Is it REALLY worth it?

treitz3

xcapri79 wrote: »

Don't forget the very real placebo effect. The more you pay the better it sounds, really!;)

That's complete rubbish and you know it.

heiney9

halo71 wrote: »

In this case I am not so sure. I mean, would my Onkyo Integra hooked to a pair of Monitor 10's sound better with a $300 set of cables versus 12ga wire from Home Depot for let's say $30? Is there an audible difference with cheaper equipment? One would think that for $270 more, you should hear a difference right? Or does the difference start at a $1500 amp and $2000 speakers? Bottom line is, where does the difference start if there is a difference?

I have a very modest office rig consisting of:

Modded Polk 5B's (Clarity and Solen caps, RD0's)
AMC DAC8 d/a converter
PC based FLAC streaming via Toslink
Dared VP16 16 wpc integrated tube amp
Canare 4S8 double run ala Shotgun style speaker cable
MIT Terminator 2 (6') I/C
Harmonic Technology Toslink

Less than $1K worth of gear.

I recently built my own Shotgun style Canare speaker cables to replace 14g "zip cord" and recently replaced Signal Analog II I/C with a MIT Terminator 2 I/C.

There was a very noticable improvement from both upgrades. Better cables can and do make a difference. Experimentation within your own budget is the key.

H9

P.s. Next up is power cable and power conditioner and the office rig will be complete!

heiney9

xcapri79 wrote: »

Don't forget the very real placebo effect. The more you pay the better it sounds, really!;)

More BS from the BS Queen :rolleyes:

H9

concealer404

Oh FFS not the double blind BS again. I keep saying that i would like to be a part of these tests, and nobody seems to take me up on my offer.

halo71

Okay.....NOW....the last 3 or 4 posts make sense! For someone to just simply say if you have $10k worth of gear then yeah cables make a difference. That really means nothing to most. I guess my real question was if better cables make a difference, then they should make somewhat of a difference in cheaper systems like mine.

FWIW, I never meant to stir up a hornets nest when I initially asked this question.

EDIT: Let me rephrase that...posts 67, 68 and 70 made real sense to me!

concealer404

halo71 wrote: »

Okay.....NOW....the last 3 or 4 posts make sense! For someone to just simply say if you have $10k worth of gear then yeah cables make a difference. That really means nothing to most. I guess my real question was if better cables make a difference, then they should make somewhat of a difference in cheaper systems like mine.

FWIW, I never meant to stir up a hornets nest when I initially asked this question.

EDIT: Let me rephrase that...posts 67, 68 and 70 made real sense to me!

Well... your ears will be the ones to tell you for sure, but my answer is "Yes."

inspiredsports

Cogito wrote: »

Sorry, but no matter how much maketing hype and voodoo science applied, Nordost Valhalla cables still don't defy physics. Save your money or buy better speakers.

Hmmm . . . A question for you, sport. . .

Is it "defying physics" when comparing one 3,000lb. automobile with a 3 liter engine that gets 17 miles per gallon to another 3,000lb automobile with a 3 liter engine that gets 34 mpg ???

inspiredsports

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Some Rolex watches cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, yet they don't tell time any better than a $20 Timex from Wal-mart. Would you care to speculate about how often folks get on the Internet and wonder if a Rolex is "really worth it" or "if you are not a professional time keeper, why would you need such an expensive time piece"?

I'm not quite sure about this analogy as the visual "fashion" part of the equation isn't of "primary importance" when "listening".

Let's say both watches display 10:00:00 PM. In the dark, the "quality" of time "presented" by an analog Timex with night light versus the "quality" of the time "presented" by an analog Rolex with night light would be pretty much identical.

However, listening to my SDA's in the dark, the sound "presented" by low cost cables could be dramatically inferior to the sound "presented" by $2-10K cables.

Only a small fraction of the cost would be dedicated to the visual "fashion appearance" of those higher priced cables, whereas a very high percentage of the cost applies to the visual perception of the Rolex.

You are directly comparing "fashion" to "utility" and I think, while fashion is somewhat important to audiophiles, it is a much smaller percentage of the overall experience.

Personally, I "pay up" for sound, not fashion when spending for cables. Having read the majority of your excellent reviews through the past year, I suspect you do too.

Demiurge

inspiredsports wrote: »

A question for you, sport. . .

Is it "defying physics" when one 3,000lb. automobile with a 3 liter engine gets 17 miles per gallon and another 3,000lb automobile with a 3 liter engine gets 34 mpg ???

No...not if they're different and there's science to show why.

inspiredsports

Demiurge wrote: »

No...not if they're different and there's science to show why.

