View Full Version : Is it worth paying for premium cables? PC Pro Magazine article..
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/376468/is-it-worth-paying-for-premium-cables
hmnn....
Ali Tait
29-08-2012, 12:17
Think we answered that one with the TQ cables at your place Gaz.
hifi_dave
29-08-2012, 17:31
Don't they all sound the same..:scratch:
guyhayton
29-08-2012, 18:15
I used to think "if I read another article or post that says cables are all equal" then I will just scream. That's from someone who has spent years in the IT industry. Then you get a PCPRO article that seems to substantiate some of the traddle! This from people who should know better.
The usual arguments are that: in the digital domain, any cable will just transmit the "bits". They either get through or they don't.
Well after spending too many hours to count watching network statistics that demonstrate that the bits "don't" always get through I disagree.
Most of the so called IT people forget that computer systems have software systems (TCP/IP) that deal with lost information by requesting that the information gets sent again. In audio-visual environments (to my knowledge) there isn't this level of communication between devices - if the DAC doesn't get the "bits" it just makes an assumption and fills in the gaps, it cannot say to the source "this doesn't add-up can you send it again please".
QED - if you have a better quality cable and environment that means more "bits" get through then the less "filling in" the DAC has to do and the better the result.
I strongly disagree with it (of course) having heard it myself.
Just find it interesting how another "group" of tech. hobbyists cant or don't hear the differences.
Curious about why that could be? :scratch:
morris_minor
30-08-2012, 08:20
Just find it interesting how another "group" of tech. hobbyists cant or don't hear the differences.
Curious about why that could be? :scratch:
Lack of brainwashing by snake oil vendors . . :mental: ?? :lol:
I strongly disagree with it (of course) having heard it myself.
Just find it interesting how another "group" of tech. hobbyists cant or don't hear the differences.
Curious about why that could be? :scratch:
Could you say what it is that you have heard please?
Was anyone else present i.e. if a.n. Other does not have the same equipment, in the same environment (yours) and using the same kit the chance of them hearing what you hear are very slim, perhaps that is why others don't hear what you do, too much difference.
Finally how do you know that whatever you have heard is digital loss or am I confused by Guy's post?
There was little in that article to explain or evidence why freebee audio cables are as good as more expensive cables. I can understand the issues with HDMI (I've tried loads with little difference evident between any of them on TV picture quality IMHO) but there's much more to cable design than some of the simpleton answers thrown about in magazines and webzine articles by people with little or no understanding or knowledge of signal electronics or cable design (at least the sort of people who write authoritatively on subjects they have zero qualification in... I'm not talking about subjective opinions and synergy issues that most hifi enthusiasts use to good effect for their own choices which is a different prospect entirely). Quality matters (build and component quality and the materials used and how they are used) and geometry matters.
Costing the earth is not a pre-requisite (although snake oil salesmen may have you believe otherwise) but to tar all cable manufacturers and cable products with the same brush is utter nonsense. Most reasonable and intelligent enthusiasts make their own minds up by trying different cables and sticking to what works best for them. Helping to inform those choices by providing useful and meaningful product information sometimes helps in making choices but unfortunately is one area which is often used for more subjective marketing bias too. I think most people are grown up enough to make their own minds up though without being told that they aren't somehow gifted with "golden ears". We all have golden ears do we not?
guyhayton
30-08-2012, 14:36
Finally how do you know that whatever you have heard is digital loss or am I confused by Guy's post?
In an audio environment, I expect DACs to be very good at filling in the missing bits. A better quality cable would present itself as just simply "sounding better" as more information is getting though to the DAC.
I agree with Paul- there is always "snake oil" and the "law of diminishing returns" at play. But to simply say that all cables are the same is just plain daft.
Ali Tait
30-08-2012, 16:21
Could you say what it is that you have heard please?
Was anyone else present i.e. if a.n. Other does not have the same equipment, in the same environment (yours) and using the same kit the chance of them hearing what you hear are very slim, perhaps that is why others don't hear what you do, too much difference.
Finally how do you know that whatever you have heard is digital loss or am I confused by Guy's post?
We had a get together at Gaz's place. Three of us were there. Gary was using some Mogami cable to his RS3's. We swapped in my TQ Black and the difference really was night and day, like listening to a different system. A massive improvement. We compared several dacs that day and there were far less differences between the dacs than with the TQ. I have never heard a cable make such a difference in a system.
Isn't that a little strange? How can one cable be so much better than a similarly constructed one? Or does it only sound different?
Now, i am NOT saying that TQ is a bad cable, i sure hope not as i have just purchased a few meters':ner: But, it leaves me a little sceptical when practically everone who has tried them yells "huge differences", "absolutely fabulous"..
But regarding "journalists" dissing cables, hey, what do you expect? If i have learnt one thing with age it is to scrutinize all sources of information!
Regards Mike
Reid Malenfant
30-08-2012, 21:07
There was little in that article to explain or evidence why freebee audio cables are as good as more expensive cables. I can understand the issues with HDMI (I've tried loads with little difference evident between any of them on TV picture quality IMHO) but there's much more to cable design than some of the simpleton answers thrown about in magazines and webzine articles by people with little or no understanding or knowledge of signal electronics or cable design (at least the sort of people who write authoritatively on subjects they have zero qualification in..
Actually I have noticed a huge difference between HDMI cables ;)
While I have had problems with 2M or less cables connecting a Panasonic BD player to a Philips 21/9 TV, there is only one cable I have used that actually manages to get the audio through as well & it happens to be all of either 5M or 8M long :eek:
None of the other cables used managed to transmit the audio & they were 2M or less long, so going on what I have experienced, there is a huge difference in HDMI cables..
