, Moscode, Musical Fidelity, Classe, and a bunch more. With everything you worry about in just a cable, the rest of the gear you pair up is even more important. Throw out a budget and define what pieces of gear and we can put together some kick **** combos between all of us to make your head spin.

mantis

headrott wrote: »

Dan, In my opinion based upon experience, technical knowledge, and common sense (which compared to some others on this forum is limited, except hopefully the common sense ) it is physically impossible to perfectly record, transfer, process, replay, re-process, transfer again and emit a "perfectly recorded and perfectly reproduced" signal. It's just not going to happen in our physical realm. As I stated in my last post at the end (and as Tony said), there are simply to many variables invloved that affect the signal between the live performance and the sound coming out of your speakers. There is too much degredation, coloration, etc. involved to "perfectly" reproduce a live performance, again IMO.

Again, some IC cables, power cords, and equipment can record, process, and reproduce a live performance better than other IC's, power cords, and equipment. So, let's ask the question..... "What IC's, power cables, equipment, etc. affect the audio signal the least amount?" Does that seem reasonable Dan?

I don't believe it's impossible. We can put a man on the moon , your telling me we can't get audio right?

mantis

tonyb wrote: »

Only your ears can do that Dan. Nuetral to me may be a tad sterile to you and so forth. The best you can do is take advice on one product that the majority agree on being neutral and try it out yourself. Again, I can say a cable is nuetral in my system, in my room to my ears but that can be a totaly different story on another system in another room to someone elses ears. No fault of the cable, just different variables effecting the outcome.

Truth of the matter is, coloration is a good thing. I know the audio gods frown on it, but there's no getting away from it. There's a certain musicality that comes with coloration otherwise recordings would be dry and sterile. That is what tubes bring to the table, musicality, depth, tone, a 3d sense of stage. Get yourself a decent tubed pre, a dac you like, and a good musical SS amp, and your going to be as close as can be to your desired outcome. Belles gear has musicality up the ****, along with other fine amps and pre amps from Cary, Rogue, Bat, Joule, Vac, AR,....and a host of others. Cheaper side would be Cayin, Yaqin, Dared,and again a dozen or so others. Amps, I like some for their musicality like Butler, Belles, McCormack, Bat, Moscode, Musical Fidelity, Classe, and a bunch more. With everything you worry about in just a cable, the rest of the gear you pair up is even more important. Throw out a budget and define what pieces of gear and we can put together some kick **** combos between all of us to make your head spin.

And I agree with you on most of your points , but really you honestly think you can't take a recording and preserve the signal all the way to the speakers? And then have a pair of speakers that can "replay" the entire signal? Is this really the final answer of this forum?

Come on guys , really we can build Space Stations but can't pass a signal from A to B correctly? Is it that hard OR does the Industry want you to believe it's that hard?

Forget about a perfect recording , whatever was recorded , can we replay it exactly what is in the recording? We all have our personal tastes , throw that out the window and think about IF this can be done or not.

mhardy6647

mantis wrote: »

I don't believe it's impossible. We can put a man on the moon , your telling me we can't get audio right?

We could put a man on the moon using 1960s technology. Today... not so much.
Actually hi-fi's pretty similar (at least as far as I am concerned)... except the best loudspeaker technology had already been perfected by the late 1940s, and amplifier technology by the mid-1950s.

OK... some souce technology has improved in the intervening decades... the digital hardware (e.g., the aforementioned ENIAC) wasn't really suited to listening-room use back then (unless one had one's own power substation) :-)

tonyb

mantis wrote: »

, but really you honestly think you can't take a recording and preserve the signal all the way to the speakers? And then have a pair of speakers that can "replay" the entire signal?

No, you can't preserve the signal perfectly all the way to the speakers. It has to go threw x amount of gear, cables, conversions, all which effect or color the sound to some degree. Thats a fact. The signal never goes from A to B, move down the alphabet a tad. You are playing exactly what is in the recording, based on what the associated gear can extract. Different gear will extract different levels of recorded material on a disc/file, or at least make certain information more audible over other lessor gear. Why is this so hard for you to understand big guy ? You've already heard by your own admission the different levels of detail extraction in the various dacs you have used. Yes ? Different sounstage presentations, different tonal qualities.

