Longer Speaker Cable or RCA: Which is Better?

tonyb

xcapri79 wrote: »

Good morning and happy Easter to all.

Now that's the best thing you've said in this thread. lol

Just bustin' your nuts X.

I don't think you'll get too much of an argument over balanced connections being superior in noise rejection or long runs. I don't see where people are arguing that point. However, long runs in RCA cables for your average home isn't too much of an issue these days unless your using some poorly made cable.

That said, it's Easter gents.....you really want to spend it arguing over long runs of cable that has no bearing for 90% of us ? Go play hide the egg with the wife, hand out some eggs to the kiddies, put on your Bunny ears and create some memories you'll soon want to forget. Happy Easter to all.

headrott

xcapri79 wrote: »

CoolJazz wrote: »

If sound quality and basic engineering (not simplified junk science) is consulted, then it's obvious that long interconnects and short speaker cables should be used.
...

The low-fi crowd, trying to not get more out of their system and the money spent, focuses instead on simple RLC parameters of the cables and tends to not pay any attention to the use of the interface and the resulting implications. Or instead bring up the test that never shows any differences and isn't sensitive enough to yield any meaningful results. Missing the whole show.

CJ

The RLC parameters of cables are the parameters to focus on.
Ignore this in an electrical engineering class and see how fast you would get a F grade.

Any so called "Interface" introduced into a cable is simply a RLC device which acts as a filter to any signal. Any basic electrical engineering course will show that. There are better ways to introduce tone control to an audio system. Introducing them at the interconnect is probably the worst way.

Unfortunately, what is missing in much of this discussion is a basic understanding of electrical engineering as it applies to audio. If one understood the basics, one would not advocate longer unbalanced interconnects period.

If one wants to run long interconnects and shorten the speaker wires (which are inherently balanced and cancels noise), then one should use balanced XLR type interconnects between components. The components should use balanced connections on each end. The balanced interconnects are designed specifically to accommodate long runs. The improvement in signal carrying capability and noise reduction is well documented with XLR balanced interconnects.

I use them to interconnect my preamp to my mono amps, which I situate near my left and right speakers.

I trust that this answers the OP's question.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

It is interesting that the hammer missed the head of the nail!

It's possible that it is falling on yours. Did it work?

steveinaz

I would rather have long runs of high level signal (speaker cable) than low level (RCA). Too much of a chance of noise in a lower level cable, IMO.

Speedskater

DSkip wrote: »

Fill us in then. Don't tell me its bias, because I hear the exact same characteristics from a cable regardless of what rig I put it in. Hell, sometimes I realize I have the wrong cable connected purely by the sound quality. Something is off, and sure enough, I find the issue.

Then doing it in blind listening tests should be easy.
And blind testing eliminates possible cognitive biases.

WilliamM2

DSkip wrote: »

Please stop with the bias argument. The fact is, if you're well trained and know your system, you will hear a difference between many cables.

So where do you get this "training"? Do you have a degree of some sort in listening?

Or are you just a self proclaimed "trained listener"?

ZLTFUL

https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html

ZLTFUL

I was wondering where the annual cable debate would show up.

How about we try it another way this year...you (William, Kevin, et al) won't change my mind because I know more/better than you. And I won't change your minds because you know better than me. That's the ultimate conclusion of these discussions and since I have laid it out there, we can all STFU and go back to listening to some music whether it be on a set of coat hangers or a set of $12000 MITs.

voltz

for those people who can not hear the difference in cables, Count yourself lucky! you save a lot of money not having to buy more expensive cables, for the rest of us its a money pit aka the rabbit hole,

I just move my AQ type 4 into the living for cause it was longer so I could move my gear to a different wall from my speakers, compared to my current cable it was dull flat and lifeless and I the experiment ended quickly. but thats just what my ears told me, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about as it is just my 2 cents....but I won't be using them much again.

WilliamM2

DSkip wrote: »

Oh, you're back. Welcome back!

I never left.

Were the questions too hard to answer?

WilliamM2

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I was wondering where the annual cable debate would show up.

How about we try it another way this year...you (William, Kevin, et al) won't change my mind because I know more/better than you.

Says the man who claims to hear differences in network cables.

ZLTFUL

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Says the man who claims to hear differences in network cables.

And I still stand by it. Your buddy was the one who completely bailed on the blind test he contrived. Not me. Maybe you should ask him why he panicked and cancelled, cupcake.