Pretty sure one of the duffers was an IXOS, the other may have been a QED.. While I do understand that it is more of a handshake issue between the Panasonic player & the TV, I'd expect a shorter cable to out perform a longer one - but in my experience this long cable destroys the so called quality shorter ones.
A 5M Mark Grant G720 worked when no others did, I'm now using an 8M Mark Grant G1080 & that works to.
Not sure what player or displays you have, but this way I use an Oppo BDP95EU these days, Philips 56PFL9954 & Mitsubishi HC5000 PJ...
I can not only see, but hear the damn difference to :lol:
So while you think they make no difference, I happen to KNOW they do :cool:
Pretty sure one of the duffers was an IXOS, the other may have been a QED.. While I do understand that it is more of a handshake issue between the Panasonic player & the TV, I'd expect a shorter cable to out perform a longer one - but in my experience this long cable destroys the so called quality shorter ones.
A 5M Mark Grant G720 worked when no others did, I'm now using an 8M Mark Grant G1080 & that works to.
Hi Mark this is damn interesting to me as I use 5m minimum length SPDIF cables as I find they sound better... signal reflections can occur with HDMI? This is certainly the case with SPDIF cables...
brian2957
30-08-2012, 21:14
We had a get together at Gaz's place. Three of us were there. Gary was using some Mogami cable to his RS3's. We swapped in my TQ Black and the difference really was night and day, like listening to a different system. A massive improvement. We compared several dacs that day and there were far less differences between the dacs than with the TQ. I have never heard a cable make such a difference in a system.
I was there also that day and I'll second what Ali says . I know that cables do make a difference but in this case the difference was very marked.
Actually I have noticed a huge difference between HDMI cables ;)
While I have had problems with 2M or less cables connecting a Panasonic BD player to a Philips 21/9 TV, there is only one cable I have used that actually manages to get the audio through as well & it happens to be all of either 5M or 8M long :eek:
None of the other cables used managed to transmit the audio & they were 2M or less long, so going on what I have experienced, there is a huge difference in HDMI cables..
Pretty sure one of the duffers was an IXOS, the other may have been a QED.. While I do understand that it is more of a handshake issue between the Panasonic player & the TV, I'd expect a shorter cable to out perform a longer one - but in my experience this long cable destroys the so called quality shorter ones.
A 5M Mark Grant G720 worked when no others did, I'm now using an 8M Mark Grant G1080 & that works to.
Not sure what player or displays you have, but this way I use an Oppo BDP95EU these days, Philips 56PFL9954 & Mitsubishi HC5000 PJ...
I can not only see, but hear the damn difference to :lol:
So while you think they make no difference, I happen to KNOW they do :cool:
That's your finding with your kit, and no reason at all to doubt your findings. However with my AV kit, I haven't noticed a blind bit of difference, so there's no right and wrong statements to be made IMHO. You know they make a difference in your set up, but I also know that they make no difference in mine :ner:
As for reflections occurring in SPDIF...:whistle: There's a bit of an urban myth that you need a minimum length to reap best signal quality but no evidence at all to back that up. It's more often the case that termination quality and impedance matching between cable and connectors plays a bigger role than reflections, which usually occur at much higher frequencies than data transmission between transport and DAC. SPDIF does not function like a transmission line and does not have the same issues as higher frequency transmissions. If people try longer cables and they sound better, chances are they have a better cable! Length shouldn't matter for all domestic purposes providing the cable is manufactured to tight impedance tolerances.
We had a get together at Gaz's place. Three of us were there. Gary was using some Mogami cable to his RS3's. We swapped in my TQ Black and the difference really was night and day, like listening to a different system. A massive improvement. We compared several dacs that day and there were far less differences between the dacs than with the TQ. I have never heard a cable make such a difference in a system.
Yes, TQ Black do make a huge difference, because they colour the sound.
I used to have a pair, and they really work well in taking an edge off the highs and making for a rather 'analogue' sound. The bass also appeared as a bit more rounded and richer, but it's that removal of 'glare' or perhaps even 'grain' at the top end, especially noticeable when you crank it up, that I suggest you guys noticed the most?
I changed them because I prefer my speaker cables to get out of the way as much as possible & since upgrading to LFD amps did not need the 'TQ effect'. Having said this I can understand why TQ products get raved about & can definitely tame downstream hardness, glare etc.
Reid Malenfant
30-08-2012, 21:45
That's your finding with your kit, and no reason at all to doubt your findings. However with my AV kit, I haven't noticed a blind bit of difference, so there's no right and wrong statements to be made IMHO. You know they make a difference in your set up, but I also know that they make no difference in mine :ner:
I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying ;) It's nothing to do with cable length, everything to do with quality. I know a shorter MG G1080 would work better than an 8M one, but I need 8M to get from my player to display :cool:
As for reflections occurring in SPDIF...:whistle: There's a bit of an urban myth that you need a minimum length to reap best signal quality but no evidence at all to back that up. It's more often the case that termination quality and impedance matching between cable and connectors plays a bigger role than reflections, which usually occur at much higher frequencies than data transmission between transport and DAC.
I agree, phonos are a non specific impedance, I don't like them, I much prefer nice 75 ohm BNCs or better still 110 ohm balanced AES/EBU ;)
SPDIF does not function like a transmission line and does not have the same issues as higher frequency transmissions. If people try longer cables and they sound better, chances are they have a better cable! Length shouldn't matter for all domestic purposes providing the cable is manufactured to tight impedance tolerances.
While I agree about the transmission line I beg to differ about the importance of high frequency behavior.
Just like an HDMI waveform, S/PDIF relies on the transmitted waveform retaining it's squared edges as accurately as possible to perform at it's best, so in theory a shorter cable should be best (least cable capacitance to round those edges).