Even if you could preserve the signal to the speakers, then you have the speakers and the room to contend with which as we all know neither are created equal. You can't ask the question Dan and then say throw out this and that. It all matters. Throw a cd into a boombox, there ya go, as direct as possible. Best sound ? Best representation of what the artist intended ? You only have one piece of gear between you and the cd, right ? Fat chance in hell. Or would better speakers, dacs, transports, analog output stages, pre amps, all seperate, all coloring the sound in their own way, sound better ? Sending the signal threw one piece of gear with short wires should sound better by your theory over sending the signal by way of multiple pieces of gear and who knows how much more cables. Everything gets colored to a degree, everything. The closest you'll ever get is with your hands on the master tapes and that isn't going to happen. The music from the master tapes is already altered when it gets mixed on a cd. You want to hear that colored sound exactly ? Whats the point ? It's already colored, it's not what the artist intended.

If it was that simple to get a signal from A to B, you wouldn't need recording studios, mixers, or the ton of gear and cables they use. Your in home experience depends on your investment in the gear you use in your own studio.....your room.

headrott

mantis wrote: »

I don't believe it's impossible. We can put a man on the moon , your telling me we can't get audio right?

My point (and others' points) is that physics allowed us to build a space craft and have it carry astronauts to the moon. Physics does not allow us to build audio cables and equipment and perfectly pass an audio signal to the listener. Maybe in our next realm of existance we wil be able to? I cannot say, but in this realm of existance physical "inhibiters" don't allow us to do that. As I have stated, maybe others (besides you) will disagree. But I haven't heard anyone disagree yet. I don't think that equating putting a man on the moon and passing a "perfect" audio signal is a good comparison either for the reason(s) stated above.

If you are sure that a "perfect" audio signal can be passed to the listener then you should be able to get the gear together yourself to do it, right?

sucks2beme

!st thing, live sound involves room acoustics. Most studios are set up to be quiet.

2nd- you have how it's captured. is everyone playing in the same room, or split up?
How is it miked?

3rd, electronis on the recording side, from the mike choice and placement, to
gear and how it's captured.

4th how it's mixed. Given modern standards, the answer is "crappy"

And the playback side is all under your control. THX certified really means
you paid someone some money for a stamp. Those $50 dollar speaker sets
for your pc may have the stamp, but your $5k speakers don't.
I can go see live music, and get the same effect with some Cerwin Vega speakers
and a big honking cheap power amp.Play it back in a big open room, add some drunk
*holes to yell loudly and you have the perfect live bar or small venue experience.
And then there's jazz, classic, etc. that requires good gear and good placement.
It's more than "just loud" and requires more. You're asking us to hit a moving target.
I tend to think of music playback as happening in a small setting. And it's easier
to re-create. You want big loud concert sound in a small room, it's just going to be loud.
And classical needs dynamics to sound correct. Also hard to do in a small room.
Easier to put the man on the moon.

BlueFox

Electronic sound reproduction is occuring at the atomic level and it appears quantom mechanics come into play, especially with cables. Man on the moon is trivial Newtonian physics.

BlueFox

So, I am watching Celebration Day again, and am just amazed at the sound Jimmy Page is making with his guitar, when it occurs to me that I have absolutely no way of knowing that what I am hearing is what he is playing! My mind says a string instrument should sort of sound one way, and this has no resemblance at all to a string instrument. The point here is that while we all want the best sound possible from our stereos, getting overly anal about it is probably not very worthwhile.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

, getting overly anal about it is probably not very worthwhile.

Agreed, you have to enjoy the music at some point but for some the enjoyment has more to do with squeezing out every bit of resolution they can.....then move on to something else. The old saying "perception is reality" applies to audio and many other facets of life.

For me anyway, squeezing out that last bit of resolution from poorly recorded music is like putting the cart before the horse.