Need cable comparison testing advice

dpowell

Now that I've received the MAC 3' AgQ cables from Early B. I want to do some testing so I can hear the difference between them and the Monster Interlink 400 MK II's I've been using. Since my Denon 3800 has two sets of L/R outputs on the back, I've connected one set of cables to the Analog DVD DVD channel inputs and the other set to my TV/Sat channel inputs. This allows the Denon to do the DAC vs the amplifier (BTW, I notice a big difference between this setup and using an optical cable from the player to the amp). I have turned off all EQ on the amp to get the signal as direct as possible to the speakers.

With that setup, my initial reaction is that the two sets of cables sound almost identical. Sometimes, I can detect what I believe are slight differences in vocals (a little fuller sounding) and on instruments (sax and violin seem to be slightly less harsh or brassy sounding). To me the difference is probably not big enough for me to do a blind listening test and tell the difference.

My assumption is that I should be able to tell a noticeable difference unless there is something else in the signal path affecting the final outcome. So now for my questions/theories.

Do the separate 5.1 inputs on amplifiers typically work the same as the regular analog inputs (i.e. DVD, TV, etc)? i.e. will I notice a difference by switching inputs on the amp?

The speakers are connected to the amp via Monster Bass cables (for the RT3000 subs) and Monster 12gauge speaker wire (for the mids/tweeters). Do I have a weak link in the system? amp? speakers(say it's not so!)? wiring?

Thanks in advance.

BTW, in case it's important, the CD's I've used for testing so far are Dave Koz The Dance HDCD and Mark O'Conner 30 Year Retrospective.

dragon1952

I've got a pair of the MAC AgQ's and they are not quite as resolving as my other silver conductor IC's..i.e. not as much top end sparkle and detail, although they are good. They almost sound more like copper to me. I'm sure if you were using a higher quality integrated or separates the difference would be more noticeable. Not to knock the receiver, but an A/V receiver is certainly not the last work in resolution. It looks like your source is pretty good. All that being said though, cable differences are rarely night and day and are very system dependant (as in synergy). I'll take all the subtle improvements I can get though as they do tend to add up over time.

Early B.

Say what?! You're using Monster speaker wire???:eek::eek::eek:

Well, you know what you gotta do...

dpowell

Early B. wrote: »

Say what?! You're using Monster speaker wire???:eek::eek::eek:

Well, you know what you gotta do...

Well, tell me what you'd do....!;) You'd have to agree that the Monster (which came included when I purchased the RT3000's) is a step up from the wire I was using from Home Depot prior to that!:D For sure, I'm not married to it. That said, I am relatively new to having decent gear to power my speakers. That's the whole point of this post is to get input from those who know what they're doing.

dpowell

dragon1952 wrote: »

I've got a pair of the MAC AgQ's and they are not quite as resolving as my other silver conductor IC's..i.e. not as much top end sparkle and detail, although they are good. They almost sound more like copper to me. I'm sure if you were using a higher quality integrated or separates the difference would be more noticeable. Not to knock the receiver, but an A/V receiver is certainly not the last work in resolution. It looks like your source is pretty good. All that being said though, cable differences are rarely night and day and are very system dependant (as in synergy). I'll take all the subtle improvements I can get though as they do tend to add up over time.

No offense taken. Even though the amp is the ES series, I've wondered what more could be achieved from my Polks by using the Sony as a pre and adding a higher end pro or just going with higher end separates all together. I was tempted by the B&K 3 channel that was listed for sale earlier in the week. Is something like that worth it if I leave the Sony in the mix?

dragon1952

You know, I tried for many years to be happy with music out of an HT setup and it just didn't work for me. I kept buying more expensive receivers thinking that was the problem. I tried a really nice Integra DTR-7, Pioneer Elite, external amps, cables. The signal is still being processed by the AV receiver even if you use an external amp, and in many cases the pre may be a bigger issue than the amp. It's hard to say what would work better. If I were you I wouldn't throw a bunch of money at cables in hopes that those will do the trick for you. In many cases it's a tradeoff with an HT system. I mean, it's sad but true. I finally ****-canned the HT and went dedicated 2-channel. When we built the new house I was lucky enough to have separate areas for each. That's the ideal situation. I'm sure your Sony ES is very nice. A lot of people are happy adding an amp. Buy used and you can always resell and recoup the money.