Just imho of course, well the last bit at any rate :)
Ali Tait
30-08-2012, 22:07
Yes, TQ Black do make a huge difference, because they colour the sound.
I used to have a pair, and they really work well in taking an edge off the highs and making for a rather 'analogue' sound. The bass also appeared as a bit more rounded and richer, but it's that removal of 'glare' or perhaps even 'grain' at the top end, especially noticeable when you crank it up, that I suggest you guys noticed the most?
I changed them because I prefer my speaker cables to get out of the way as much as possible & since upgrading to LFD amps did not need the 'TQ effect'. Having said this I can understand why TQ products get raved about & can definitely tame downstream hardness, glare etc.
Really? Why then do they improve the sound from the several valve amps I've used them with? Valves are not really known for glare and hardness are they?
I don't agree with your findings at all.
Have you considered the possibility that it is your LFD amps that are coloured in a way you prefer?
awkwardbydesign
30-08-2012, 22:10
I'm just about to get a Qnap NAS from a friend and start all this streaming lark, so excuse me butting in here. But HOW do you know a shorter lead would be better? Agreed it should in theory, but how do you know it WILL? Have you tried a shorter lead in this set up? Sorry if I sound like a smart arse, but it is a genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever.
Really? Why then do they improve the sound from the several valve amps I've used them with? Valves are not really known for glare and hardness are they?
I don't agree with your findings at all.
How do they improve the sound Ali in your experience? They're great cables, don't get me wrong, but they are coloured.
EDIT: even Tellurium Q themselves aren't afraid to admit that their cables do this:
"Tellurium Green is the companion cable to Tellurium Ultra Black and is probably more suitable for slightly bright systems as they have a very slight “mellowing” effect."
Ali Tait
30-08-2012, 22:13
Don't agree they are coloured at all, and I've not read of anyone else saying that. To me they give a cleaner and clearer signal than any other cable I've tried.
Don't agree they are coloured at all, and I've not read of anyone else saying that. To me they give a cleaner and clearer signal than any other cable I've tried.
Fair enough, I did edit my last post as Tellurium Q themselves aren't afraid to publicise that their cables can introduce colourations.
My older NVA cables were definitely 'clearer' than the TQ Blacks, but overall I did prefer the sound of the Blacks, which did reduce listening fatigue in my old system... now I use LFD Hybrid Ribbon, which are right for me...
Ali Tait
30-08-2012, 22:20
I just had on loan NVA LS7. A nice cable, a little sharper in the treble than the Black, but only a little, otherwise pretty similar. The Black I/c is very nice too IMHO.
Ali Tait
30-08-2012, 22:21
Where do TQ talk about coloration? I'd be interested in reading that.
I just had on loan NVA LS7. A nice cable, a little sharper in the treble than the Black, but only a little, otherwise pretty similar. The Black I/c is very nice too IMHO.
Interesting... I think the NVA is perhaps a bit (artificially?) sharper & I noticed the same between my LS5 & the Black. Both nice cables though.
Anyway, TQ stuff does sound good there's no contesting that! It is also extremely low capacitance, which is always a good thing in my book.
Where do TQ talk about coloration? I'd be interested in reading that.
They haven't mentioned in with the Black, but their opening blurb and the accompanying reviews for the Green:
http://www.telluriumq.com/page13.html
Ali Tait
31-08-2012, 06:11
Ok thanks, I'll have a look.
jandl100
31-08-2012, 06:54
I must admit that I was disappointed with the Tellurium Q Black speaker cables I bought - impressively 'hifi' over the short haul, but after a few days their welcome wore rather thin and I was relieved to change them. I know of at least a couple of others who share these feelings.
It's probably a system synergy thing, as some folk do love 'em!
What was the problem for me? .... ummm, in a nutshell, they just didn't hold my attention, dynamic inflection was muted -- they didn't boogie! I came to realise over the course of a few days that the music sounded much less interesting.
I think you can dismiss a cable that doesn't work in your system quite quickly, but saying that one is good or better than another can take a few days. The subtleties can creep up on you but then they can become very important! Your immediate reaction might not survive longer term listening.
jandl100
31-08-2012, 07:10
double post :)
Ali Tait
31-08-2012, 08:41
Yep can't disagree with that Jerry. Slightly different in my case as they only supply frequencies from 200hz up in my system.
I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying ;) It's nothing to do with cable length, everything to do with quality. I know a shorter MG G1080 would work better than an 8M one, but I need 8M to get from my player to display :cool:
I agree, phonos are a non specific impedance, I don't like them, I much prefer nice 75 ohm BNCs or better still 110 ohm balanced AES/EBU ;)
While I agree about the transmission line I beg to differ about the importance of high frequency behavior.
Just like an HDMI waveform, S/PDIF relies on the transmitted waveform retaining it's squared edges as accurately as possible to perform at it's best, so in theory a shorter cable should be best (least cable capacitance to round those edges).
Just imho of course, well the last bit at any rate :)
Ah, understand where you're coming from, but perhaps a little clarity might help clear up some misnomas with SPDIF signal transmission:
The greater risk to varying a digital signal is in the introduction of noise, so shielding becomes a far more important aspect than outright capacitance (more on this in a moment) as does making good solid electrical contact (hence BNC preferable to RCA). Any noise introduced to a data signal, the process of clock recover can be influenced, hence the DAC signal can be corrupted.
Capacitance is fairly standard for most 75 Ohm cables at or around 65 to 75 pF/m. Its not the total capacitance that affects the signal in SPDIF applications as much as the influence of the dielectric on propagation velocity, but even if a poor dielectric is used, providing that it is universally poor, and the cable characteristics consistent, clock recovery of the total signal is possible. The data signal is not a series of square waves, which if the shoulders are rounded off somehow, somehow corrupts and changes the sound. The data is sent as a series of bitstream packages at 44.1KHz usually at 32 bit data words with a data frame consisting of 384 words total. The initial word clock is extracted from the base signal so that the receiver doesn't determine the success of the data reception, the coded material and transmission does providing that transport and receiver are to the same standards (audio format is 60958-3).