BlueFox

Along this line, I placed my order yesterday to upgrade my Shunyata Triton1 to a Triton2. It should be here (hear) next week. If so then I can give it a good hearing next Friday and Saturday night. While it isn't a cable, it follows the same function as a good cable, which is to improve the sound. While it might be possible the power in my system is so clean now that the improved Triton2 will not make a difference, I suspect it will. Too many people on other forums are drooling over the improvement for it to be subtle. I will now spend the next week hypnotizing myself into hearing an improvement if none is there.

It must be nice to be so weak minded that one has to invent nonsensical reasons (placebo effect, etc.) in order to deny reality.

headrott

DSkip wrote: »

Fill us in then. Don't tell me its bias, because I hear the exact same characteristics from a cable regardless of what rig I put it in. Hell, sometimes I realize I have the wrong cable connected purely by the sound quality. Something is off, and sure enough, I find the issue.

Agreed. When I first received the BAT VK-200 from one of our forum members, I replaced the Pass Aleph 30 with the VK-200 (which has a much higher input impedance). I completely forgot to adjust the switches on my MIT Shotgun S3 impedance boxes; and I sat down to listen and found the audio to be dull, muddy and lifeless. I thought to myself, "Is this really what the VK-200 sounds like?" I checked everything in my system and then realised that I forgot to adjust the impedance selector on the MIT cables between the VK-3i pre and VK-200 amp

Immediately after adjusting the switches in the boxes on the Shotgun S3's, the audio sounded much better with higher resolution, detail, and frequency response.

Now, if my "bias" was for receiving a new amplifier was that I should have been "biased" towards finding the VK-200 to blow away my Pass Aleph 30 and it did not. Instead, I found the audio from the VK-200 to be dull, lifeless, and lower sound quality; that is, until I corrected the problem with the Shotgun cables. Then, I found the to be very nice. Particularly the bass output, clarity and detail at higher SPL levels (when compared to the Aleph 30).

headrott

Also, as far as blind tests (for stereophonic audio) go, please read the thread below as it has been discussed as much as is necessary. If you cannot understand why blind tests should not be used for stereophonic audio after reading the thread, you absolutely will not as you still do not understand the history behind blind tetsts and their intended use.

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/104973/a-historical-overview-of-stereophonic-blind-testing

Nightfall

WilliamM2 wrote: »

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I was wondering where the annual cable debate would show up.

How about we try it another way this year...you (William, Kevin, et al) won't change my mind because I know more/better than you.

Says the man who claims to hear differences in network cables.

I like how you cut his quote short to make it look like he's only saying that he knows better than you. Smooth. You should get a job at a news corporation, you could go places.

All he was saying is this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, why bother?

headrott

...

drumminman

Even changing SC connectors can bring easily discernible improvement, which I experienced by going from high quality brass to silver plated tellurium copper. It was not subtle.

However, if you believe cables make no difference that's your prerogative. No need to try to convince those of us with the opposite experience - just a waste of bandwidth.

ZLTFUL

kevintomb wrote: »

No one has said cables make "No difference" first off.

Actually, William has said that countless times on this forum and others.

ZLTFUL

xcapri79 wrote: »

3. The differences, if any, may be determined by the use of double blind, level matched, testing. Here listener bias and the placebo effect can be eliminated lessened, while all other aspects mentioned above can be held constant.

Fixed it for you.

The thing is, and I won't get into how many times double blinds have been debunked and confirmed from both sides of the fence (see the above linked post about the history of blind stereophonic testing), you can *never* really eliminate something that has been repeatedly contested.

Example, I go into a blind listening test and identify accurately every cable change. Then the argument becomes that I didn't identify specific cables. If I did then the argument becomes that I was just lucky with my guesses.

The cable naysayers always argue that even with blind tests, the subjects can get lucky instead of them actually being able to hear these differences.

I go back to my argument that I will always claim my side of the argument is right while you will always claim that your side of the argument is correct. Neither side is going to convince the other side otherwise (although I do find it interesting that there have been more cable naysayers convert to believers than the other way).
The argument becomes this inane back and forth where one side tries to prove their point to the other side and vice versa and is continuously regurgitated as if it were going to conclude differently.

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Says the man who claims to hear differences in network cables.

