No mate I am not deaf, I have a system that many simply do not believe, but cables no. I hear the difference between a class 'A' amp and a class 'B' amp, I can hear the size of a room when someone is speaking in over a mobile phone, I can hear a clock ticking on a phone call, but I cannot hear the differences between cables. I recognise the sonic signature of a reflex speaker, I hear the deficiencies of FM broadcast or MP3 encoding or a room and it's acoustics but not a cable, so not deaf, maybe not stupid either. John...
Oh no no no I don't think so mate, no I think the difference is that I hear a difference first, rather than get told about one and then claim to hear it, if my system 'just aint good enough to show up the differences' why did I spend several hundred on acoustic treatment for the room, and hear the difference, why did I modify the speakers and hear a difference.
Tell me why have I spent a lifetime in Hi Fi, sound reproduction and electronics and never heard a difference, well the answer is quite simple, for the most part there is no difference. Check out the cable tests, check out any true ABX test and I think you will find that I am not alone, talk to any professional in the field, feature film recordists, BBC sound engineers they all concur, it is only amateur enthusiasts that bang on about cables.
Please don't for one minute suggest that a system I have arrived at over many years is 'not good enough' to tell the difference. I first took an interest in sound at the age of thirteen, I am now sixty one, do you think in all that time that I would not have noticed a difference if there was one, maybe it was that I had such crap equipment that it was not apparent, like electrostatic speakers and a Radford valve amp and Thorens top range turntable, a set up so obviously average that I should be forgiven for not hearing the subtle differences that you claim to hear.
Having spent a life time at the professional end of audio do you really think that I would not have come across the differences you claim, do you think other professionals would not have picked up on the massive differences that you describe, would the phone companies or the broadcast studios not have realised what they are missing, no, the whole concept of a cable changing the sound is a 'non starter', if we can get Hi res video down 100M of cable with no depredation then getting audio down 0.5M is a 'no brainer', Hello wake up, any half decent cable does not have a sound.
Been thinking about cables and what you say in essence is correct, any well made copper interconnect or speaker cable will do the job perfectly well, they will transfer the signal from A to B and when measured will show no obvious degradation.
But there is more to it than this, i have been trying to think of someone who is well respected in the hifi industry who designs hifi equipment for himself and for many other companies and also designs and markets cables, I have come up with Denis Morecroft of DNM fame, among his notable inventions are slit foil and T network capacitors and star grounding schemes, he has designed and sells a range of amplifiers and cables.
see http://www.dnm.co.uk/ he designed an interconnect and speaker cable which i feel reinforces my position on cables
see DNM Cables This site is well worth a read and i look forward to comments.
PS. Sorry Carl i know this is more that a yes or a no but i hope you think it is worth it.
I do talk to BBC professionals/hi manufacturers/studio engineers (and I mean big-selling records -studios ) actually-died in the wool 20yrs+ professionals-and guess what, they all 100% agree cables make a difference!
At 61 -youve already lost most of your higher frequencies-not trying to be rude-just stating facts.
But there is more to it than this, i have been trying to think of someone who is well respected in the hifi industry who designs hifi equipment for himself and for many other companies and also designs and markets cables
...and as a counter to this, could I remind you of Roger Russell's site and this page in particular. If ever there was a guy with a proven track record in the industry, it is he. As an American, his name is less familiar to us than the likes of Peter Walker, Gilbert Briggs, Harold Leak, John Linsley Hood et al. but his influence and experience is undeniable. Read his entire site - everyone has something to learn from it. Russell soundly condemns much of the rubbish often spouted about cables but why was the subject of cabling never even mentioned by the luminaries mentioned above, who defined many of the engineering principles that remain valid to this day? Do you not feel that if the issue of interconnection had any importance, it would have occurred to those visionary minds that this was a subject worthy of further research?
...and there is the key. Once you are selling something as dubious as fancy cables, logic and common sense have to be abandoned in favour of the type of nonsense required to relate to potential customers for these products.
Mo Jo, I don't think anybody is denying that cables have the potential to make a difference, it's just that the differences are entirely predictable by a few simple formulae widely known to electrical engineers. No magic, just the combination of L, C & R interacting with the source and load networks.
Throw in the confusion caused by the inherent design weakness of the RCA phono connector, some dirt and grime and the brilliant marketing strategies of those who sell fancy cables plus the obsessive-compulsive nature of many audiophiles and there you have the bizarre mess we enjoy today.
Maybe we should (including myself) go back to the yes or no answers to which the forum began with, otherwise other people may not vote or Carls original intention of a poll may get lost in this debate.
I am sure you will agree people like Denis Morecroft whom are respected world wide and have a serious reputation in the electronics industry would not sell any product that they did not think was 100% genuine backed up with technical proof of which i am sure he would provide upon request along with an in depth explanation.
You may well not agree with his explanation but it would be wise to thoroughly check it out before dismissing it.
Just back from 3 hours of solid gardening then sat down here for some relaxation and read this...
You've been putting ideas into John's head...
So this is where he's been getting all this "resistance is King" stuff.....
One thing this article conclusively proves is that you and John are completely deaf (...and so for that matter am I )
Couple of things I notice though is that the Writer starts by saying Resistance is the key factor then goes on to add that this statement incorporates a variety of impedance elements! Now you Pluto - being the particular guy that you are - should be objecting to these premises immediately because impedance and resistance are entirely different things, although they can have the same effect.
It's also regrettable that although he gives plenty of wire sizes, and some indication of R, he disdains to supply impedance-vs-frequency data on longer lengths of said cables - so comparatively littel in the way of real data....meaning that this diatribe could be judged to be as much hearsay as all the other stuff we are bombarded with ?
(Reason I say this is he quotes a source which claimed identifiable differences of as little as 0.2db wideband (except HF))
In the final analysis all this could be great with 4 ohms at 10K but what about 1 ohm? Do we quarter his recommended lengths???
Dont want to close what is a great discussion, but ! is it possible to take the chat to the interconnects thread ? so that others who may want to vote, will not feel "pressured" into debating, and just pass this thread by ? thanks All. ...........Carl.