Along with the data transmitted, there is in built redundancy to cater for cable deficiencies and clock issues (jitter). the signals either do arrive or they dont. The redundancy can be 8 times, so its unusual for the signal to fail to lock and be processed unless there is a very poor connection or the wrong impedance cable is being used. In the case where some data bits are lost, the DAC estimates what should fill in the gap and reproduces the analogue frequency and duration accordingly. the resultant converted signal is a pure sine wave, not as commonly thought, a section of built up brick shaped waves.
Longer cables at domestic lengths of up to 15 or more metres present no problems at all for this data transmission and total capacitance does not roll off the HF extremes as it can with analogue signals. Its a different signal transmission scenario entirely. Noise and poor electrical contact along with poorly specified cables (whose impedance is inconsistant) are the enemies of a good digital cable. :)
Yes, TQ Black do make a huge difference, because they colour the sound.
I used to have a pair, and they really work well in taking an edge off the highs and making for a rather 'analogue' sound. The bass also appeared as a bit more rounded and richer, but it's that removal of 'glare' or perhaps even 'grain' at the top end, especially noticeable when you crank it up, that I suggest you guys noticed the most?
I changed them because I prefer my speaker cables to get out of the way as much as possible & since upgrading to LFD amps did not need the 'TQ effect'. Having said this I can understand why TQ products get raved about & can definitely tame downstream hardness, glare etc.
First up I only use my my ears to hear.
If it sounds better or different then thats how it is - to me.
All the other stuff is not as relevant.
When the guys were over at mine the cables were used in the context of an all Rega system. I had the Brio-R and Dac on loan used with my own RS3's.
Now, this combination is the opposite of what your describing as "hardness and glare", its VERY analogue sounding with no glare or grain at all.
My Mogami cable sounded great with my RS3 speakers but when we plugged the TQ Black in WE ALL noticed the jump in quality.
As Ali said it was alike a different pair of speakers - a real WTF moment.
You said you think the TQ colours the cable and smooths off the extremes, this is the OPPOSITE of what we heard in the Rega system.
It was MORE open, MORE dynamic, MORE analogue, and most importantly LESS hifi and more "real" sounding.
It just got a lot closer to sounding like real music being played by real people.
The Rega kit excels at this and my opinion is that the TQ cable brought more of that out because it colours the signal LESS.
Like most kit I guess its all system dependent.
In the case of the all Rega kit the TQ works fantastic.
Maybe it was just a synergy thing mate with your system, dunno.
We all hear different I guess.
Hi Gary, at least we clear in this thread that it is worth paying for premium cables. :)
In my experience Tellurium Q seem to 'do more' to the sound than other cables that I have tried. Whether that is colouration, as I think, or they are just more 'right', I really can't assert nor do I want to go against what you guys experienced when swapping out your Mogami cable.
I just had a niggling feeling... might be a synergy thing, and it isn't surprising that my LFD cable would have a better synergy with my LFD amp. I did also have a play with my Exposure amp, so don't think my experiences are amp-specific.
Either way, cables never make a 'night and day' difference (in my opinion), it's always subtle. I rewired my system with cheapo nickel / unshielded RCAs and Maplin speaker cable a couple of weeks ago... still sounded bloody awesome! Sometimes I need to remind myself that cables are the icing on the cake.
I do maintain that if cables can make things sound like there's a new pair of speakers or whatever, then either the other cables were buggered or the new ones are doing something else.
Fair do's Neil.
I know that NVA cable sounds different with an NVA amp so could be summit to the synergy thing like you say.
My Mogami is far from sounding broken trust me mate, the TQ just did some magic.
TQ say a lot about the cable being designed to tackle phase distortion?
Could that have a bearing on it?
wee tee cee
01-09-2012, 19:22
I have been lucky enough to hear numerous dac/interconnects/speaker cable /usb cable combos at Alils place.Myself Ali/Brian and Gary are all pragmatic guys not liable to hyperbole. Every element makes a difference.We all came to broadly the same consensus and unfortunately the expensive stuff did sound better.Every bit of wire or component had its own sound....trust your ears, above al else.AOS opens the door to friendships and experience to enable members to get the most out of their hobby....enjoy
AOS opens the door to friendships and experience to enable members to get the most out of their hobby....enjoy
:mex:
Reid Malenfant
02-09-2012, 19:20
Noise and poor electrical contact along with poorly specified cables (whose impedance is inconsistant) are the enemies of a good digital cable. :)
I see, so in reality S/PDIF via coax is problematic (or lets say it could be bettered ;)) due to the inconsistent impedance of any phono plug fitted.
BNC would get round that problem as the 75 ohm versions are true 75 ohm, which is why I tend to like them.
Thanks for taking the time out to explain things :)
I see, so in reality S/PDIF via coax is problematic (or lets say it could be bettered ;)) due to the inconsistent impedance of any phono plug fitted.
BNC would get round that problem as the 75 ohm versions are true 75 ohm, which is why I tend to like them.
Thanks for taking the time out to explain things :)
Still prefer S/PDIF to optical - cuts out two opto-converters, whose performance is questionable.
Since 'phonos' can never be 75 Ohm impedance (and neither are those that claim to be, once they are mated to phono sockets), I think the triple-transit time of the cable is more important to preserve the leading edge of the sampling waveform (25ns, 10% to 90% rise time, implying frequencies up to 14MHz!) - and hence the need for short cables.
Reid Malenfant
02-09-2012, 20:39
Still prefer S/PDIF to optical - cuts out two opto-converters, whose performance is questionable.