And I still stand by it. Your buddy was buddies were the one ones who completely bailed on the blind test he they contrived. Not me. Maybe you should ask him them why he they panicked and cancelled, cupcake.

Fixed it for you. Recall that we were dealing with a multiple personality disorder individual who went all over the Internet having conversations with himself and using one personality to validate the claims of another.

xcapri79 wrote: »

I see that there are at least four major points of contention.

1. What is questioned is whether the difference, if any, is really worth the additional cost of esoteric cables. The differences are highly subjective based on the listener including their hearing ability, mood or temperament, bias, as well as, the media, equipment, room, and other environmental factors (temperature and humidity), etc.

I think it is arrogant to think that, because something isn't "worth it" to you, it couldn't possibly be worth it to someone else. People practice hobbies at different levels of dedication.

xcapri79 wrote: »

2. One must listen to equipment using the cables for themselves to make a judgement. Comparing marketing claims, third party reviews, specifications, measurements or applying science is simply no substitute for actual listening.

In this, audio is no different from any other field of consumer merchandise. The best defense against bias is consumer education.

xcapri79 wrote: »

3. The differences, if any, may be determined by the use of double blind, level matched, testing. Here listener bias and the placebo effect can be eliminated, while all other aspects mentioned above can be held constant.

A common mistake in "level matched" audio equipment evaluations is the lack of consideration of the effect that signal to noise ratio has on perceived sound level. In other words, two amplifiers with identical gain figures and playing at the same measured sound pressure level can have different apparent sound levels if one amp has a higher electrical noise content than the other. The same is true of cables and any other device an electronic signal travels through.

I do not agree that the only way to eliminate bias is to fool, trick, blindfold, or lie to the test subject. Human beings have been proven to have the ability to overcome far more mind-bending biases without being tricked. It is unreasonable to assert that human beings cannot overcome personal bias driven by marketing, yet human beings can cure their minds of racism, sexism, and drug addiction.

xcapri79 wrote: »

4. Many of the claims for the technical superiority of esoteric cable vs competing and significantly less costly brands of competently manufactured cables are based on exaggerated, dubious, false, or not applicable science. The significant profit motive is the key motivation to promote esoteric cables.

You have to be honest with yourself and ask why is someone spending money on esoteric cables a matter of contention with you (and others). Every commercial category has basic, midlevel, and esoteric ("high end") products. This applies to audio cables just as it does to shoes, clothing, homes, cars, and cat food.

While it's true that some unscrupulous audio manufacturers engage in exaggerated, dubious, false, and unscientific claims to promote their merchandise, they are no different than unscrupulous manufacturers in any other field of commerce. Consumer education is mandatory in every field of commerce. The diamond industry says you should spend at least two month's salary on a diamond engagement ring. The truth is that diamonds are essentially common stones with little intrinsic economic value, yet the same person who scoffs at spending $1,000 on an esoteric audio cable will swallow hook, line, and sinker a jewelry dealer's advisement that spending $7,000 on a little polished piece of crystalized carbon is a great investment.

If cable science was as cut and dried as the naysayers pretend, telecom companies, AT&T in particular, would not have spent billions over decades researching noise reducing cable geometries, copper formulations, and dielectric effects.

For someone to write off all "esoteric" audio cables as crass profiteering, without proper investigation, calls into question the integrity and motivation of the claimant.

A common misconception among the cable naysayer crowd is that they assume that a cable manufacturer's claims applies to every level of audio system. Common sense dictates that an esoteric cable, and other esoteric audio accessories, will provide the best value when matched with other esoteric gear. In other words, I am not going to put my five figure AudioQuest Everest speaker cables between the Adcom GFA-5400 power amp and Magnepan MG12 speakers in my master bedroom system. Monster Cable works just fine in that application.

Do I need five figure speaker cables and four figure interconnects? No way! Hobbies are not about "need", but about "want". For the types of sonic details that I value, and want, in my two channel system, "esoteric" cables help me achieve that result far better than basic cables. I was in this hobby a very long time before I became interested in high end gear. That interest came about as a result of a desire for higher sonic performance with greater clarity, imaging, detail, and tactile sensation, and not because I wanted to brag about how much my audio system costs.

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Example, I go into a blind listening test and identify accurately every cable change. Then the argument becomes that I didn't identify specific cables. If I did then the argument becomes that I was just lucky with my guesses.

