Good value speaker cable advice please.

googler

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Perhaps pre-emphasis was applied to the recording to counter inefficiencies in those terrible braided cables that some like to spend a fortune on?

Maybe they tried a number of different recordings?

kwikbreaks

googler wrote: »

Maybe they tried a number of different recordings?

There's a lot of maybes. I have my own view of the most likely maybe but I'll keep that one to myself.

Anyway - I have some jobs I must get on with today so I'll put this fascinating subject to one side for now.

aliEnRIK

We did try several recordings.

Fifer

tomstickland wrote: »

Hi-fi mags etc never seem to bother measuring anything.

Some do extensive lab testing as a matter of fact.

Hammyman

Fifer wrote: »

Some do extensive lab testing as a matter of fact.

Indeed they do and they come up with all manner of figures which prove from a scientific and measurable point that one cable is or isn't better than another. This there is no doubt about. But if all cables meet the requirements as I previously mentioned and do not impede the signal being transmitted to the speakers to any worthwhile amount, then a person listening is not going to be able to tell the difference from one cable to another because to put it quite simply, the human ear isn't that accurate. And if they do hear a difference, its because the cable didn't meet Rule 1: Meet minimum requirements, in the first place.

Technical results don't give the whole picture. We all know that CD is infinitely more accurate than vinyl records at sound production yet when The Gadget Show did a blind test, Vinyl won. Figures produced from a lab test don't mean a whole lot on the whole. "Can reproduce accurate sound to 192kHz" is pretty meaningless seeing as only the dog can probably hear frequencies that high.

Fifer

Hammyman wrote: »

Indeed they do and they come up with all manner of figures which prove from a scientific and measurable point that one cable is or isn't better than another.

I wasn't referring specifically to cables.

Hammyman wrote: »

if all cables meet the requirements as I previously mentioned and do not impede the signal being transmitted to the speakers to any worthwhile amount, then a person listening is not going to be able to tell the difference from one cable to another because to put it quite simply, the human ear isn't that accurate. And if they do hear a difference, its because the cable didn't meet Rule 1: Meet minimum requirements, in the first place.

There are no 'minimum requirements'. Impedance, conductivity, capacitance, current rating and every other possible specified parameter are continuums along which, there is no magic point beyond which things cannot improve or deteriorate. And the point at which specific human ears will be unable to audibly differentiate will vary massively from person to person.

Hammyman wrote: »

Technical results don't give the whole picture. We all know that CD is infinitely more accurate than vinyl records at sound production yet when The Gadget Show did a blind test, Vinyl won. Figures produced from a lab test don't mean a whole lot on the whole. "Can reproduce accurate sound to 192kHz" is pretty meaningless seeing as only the dog can probably hear frequencies that high.

I agree that results tell nothing like the whole picture (and have never suggested that they did, but not that CD is infinitely more accurate than vinyl (although I prefer CD).

I'm intrigued to know however, if testing doesn't tell the whole picture, how you can know if a cable meets the 'minimum requirement'?

googler

Hammyman wrote: »

Technical results don't give the whole picture. We all know that CD is infinitely more accurate than vinyl records at sound production yet when The Gadget Show did a blind test, Vinyl won.

Figures produced from a lab test don't mean a whole lot on the whole. "Can reproduce accurate sound to 192kHz" is pretty meaningless seeing as only the dog can probably hear frequencies that high.

How is CD 'more accurate' ?

What's 'accurate' about breaking an original sound up 48000 times per second, assigning a value to each of those 48000 samples , storing this data, then electronically reconstituting it back into a representation of the original?

Maybe only dogs can hear the high frequencies, but I can recall listening test reports from a few years back where the HiFi mags tested speakers with and without 'supertweeters' that extended beyond 20kHz, and formed the conclusion that with the supertweeters in place, the bass end sounded better......

aliEnRIK

googler wrote: »

Maybe only dogs can hear the high frequencies, but I can recall listening test reports from a few years back where the HiFi mags tested speakers with and without 'supertweeters' that extended beyond 20kHz, and formed the conclusion that with the supertweeters in place, the bass end sounded better......

Ive had the same experience. Although ive found older people tend to have them set too high (Hurts my ears at times)

fwor

googler wrote: »

What's 'accurate' about breaking an original sound up 48000 times per second, assigning a value to each of those 48000 samples , storing this data, then electronically reconstituting it back into a representation of the original?

That's a very good point, but if comparing with vinyl, you do have to take into account the inaccuracies that are inherent in that format - such as the non-linear frequency response that is usually only corrected in an approximate fashion, and the fact that it requires physical contact, meaning that a vinyl record deteriorates every time you play it.

At least a CD should be inherently more consistent - in theory the thousandth time you play a CD on a specific player should sound identical to the first.

Fifer

fwor wrote: »

At least a CD should be inherently more consistent - in theory the thousandth time you play a CD on a specific player should sound identical to the first.

Assuming nothing in the laser tracking mechanism deteriorated over those thousand listenings?