Oh hell yes, any day of the week :D
brian2957
02-09-2012, 20:56
I have been lucky enough to hear numerous dac/interconnects/speaker cable /usb cable combos at Alils place.Myself Ali/Brian and Gary are all pragmatic guys not liable to hyperbole. Every element makes a difference.We all came to broadly the same consensus and unfortunately the expensive stuff did sound better.Every bit of wire or component had its own sound....trust your ears, above al else.AOS opens the door to friendships and experience to enable members to get the most out of their hobby....enjoy
+1 :D
I see, so in reality S/PDIF via coax is problematic (or lets say it could be bettered ;)) due to the inconsistent impedance of any phono plug fitted.
BNC would get round that problem as the 75 ohm versions are true 75 ohm, which is why I tend to like them.
Thanks for taking the time out to explain things :)
Hi Mark
sort of but not quite! the short distance that there is an impedance match across an RCA is less problematical for signal accuracy than across the whole length of the cable. Imagine a 4m long cable which has a randomised shield to central conductor spacing variance of 0.5mm across it's length due to poor build quality. That will be less accurate than a decent 4m cable with say a 0.1mm variance between conductors and using RCA phono's at the end. Nothing wrong with using quality RCA phonos as there's more than adequate redundancy to cope with such a short impedance match. The critical thing is to prevent noise (interference) getting to the signal, so the ground design of rca plugs must be very low impedance but not all are. I've measured a good few using DC measurements on resistance, and they do vary. The other consideration is the quality of the joint. Crimping can also affect overall impedance value (ie spacing between conductors) but gives good electrical contact. Good solder joints are fine (perfectly acceptable despite some of the misinformation floating about) and some are appalling (cold joints due to poor soldering standards or poor quality solder being used). The watchword for a good digital cable is that quality matters, especially for longer ruins. That doesn't have to equate with cost though, and certainly, a top class digital cable which will perform as good as the very best needn't cost any more than 70 squid for the usual 1 to 1.5m length (retail).
There are the right RCAs and the wrong RCA's to use. Keeping the RCA bodies short (hence why I use the Furutech FP126 plugs or Eichmanns) is a good idea. Using BNC's is better but even these are never exactly 75Ohms due to the way they are mostly termianted.
The cable quality matters more than the type of connector over longer cable runs especially.
steviej233
10-09-2012, 12:16
I am in no way as technical as you lot, and i was EXTREMELY sceptical about cables, but now i am running TQ Blue (am clearly not as well off as you lot either! ;)) and QED HDMI cables and they are a huge improvement on MY system. The blues took about 20 hours to burn in and then i switched back to what i was using before and had to pull the bloody things out as they sounded sh*te! As TQ put it, it's like having HD music.
As for the HDMI cables, the only thing that lets my TV down is the refresh rate and this is especially noticeable when they are high contrast vivd colours and lots of movement, the QED (don't as me how) cleaned this up dramatically as an aside i used a new power cable from David at mains cables and this helped even more.
I will stay as neutral as i can with this, these cables work very well in MY setup and i can hear and see a difference. To simply say cables don't make a difference....... I would suggest getting in touch with David and he'll make you a beleiver out of you! :)
Daniel75
10-09-2012, 14:53
I will stay as neutral as i can with this, these cables work very well in MY setup and i can hear and see a difference. To simply say cables don't make a difference....... I would suggest getting in touch with David and he'll make you a beleiver out of you! :)
I'm refusing to acknowledge any subjective arguments:-) I do believe that human brain is playing its tricks more often than we would like to admit.
I still dont understand why one cant simply measure what is sonically changing when using different cables, amps etc? You know - put a mic where your sitting position is. Play a song, record it, analyse. Change speaker cable, play same song, record... Surely if, for example, new cable is "brighter" - then you'll see difference in high frequencies? etc etc :scratch:
not everything that matters is measurable...
not everything that is measurable matters...
Daniel75
10-09-2012, 16:20
not everything that matters is measurable...
not everything that is measurable matters...
Im not sure what "not measurable but important" aspect of audio is. If human can hear difference in sound - than surely appropriate equipment will be able to measure it?
This assumption is based on a simple fact that machines are more perfect than us :)
D
The Grand Wazoo
10-09-2012, 16:33
Here we go again.....
...based on a simple fact that machines are more perfect than us
Only if they know what they are looking for.
realysm42
10-09-2012, 16:55
Cables and stuff, init.
the ONLY thing that matters is what your "subjective" ears hear on the day.
If it sounds better...to YOU it IS better.
We are all alone people, espcially in a nonsense like hifi :)
Im not sure what "not measurable but important" aspect of audio is. If human can hear difference in sound - than surely appropriate equipment will be able to measure it?
This assumption is based on a simple fact that machines are more perfect than us :)
D
naa..
your talking shite.
How do you measure why you like one red wine over another?
Even next doors dog that came in and agreed with me talking sense agrees with this...
realysm42
11-09-2012, 06:23
Machines are tools. They do jobs we design them for; if we've not come up with the right rules or jobs for them, why do people (absurdly) assume they're better than us?
We don't know what to measure to fully and effectively express differences in sound yet, how's a robot going to?
It's like saying a car's going to have amazing handling when all you've measured is it's speed; it tells you something about the car's performance yes, but not what we need to know (in terms of handling).
steviej233
12-09-2012, 07:43
I think we are loosing sight of whats important here, and thats the music! As long as it is coming out loud and clear and sounds good to YOU surely thats all that matters?!?!?! :)
Daniel75
12-09-2012, 07:56
Here we go again.....
Only if they know what they are looking for.
But there are rules? I dont know exactly what is being measured when, for example, testing newly designed speakers but surely there must be standard set of measurements available?