I have found that it is very difficult to assign correct identification to "luck" when you can not only point out a difference, but tell exactly what the difference is. For example, someone consistently pointing out that a sound image moved outward two feet, or a background percussion instrument appeared and disappeared, is a lot more informative that saying you correctly picked cable A 10 out of 10 times.

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

ZLTFUL wrote: »

...a set of $12000 MITs.

How is that price justified? Sounds like an awful lot of profit for the seller and for what really?

High performance cable manufacturing is not a cheap, or trivial, commercial activity. Passively dealing with the noise mechanisms in high performance cable design is not a cheap, or trivial, commercial activity.

If you are put off by high cable prices, let someone else eat the depreciation and retail overhead and buy on the used market for 40-50% of retail.

I did ask AudioQuest what justified the high cost of their upper end cables. Their answer:

1. Highly polished silver conductors.
2. Specially formulated dielectrics.
3. Custom winding machines for custom noise cancelling geometries.
4. Hand termination with very low loss custom connectors.
5. Lower sales volumes.

What I received for my investment:

1. More clarity and detail.
2. More tactile sensation.
3. More image weight and image stability.
4. Lowered noise floor.

F1nut

although I do find it interesting that there have been more cable naysayers convert to believers than the other way

That's a fact, Jack!

steveinaz

...but perception is reality. Discussion over.

But seriously; I have offered to many of the skeptics to replace all of their cables with some 99 cent IC's I have--ya know--because wire is wire, right? Yet No ONE has ever taken me up on it.

steveinaz

Kevin,
Are you under the impression that many of us are new to this "hi-fi" thing?

BlueFox

Since we have next to no idea how things operate on the atomic level, the current laws of physics are subject to change and updates. Assuming we know everything, as the statement "the laws of physics and electronics can not be broken" implies, is the height of ignorance.

F1nut

A few important things to remember and to give some perspective to all this "discussion"

1. The "Ideal speaker cable", is NO speaker cable. In other words, the ideal or goal, is basically no signal degradation. The A.C. signal output at the amp should arrive at speaker terminals exactly the same.

So, the signal traveling through the source circuits, pre amp circuits and amp circuits isn't changed, for better or worse, along the way?

2. No cable can "improve" the sound. They can only degrade it less.
The sound at the amp output is as good as it gets.

Running with that train of thought the sound coming out of the source would be as good as it gets. Of course, all sources are not created equal. So much for that argument, next.

3. Interaction between speakers and amps and related sound changes are by the very nature of a low impedance circuit (amp to speaker) at fairly low frequencies (audio) very minimal. Only over long distances OR with wires of very small gauge do things get dicey easily.

You are ignoring the material the wire is made from, the geometry of that wire and the dielectric.

4. Some speaker cable "interactions" can color the sound a small bit at some frequencies. It will always be a degradation of the initial sound though.

Alternating current signals (audio) can never be improved or made to be "more" accurate through the use of more circuitry or added inductace, capacitance, resistance.

EVERY piece of gear colors the sound, period. Therefore, based on your theory, every piece of gear degrades the sound.

5. At higher impedances (( a good bit higher such as some tube amps )) and at frequencies above normal audio the cable can impart a change to the signal far easier.

Say what?

6. One of the main reasons almost all audio equipment that operates with normal audio ((20-20,000 Hertz sounds)) in the 4-16 Ohm range, was originally the ability of any normal speaker cable to easily deliver the sound fully intact with almost no degradation at all, over any normal distance.

Other than my first reaction of, wow...just wow.....what do you consider to be normal speaker cable? How do you know this "normal" speaker cable can deliver the sound fully intact with almost no degradation at all? Have you compared this "normal" speaker cable to other abnormal speaker cables?

Frankly, I see nothing in your comments worth remembering and find your perspective to be flawed at best.

F1nut

whereas a $7000 audio cable certainly is.

Maybe to you, but to others that is a drop in the bucket. That's real perspective.

F1nut

xcapri79 wrote: »

Some people have problems with principles.
Especially those who have been in trouble with the principals at school.

Certainly fits you to a T.

steveinaz

Some people like it in the "box." Absolutes and rules make life easy for them. Doesn't sound very pioneering though.

This much I do know; I hear differences (albeit very subtle usually) in some cables, and as long as I am financing my own "craziness" I think I'll call the shots.