Then I guess you just made my case as to why good ol' Cogito presented a nonsensical statement in post #39.

I would like to see his response too.

treitz3

xcapri79 wrote: »

Au contraire. This is published.

Oh, it must be. It's on the internet. :rolleyes:

Then please explain to me why I have heard systems well over the 100K mark that sound worse than a system that costs 10% of that? Please explain to me why the Nordosts sounded worse than the AQ's at a substantially lower cost?

I'm waiting........

concealer404

This post is published, and copyrighted. You MAY NOT QUOTE IT.

Demiurge

inspiredsports wrote: »

Then I guess you just made my case as to why good ol' Cogito posed an indefensible statement.

Did I, though? Unless both vehicles are identical, there is science to show why one car is better or worse than another regardless of our opinions on the matter.

For the sake of argument, when a $3,000 pair of wires is tested against a $300 pair of wires -- length, guage, and purity of metals being equal (as Jstas mentioned earlier) -- is there any hard science that could prove the $3,000 cables are any better or any worse than the $300 pair?

Many of you say you can hear a difference. I question that. I do so not to mock or ridicule, but because I'm not seeing the science that bears it out.

I don't want to confuse the argument either, so let me be clear -- I don't begrudge anyone spending money on the stuff that helps bring them that extra bit of enjoyment for their ears. If you say you can hear a difference, that's awesome. I think there is a lot of people who are jealous of what others have and they have to knock it down to make themselves feel better.

What gets tedious is essentially being told you're an idiot if you don't agree with an opinion in the face of a lack of science.

Face

xcapri79 wrote: »

Usual malachy...

Not for nothing, in a multi channel setup I wouldn't expect to hear a difference either, so save your money.

Demiurge

treitz3 wrote: »

Oh, it must be. It's on the internet. :rolleyes:

Then please explain to me why I have heard systems well over the 100K mark that sound worse than a system that costs 10% of that? Please explain to me why the Nordosts sounded worse than the AQ's at a substantially lower cost?

I'm waiting........

Without hard data, how could anyone explain why your opinion is what it is? Consensus doesn't mean factual, either, so that's out the window, too.

jflail2

There is a high end to EVERYYTHING. Cars, pipes, cigars, av gear, phones, ANYTHING. I am thoroughly convinced you're 1/2 buying the brand and 1/2 buying the quality.

I've got a Dunhill pipe tobbaco bag for example. Leather soft as a baby's ****. The stitching looks like someone took 2 weeks to do it, and I've had it for 6+ years with no problems with the zipper or anything. So in summary, best tobacco pouch I've ever owned in my life. Was it worth the 300$+ retail they wanted for it? Not in my book....good thing I got a fat discount. So I got an incredibly constructed leather pouch, but paid over double what I should have for something of similar quality b/c it was Dunhill......

Worth it? I'm still not sure

inspiredsports

Demiurge wrote: »

Did I, though? Unless both vehicles are identical, there is science to show why one car is better or worse than another regardless of our opinions on the matter.

For the sake of argument, when a $3,000 pair of wires is tested against a $300 pair of wires -- length, guage, and purity of metals being equal (as Jstas mentioned earlier) -- is there any hard science that could prove the $3,000 cables are any better or any worse than the $300 pair?

Many of you say you can hear a difference. I question that. I do so not to mock or ridicule, but because I'm not seeing the science that bears it out.

I don't want to confuse the argument either, so let me be clear -- I don't begrudge anyone spending money on the stuff that helps bring them that extra bit of enjoyment for their ears. If you say you can hear a difference, that's awesome. I think there is a lot of people who are jealous of what others have and they have to knock it down to make themselves feel better.

What gets tedious is essentially being told you're an idiot if you don't agree with an opinion in the face of a lack of science.

My personal belief is that first, we have the ability to measure many, but not 100% of the characteristics required to make the case with words or on a sheet of graph paper. The human ear is a pretty incredible device, isn't it?

The old adage, "If it sounds good and measures bad, or sounds bad and measures good. you are measuring the wrong thing" comes to mind.

Not too long ago man measured earth/wind/fire/water. Now we have angstroms and quarks.

I'm personally less caught up in the words and graph paper world, and way more into voting with my wallet, hooking it up and listening, selling what I don't care for and keeping what works.

Synergy also counts. Your rig may have different physical placement or electrical characteristics that make a $3k cable sound bad where mine might make it sound good.

No one belief really makes you an "idiot", but many would benefit spending more time listening for themselves and less time demanding written proof.