Im not dissmising anything. Its more my desire to understand how it all works:)
D
walpurgis
12-09-2012, 11:47
I suppose the answer to the original point, is to say YES, it is worth paying for premium cables at a price justifiable within the context of the system you use.
The audible benefits are quite clear, just bung a cheapo cable into your system and see if you enjoy it! Your good cable will soon go back in.
I don't see any real need to try to quantify why good cables work, just be glad they are available.
The Grand Wazoo
12-09-2012, 17:49
But there are rules?
The case of cables is a better example, because some people will tell you that they cannot measure a difference between two cables, yet many others can hear an audible effect.
They aren't lying, so the measurement system is inadequate. We don't know how to find the parameters that need to be measured to illustrate the cause of the difference. But the difference is clearly there to be heard.
Music is best measured with your ears! See the quote in green in my signature.
Daniel75
12-09-2012, 20:15
Well:-) Blind tests shows that all those "audible" effects are mere illusions - or at least thats my impression:-)
I guess its all down to common sense and hi-fi "hierarchy" - we know that speakers are very important and we know why. We know that properly acoustically treated room is way more important than any accessories etc.
Not to mention our own limitations - our hearing is deteriorating with age and we all damaged it one way or another.
My biggest hi-fi upgrade so far was visit to house of hearing and getting my ears cleaned:-) I still cannot believe what difference it made.
Still - I do have strong desire to understand how it all works dammit:-)
walpurgis
12-09-2012, 20:29
I don't know who's blind tests you refer to, but on my system the value of decent cables is clearly audible and no illusion!
Blind tests shows that all those "audible" effects are mere illusions - or at least thats my impression:-)
Maybe now you have had your ears cleaned, you should try this again because to put it bluntly, that statement is wrong I'm afraid ;)
No offence meant Dan, but I think even somebody who never listened to music would hear a difference between a basic cable and the MG interconnects I use in my system, it's clearly audible.
I'm a tight arse and there is no way I would have bought them if they hadn't made a difference that significantly improved my system.
Daniel75
12-09-2012, 20:56
Lets not start discussion about blind tests please:) Plenty of examples online. Illusion is incorrect word so apologies.
(nice collection of some examples: http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths )
Anyway - I dont mean to offend anyone guys:) Im keeping my head open. Just investigating because Im curious:)
As for the original question - is it worth paying for premium cables? Well the answer is yes I guess. After the very foundations are sorted properly - like room acoustics.
Oh - thanks to my friend I did check different cables within my system - And I did hear differences - although after few days I couldnt really tell what it was. I ended using this cheap cable http://www.fisual.co.uk/dynamic/eshop_products.set/ref/35/fisual-hollywood-dark-twist-screened-speaker-cable/display.html Much cheaper than all other cables I tried - but somehow suits my taste.
There's only one test that's valid Dan and that's the test you do yourself, with your own system, your own room, your own music and in your own time. And a valid test IMO cannot be concluded in one sitting. You need to know what your system sounds like and be comfortable with it. If you try some cables try them for a few days and then go back to what you had before and see which you prefer. If you can't detect a difference then keep what you have and don't spend any money.
If you are basing your ideas on what people tell you or what your have read about from other so called 'blind tests', then you could be doing yourself an injustice, you should only ever decide something if you have first hand knowledge IMO. Let you own ears help you make up your mind, not a magazine or forum post about a flavour of the month.
If you are curious then try it out for yourself, it's also a lot of fun as well as educational - you might just surprise yourself too ;)
Daniel75
12-09-2012, 21:19
Im trying:-) I ended with Fisual cable because in my system it somehow works. Interconnects next - its terrifying but fun :)
D
The Grand Wazoo
12-09-2012, 23:33
The price versus quality equation is actually a bit of a red herring. There are some very good, but very cheaply available cables around if you know where to look. There are also some very expensive and not very good cables around. There are also many different permutations of those variables!
The question of whether swapping cables can change the sound of your system is a different question altogether.
The usual arguments are that: in the digital domain, any cable will just transmit the "bits". They either get through or they don't.
Well after spending too many hours to count watching network statistics that demonstrate that the bits "don't" always get through I disagree.
This is exactly right. Anyone who has downloaded compressed .rar files - from usenet for example - knows that they will usually come with parity files to repair the archive. In fact Winrar itself has has a recovery option.
Here's my take, based on nothing more than my own experience and background in broadcast engineering (20-something years ago).
Analogue - to a certain degree, cables will make a difference. Compare bell wire to £1/m cables and you most definitely hear a difference. The wife will back me up on that. When we're talking about more expensive cable comparisons, I remain to be convinced; I'm sure I could easily be swayed if listening to a setup superior to mine (which wouldn't be difficult to achieve).
Digital - when I was training to be a broadcast engineer, digital video was still a young technology - there wasn't any MPEG compression - and NICAM digital stereo had only recently been rolled out nationwide.
Digital audio was encoded in such a way that errors could easily be soothed out; there are some very complex mathematics involved, but they were/are such that it would take some severe damage to occur before the error correction failed.
For digital video, we were given a demonstration by Panasonic. The recorded image was such that there could be a massive dropout on the tape, and there would be no discernible impact on the picture. The digital video decks had four playback heads... three of them had been disconnected, so only 1/4 of the digital information was being read. And the image was perfect.
So, as I understand it, the error correction system in the decoding device is more critical than the quality of the cable carrying the digital signal.
I do, of course, welcome a catch-up course from anyone with up-to-date knowledge.
I do think it's all about system synergy.
I had some Van den Hul speaker cable which made my kit sound bright. Bored, I tried some 4mm twin and earth and the improvement was massive.