tcrossma

When I added an amp (B&K 200wpc) to my AVR I noticed an improvement. It wasn't night and day, but it was an improvement. When I changed out my IC's, I noticed another improvement. Also not night and day. When I added my Adcom Preamp (with an HT bypass so I could integrate it into my HT) I noticed yet another improvement, still not night and day. But in the end, I now enjoy music a tremendous amount more than I used to with the AVR alone. All those little improvements added up, and i'm still not done with the tweaking (probably never will be).

Polkitup2

I did the same type of A/B with the dual outputs on my Denon 3910 and I couldn't hear any difference between Audioquest Diamondbacks and generic Monster THX ICs in my rig. The Diamondbacks look better though.

Early B.

dpowell wrote: »

Well, tell me what you'd do....!;) You'd have to agree that the Monster (which came included when I purchased the RT3000's) is a step up from the wire I was using from Home Depot prior to that!:D For sure, I'm not married to it. That said, I am relatively new to having decent gear to power my speakers. That's the whole point of this post is to get input from those who know what they're doing.

Dragon knows what he's doing, so here ya go... http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65350

Gaara

Dam, those are nicer interconnects then I will ever own. Good luck comparing, you have the correct idea and I have done the same thing previously...same results to. If you could find a high quality analog audio switch that would be the ideal way to compare, just switch them on the fly.

dpowell

Gaara wrote: »

Dam, those are nicer interconnects then I will ever own. Good luck comparing, you have the correct idea and I have done the same thing previously...same results to. If you could find a high quality analog audio switch that would be the ideal way to compare, just switch them on the fly.

Thanks! Since I didn't have an analog switch handy and have 2 pairs of outs on the Denon, I'm using the AVR as the switch. I can switch back and forth between connections in about 2 seconds to get a good comparison.

dpowell

tcrossma wrote: »

When I added an amp (B&K 200wpc) to my AVR I noticed an improvement. It wasn't night and day, but it was an improvement....All those little improvements added up, and i'm still not done with the tweaking (probably never will be).

After reading through the thread on 'do cables make a difference' that Early B. recommended and based on your comments, it sounds like the best place to start is with buying the best components I can reasonably afford. I see where a lot of people on this forum end up with separate 2-channel setups; probably for the same issues I find myself dealing with.

Since I don't have room for a separate setup, I guess I need to focus on acquiring separate high-end amps as money allows. Seems to me that cables should be purchased later if I'm still not happy with the results.

So, for those of you who have taken the next step from an A/V receiver HT setup, what is the next best step to improve a setup?

tcrossma

dpowell wrote: »

So, for those of you who have taken the next step from an A/V receiver HT setup, what is the next best step to improve a setup?

Personally I am very happy with the route I took. I started with only an AVR, then added an external amp, then bought a good CD/DVD player, then added a preamp that has an HT bypass. When I listen to music it's CD=>Pre=>Amp, completely bypassing the AVR.

To me, in my household where I don't have the option of two separate systems, this gives me the best of both worlds.

My next upgrade will be some speaker cables and then a year or so down the road i'll upgrade to a dedicated CD player, possibly tubed. The DVD player will then be for HT and SACD only.

Have fun on your journey. As many others have stated before me, half the fun of this hobby is in the quest itself.

dragon1952

There ya go!

dpowell

Thanks for all the great input. I'm considering the GFA 535mkII Troy has posted or the B & K Reference 3320 3-channel amp that Mark has posted for sale as a place to get started on separates. Since I only have 1 set of pre-outs on my AVR and already use them for running line level to the L/R and Center subs, is it advisable to add a "Y" cable to continue connecting them that way and also add the Pro amp in?

steveinaz

I'd recommend you do some long-term listening. Many times, differences that are not caught during A/B'ing can be heard over the long haul, after you have listened to many different CD's.

Just a suggestion...