BAD ASP

I have been reading this post with interest because I am just taking my first steps in the "better than" arena of cabling. I started with some Monster Cable offerings and decided to try a set of Mit avt s3 which I just bought in our FM from Leroyjr. I have what I would consider a reasonable rig which has all been purchased used from Audiogon, here, ebay and CL.
I must say that I did notice an improvement in soundstage width, depth and clarity. Since the "new" cables Mit avt s3's were not what is being discussed around here as high end, but are definitely a step towards "trading up" in my audio world the fact that I noticed an improvement in SQ speaks to the premise of this discussion. Further to that I had my son give me his opinion of whether or not he could hear a difference in the sound between the two. Since he doesn't know one from the other I felt that I could trust his young ears to tell me if he did notice anything. He described to me that the one pair of cables had better depth, width and clarity. I used the same music as a reference and played both at 94db's on my cheap RS sound meter to make sure that I was playing both sets fairly.
I then, as a last effort, used a pair of 10 g wire that I have on a spool from one of the mail order companies (I don't remember which). We both decided that we preferred the Mit's over the two choices that I had.
In summary, while I have never been a cable guy, I believe that in our simple little test the preferred cabling was that of the more expensive cables. There was a definite improvement in SQ from the least expensive to the more expensive. My conclusion would be that, in this analogy and by my own hearing I would conjecture that there is an improvement in sound as you go up the "food chain" of cables. Where the audible benefit starts and stops per system is beyond my ability to observe, I can only use my simple components and the confines of what I have. If somebody wants to sell me some $3,000.00 cables for $150.00 then I am in and will comment accordingly.

tcrossma

BAD ASP wrote: »

I have been reading this post with interest because I am just taking my first steps in the "better than" arena of cabling. I started with some Monster Cable offerings and decided to try a set of Mit avt s3 which I just bought in our FM from Leroyjr. I have what I would consider a reasonable rig which has all been purchased used from Audiogon, here, ebay and CL.
I must say that I did notice an improvement in soundstage width, depth and clarity. Since the "new" cables Mit avt s3's were not what is being discussed around here as high end, but are definitely a step towards "trading up" in my audio world the fact that I noticed an improvement in SQ speaks to the premise of this discussion. Further to that I had my son give me his opinion of whether or not he could hear a difference in the sound between the two. Since he doesn't know one from the other I felt that I could trust his young ears to tell me if he did notice anything. He described to me that the one pair of cables had better depth, width and clarity. I used the same music as a reference and played both at 94db's on my cheap RS sound meter to make sure that I was playing both sets fairly.
I then, as a last effort, used a pair of 10 g wire that I have on a spool from one of the mail order companies (I don't remember which). We both decided that we preferred the Mit's over the two choices that I had.
In summary, while I have never been a cable guy, I believe that in our simple little test the preferred cabling was that of the more expensive cables. There was a definite improvement in SQ from the least expensive to the more expensive. My conclusion would be that, in this analogy and by my own hearing I would conjecture that there is an improvement in sound as you go up the "food chain" of cables. Where the audible benefit starts and stops per system is beyond my ability to observe, I can only use my simple components and the confines of what I have. If somebody wants to sell me some $3,000.00 cables for $150.00 then I am in and will comment accordingly.

Sorry, wasn't a double-blind test. Doesn't count. /sarcasm off

inspiredsports

BAD ASP wrote: »

. . . If somebody wants to sell me some $3,000.00 cables for $150.00 then I am in and will comment accordingly.

This seems to be a universal wish!:D

You're certainly approaching it in a sensible way. If you vote with your wallet, and listen and decide for yourself with an open mind, it's easier to dismiss the "but how does it measure?" crowd (as in post #86 above).

Take your time listening. In years of trying I've learned it's virtually impossible to craft quick "A/B" or "double blind" tests that contribute anything at all meaningful to the process.

DarqueKnight

inspiredsports wrote: »

I'm not quite sure about this analogy as the visual "fashion" part of the equation isn't of "primary importance" when "listening".

The topic of this thread is "are expensive cables REALLY worth it?".

My watch analogy pointed to the fact that "worth" is something that only the individual can decide for themselves.

My analogy also pointed to the fact that in other merchandise areas (e.g. watches) where the utility of the merchandise is not enhanced by better design, and higher cost, higher quality materials, the "worth" of the higher cost item is not challenged.

Similarly, since cable naysayers say that the utility of cables is not enhanced by higher quality materials and better design, why can't they offer the cable enthusiast the same courtesy that they offer the watch enthusiast and just let them alone to enjoy their toys?

I don't know of a single example where a cable enthusiast has tried to force someone to accept expensive cables. Yet, naysayers seem to be personally offended by the cable enthusiast's use of expensive cables and by the activities of manufacturers who make them.