5 years later I traded my Croft Epoch Elite in for a VTL 2.5 pre. After the initial euphoria of a new bit of kit I noticed the treble sounded a little dull giving a boring sound. I tried the VdH back in the system and what I had thought were rubbish speaker cables now showed themselves to be top notch!:scratch:
I can't stop listening to my system at the moment.
Steve
realysm42
23-10-2012, 21:56
No hard and fast rules.
sq225917
24-10-2012, 08:07
Agreed on that.
Interesting to me (one of the links posted earlier linked to another article) is the fact that people couldn't tell the difference between a cheap and expensive amp. Or between onboard DACS and off board ones.
Bluntly, there must have been something else wrong in the system.
I recall walking into a hifi shop in Tottenham Court Road in the early 90s and hearing the sweetest sound coming from a system. No idea what that system was - I would have needed a mortgage to pay for it, I suspect. But the beauty of the sound was... well, there is no adjective for it.
When I tested a Mini-T against my Nad 302 - both economy amps - the difference was clear. I didn't know which I was listening to as I fed both with the same source, and the children switched between them for me. The Nad sounded bigger, but the Mini-T was clearer.
Likewise, the DAC issue. Comparing the Caiman+ against the on-board one on my Sony BluRay - it was clear that the Caiman+ produces a more pleasurable sound.
However, years ago when comparing a CD recording and a Minidisc recording of the CD, my opera loving pal preferred MiniDisc. So differences are noticeable.
Maybe the articles are telling us that people CAN tell a difference, but equal numbers prefer difference equipment, and assume the one they prefer is the more expensive. If this were so, I would suspect that the preference for cheaper equipment is because most of us listen to recordings via cheaper equipment, so the clarity of more expensive units isn't what we are used to, so we make the incorrect choice.
I would maintain that to a certain extent, cables do make a difference, but after a certain point (price point?) any difference is psychological. In my system, a £30 set of cables will probably sound no different from a £300 set. In your setups (everyone here seems to have a better system than me) you probably would hear the difference.
"Tellurium Green is the companion cable to Tellurium Ultra Black and is probably more suitable for slightly bright systems as they have a very slight “mellowing” effect."
Yes, I'd agree with that. I tried the Greens and didn't like them (too smooth), whereas I love the Ultra Blacks. I want my signal wide open and untainted.
I must admit that I was disappointed with the Tellurium Q Black speaker cables I bought - impressively 'hifi' over the short haul, but after a few days their welcome wore rather thin and I was relieved to change them. I know of at least a couple of others who share these feelings.
It's probably a system synergy thing, as some folk do love 'em!
What was the problem for me? .... ummm, in a nutshell, they just didn't hold my attention, dynamic inflection was muted -- they didn't boogie! I came to realise over the course of a few days that the music sounded much less interesting.
I found this with the TQ Black too when I changed from the Blue. All the "boogie factor", resolution and dynamics vanished that I was getting from the Blue. Returned to the Blue once more and all the life and vitality has returned to my music :yay:
I found this with the TQ Black too when I changed from the Blue. All the "boogie factor", resolution and dynamics vanished that I was getting from the Blue. Returned to the Blue once more and all the life and vitality has returned to my music :yay:
Which is the opposite of what someone else found recently with the Blues..compared to the Belkin!
Funny old game this... :scratch:
Yes, but they where on the end of a Class D amp who's output is highly dependent on what load is presented to it.
Perhaps WAD 62 could perform his 'bit perfect' test, outlined in Digital Expressions, BUT insert a cheap digital cable at the end of the chain between his Touch and DAC and then tell us what happens.
Talking about 'bit-perfect' transmission of a digital cable is missing the point completely. Any cable that cannot preserve the data should be thrown away right now.
The reason that digital cables sound different from each other is nothing to do with data loss; it involves preservation of the waveform (how square is the squarewave) and thereby induced jitter (timing distortion); reflections; induced noise. These things affect the receiving DAC by different amounts depending on the DAC's topology. So digital cables behave differently and are DAC dependent. Synergy again.
Hi-ya Martin. Sorry I'm struggling to get my head around this. Are you saying that even if data arrives at the DAC bit perfect, said data can have vagaries about or within it, induced by jitter and caused by the cable that affects the sound? I understood (misunderstood?) that problems known as jitter were to do with the timing of sent data and resulted in data that was not bit perfect. What you are saying is that data can be bit perfect but still not good enough for the DAC to make effective use of it? Is that right?
If something is said to be "bit perfect", that means that the bits are all there in the right order, possibly you might infer that they arrive at the correct time too.
If I give you a piece of paper with clear and detailed instructions on it yet you try to read it in the dark then that's not a fault in the received instructions is it?
The receiver at the DAC end has to be able to electrically pick up each part of the signal, it does so by detecting the edges of the supposedly square waveform being sent to it. If those signals are rounded at the edges then the receiver might not detect the exact intended start of that part of the signal and therefore pick it up late.
The data is all there bit perfectly, and all arriving at the right time but it's been shaped in a way so that the receiver can't read it properly.
Remember, ALL electrical signals are analogue including a s/pdif signal ! Nothing is digital in the physical world, only metaphorically or idealistically. A supposedly perfect digital signal is still only an analogue square-wave and to create a perfect analogue square-wave, you need infinate bandwidth which is impossible.
You could argue that quantum states are digital but that's for another time perhaps...
One would think then that a good optical system would be best.. I'd have thought it was much easier to create a good optical square wave (of light shutting on and off really fast without dimming in between) but perhaps it's too expensive?
Reid Malenfant
25-10-2012, 20:38
The reason that digital cables sound different from each other is nothing to do with data loss; it involves preservation of the waveform (how square is the squarewave) and thereby induced jitter (timing distortion); reflections; induced noise. These things affect the receiving DAC by different amounts depending on the DAC's topology. So digital cables behave differently and are DAC dependent. Synergy again.