It is true that some cable manufacturers make wild claims about the performance of their products. Such hucksterism and hype can be found in every field of merchandise from medicine to diamond jewelry.

I think it's ironic that a lot of the same people who are "too smart" to fall for the cable company's snake oil scams go right ahead and spend "two month's salary" on a diamond ring, when the fact is, diamonds are so common that they are practically worthless.

Since cable naysayers are so offended by "**** science" why don't they focus their considerable reasoning and investigative abilities on something socially beneficial like fake weight loss scams, the worldwide hoax perpetrated by the DeBeers diamond consortium, and proving that one ice cream manufacturer's claims to absolute superior taste are false?

kevhed72

Why is it that when a cable debate comes up on the forum, the discussion always begins and centers around whether high-priced cables are worth the money, and NEVER that cheap, inexpensive cables can actually degrade your SQ? I have used both inexpensive, Monster ICs (which actually were defective due poor quality control) and Blue Jeans 10 white, and found that both blow in my very modest system.

Face

It's caused by either lack of experience and/or reverse snobbery.

Zitro

kevhed72 wrote: »

Why is it that when a cable debate comes up on the forum, the discussion always begins and centers around whether high-priced cables are worth the money, and NEVER that cheap, inexpensive cables can actually degrade your SQ? I have used both inexpensive, Monster ICs (which actually were defective due poor quality control) and Blue Jeans 10 white, and found that both blow in my very modest system.

What was wrong with your Monster IC's? I bought pair once and the connectors were so tight I could barely push them in, after a ton of struggling. Was afraid of damaging my amp from all the pressure.

treitz3

Demiurge wrote: »

Without hard data, how could anyone explain why your opinion is what it is? Consensus doesn't mean factual, either, so that's out the window, too.

Empirical data can speak volumes though.

How would someone get hard data out of what my ears and brain perceive anyway? That technology does not exist as far as I know.

Demiurge

inspiredsports wrote: »

My personal belief is that first, we have the ability to measure many, but not 100% of the characteristics required to make the case with words or on a sheet of graph paper. The human ear is a pretty incredible device, isn't it?

The old adage, "If it sounds good and measures bad, or sounds bad and measures good. you are measuring the wrong thing" comes to mind.

Not too long ago man measured earth/wind/fire/water. Now we have angstroms and quarks.

I'm personally less caught up in the words and graph paper world, and way more into voting with my wallet, hooking it up and listening, selling what I don't care for and keeping what works.

Synergy also counts. Your rig may have different physical placement or electrical characteristics that make a $3k cable sound bad where mine might make it sound good.

No one belief really makes you an "idiot", but many would benefit spending more time listening for themselves and less time demanding written proof.

All fair points.

In my nearly 7 years on this forum I don't think I have ever gotten involved in the cable debates that have raged on here. In fact, I sort of regret doing it in this thread because folks seem a little too passionate to the point of anger if you disagree (on both sides). What irks me the most is what I said earlier:

What gets tedious is essentially being told you're an idiot if you don't agree with an opinion in the face of a lack of science.

You tried to address it, but what I see are people passing their personal experiences off as fact when it's really mere opinion. Do I really care that the difference between these cables could be measured and put on graph paper? Not really, because it's not going to help me to hear the difference if I can't hear it now.

I will never spend $3K on a single pair of speaker wires in my entire life unless I become a multi-millionaire and I'm spending my money just to spend it. Even then, it probably wouldn't occur to me.

Systems

How about the next time you guys have one of your polkfests, everybody brings cables and you all do some in house testing....

treitz3

That's not what Polkfests are about, Lorthos.

Systems

treitz3 wrote: »

That's not what Polkfests are about, Lorthos.

Okay, just a thought:)

Demiurge

treitz3 wrote: »

Empirical data can speak volumes though.

How would someone get hard data out of what my ears and brain perceive anyway? That technology does not exist as far as I know.

Your question is kind of my point. I hate to drop into analogies like others have done, but I have another auto related one I feel is on point....

If a car has damaged shocks and struts and they are replaced with brand new ones and properly installed the car is going to have a smoother ride. There are tests that can be done that will show that statement to be factual, regardless of what your body may tell your brain.

In essence you can say the car isn't smoother and science can tell you you're full of chit.

With speaker cables, it appears no such test exists that can be put to graph paper (as noted above) so you're left with unsubstantiated opinions.

It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong in my opinion because I can't hear the difference. For the sake of you guys shelling out big bucks for your cables, I hope you guys are. I only would like to know out of sheer interest, not becuase there is any benefit to me.