This is even more so the case with HDMI cables, which have a much higher data rate.
If you don't believe the case for digital audio cables, then see what a difference a good HDMI cable makes to your TV picture ;)
Then think about it backwards, a lower data rate can still have problems with cables, depending on the design & matching with the equipment.
The worse thing Sony & Philips ever did was decide to use phono connectors for the S/PDIF interface.
75 ohm BNCs are vastly superior imho.
AES/EBU balanced is even better... In my experience a cheap MIDI cable fitted with XLR connectors will better a very expensive digital cable fitted with phono connectors :eyebrows:
Hi-ya Martin. Sorry I'm struggling to get my head around this. Are you saying that even if data arrives at the DAC bit perfect, said data can have vagaries about or within it, induced by jitter and caused by the cable that affects the sound? I understood (misunderstood?) that problems known as jitter were to do with the timing of sent data and resulted in data that was not bit perfect. What you are saying is that data can be bit perfect but still not good enough for the DAC to make effective use of it? Is that right?
Largely correct. The DAC is affected by all these parameters but not so much that it won't convert the data to analogue, it simply won't sound as optimal as if the data waveform were a perfectly timed square-edged noise-free representation of the original data.
Thanks for the above. A couple of other questions. Would I be correct, then, in thinking then that this problem would also affect signals arriving at, say, a digital recorder of some sort. I am imaging a situation where data is sent back and forth or along a daisy chain of digital recorders. Would the data, in a chinese whispers sort of way, eventually become degraded to a point of it being unusable? I'm also thinking of, perhaps, a Flac file on a peer to peer network, it must get bounced back and forth along many miles of wire before arriving at an end user. Have the effects of this kind of transfer been recorded?
No - each stage in the chain is likely to 'reclock' the data in order to record or store it. It's only the final store-to-transmission-to-DAC link that will determine the sound quality, as long as the data remains integral.
sq225917
26-10-2012, 07:28
You can bounce your flac file around the world a million times, like any digital file going over a computer network each byte is error checked at every stage of transmission. Digital audio really doesn't have the same level of error checking built in to every stage, typically there is no error checking between the back of the transport and the dac.
It's a great shame that data can go on such a tortuous journey unadulterated only to be let down by the bit of wire on the last leg. Is there a reason DAC's cannot error check in the way you describe?
The effects we're describing are not due to a lack of error checking of the data.
Sorry Martin, I was nearly there, but now I'm lost again. To me it seems that there are contradictions in the various explanations. sq225917 is saying that error correction maintains the integrity of the data. If all the DAC needs is accurate data and that can be achieved by error correction then I cannot see how the wire can play a part in sound degradation.
Stratmangler
27-10-2012, 15:04
Look to the bit about limitations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF
Look to the bit about limitations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF
I'd like to know where their figure of 10m for the maximum cable length comes from. I wouldn't want it to be > 1m.
Thanks for the link Chris. Reference no. 5 included a readable explanation of what I have been trying to get my head around. Ironically my older Cambridge Audio Discmagic and IsoDac had a seperate Toslink for the clock data and I know optical cables were recommended because of their resistance to RF interference. The Rega DAC I have now sounds much better, though, even without the separate clock lock cable. It might be worth trying a better cable.
I'd like to know where their figure of 10m for the maximum cable length comes from. I wouldn't want it to be > 1m.
Its in the spec for consumer SPDIF. And in fact given the typical rise time of the signal in most commercial products you don't want to be under 1m due to signal reflection issues.
Sorry Martin, I was nearly there, but now I'm lost again.
What I'm getting at is that errors in the data transmission (i.e. lack of integrity of the data) would be horrible and sound extremely bad. You would know about it immediately as you rushed to turn it off.
What we are talking about is subtle distortions in the timing (jitter) and noise added to the signal. These affect DACs differently, depending on how the DAC clocks the data and its power supplies. This is where different cables perform differently.
Thanks Martin. I now get where you're coming from. I use two feeds to my Rega DAC, one from a Squeezebox Duet and one from a Discmagic transport. Weirdly, I always think the Duet sounds slightly better, but I had put this down to alcohol, as I turn to the Duet when I get too drunk to bother with CD's. I am now wondering if the cables might be an issue. Both are Cambridge Audio, but one is much older and appears to be more like a TV coaxial, the other is thicker and more flexible. It's the one in Barry's experiment here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20177. I'll swop them and see if I can hear any difference.
Andrew - if the transport has different S/PDIF outputs, try them both. Sometimes an optical output will be better designed and can outperform the co-ax output (especially if there is a lot of local RFI and nose, which the optical cable will not even see).
I would recommend going onto Blue Jeans Cable and ordering a 5m length of (preferably) Belden 1695A, but B1505F is fine. I use the supplied velcro strap to keep most of it in a coil.
They use Canare RCAs or BNC (I use a combination of BNC/BNC and BNC/RCA), which is as good as you're going to get with regard to impedance matching.
I believe that this cable would outperform any other at any price really for well under £100.
This is interesting reading especially given the current discussion & where I got the idea to use very long SPDIF cables (to control signal reflections): http://web.archive.org/web/20080205113300/http://www.analogresearch-technology.net/ubyte.html
An extract:
"Suppose that undesired signal (let's call it a reflection, because that is what it is) arrives at the decision point. You know, the point in the data stream where the bit is recognised as either a "1" or a "0". While the reflection is always of a small enough level that it will not cause an error (a "1" will always be "1", and a "0" will always be a "0"), it does something really sneaky.
It changes to point it time that the "1" is recognised as a "1", or the "0" is recognised as a "0". And that, our friends, is what is known as jitter. The digital value is correct, but it is off by just a little bit in the time domain."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.