The thing that bothers me most about interconnect discussions, and what drives me crazy about people and companies who champion expensive speaker and interconnect cable - is the total lack of any testable evidence supporting opinions or products. The most compelling proof given is "I heard it".

Although I dont have a problem with the opinion that a well constructed $10 - $20 cable might be a bit better than a $2.50 radioshack special, anything beyond that I'm losing respect for you.

The biggest laugh (next to "burn-in" - not even going to touch that one) is people who claim wonderful increases in audio quality .. in areas such as "sound stage" "warmth" etc. when upgrading their digital audio interconnects. The only thing travelling through there is a digital datastream. the ONLY possible improvement I could see would be if you were experiencing skips in your audio due to a cable SO poor that you were dropping data along the way. I once read about a guy who sent his ac-3 signal through a coathanger to a hugely expensive dolby digital decoder that had an error counter on it .. that counted a whopping 0 errors over several hours.


When turning to the internet for answers, it seems the only sites or studies that offer any actual scientific or otherwise verifiable comparisons all come to the same conclusion .. interconnects are the biggest hoax / scam going.

Here's a link to a double blind study comparing stuff like $1000 speaker cable vs 16guage zipcord and expensive interconnects vs $2.50 rca cables.
http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

heres a post from John Dunlavy (Dunlavy Audio Labs) on the subject:
http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html

nice story about interconnect company refusing to take part in any actual scientific testing:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

finally, if you want to read a bunch more, check out http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html

It has the link to the coathanger test i mentioned above, but it seems to be down.

I'm not looking for an argument, as it is obvious those who believe in this subject will not have their stance swayed - I just wanted to get it off my chest. Also I'm not much for checking over my typing/spelling, so I apologize in advance.

Happy listening.

- pink

To play devil's advocate...

I find it interesting that you write off the "I heard it" proof so easily. As anybody who actually enjoys home theater will tell you, the single most important factor in assembling your custom built system, in the end, is how it sounds to your ears.

If that is the case, wouldn't the fact that people hear (or even just think they hear) what they perceive as an improvement in sound quality, be justification enough?

I personally don't have an investment in, nor have I done a comparison with, expensive interconnects. However, I very likely will get some outlaw interconnects one day when I have a few thousand to sink in to improving my HT and upgrade to an HDTV (or better), a 950/770 combo, and bigger & better Bostons!

Additionally, I notice you were quick to negate the concept of "burn in". Again, I refer you to my previous argument about what the end user perceives. However, I can say this. My speakers took on a, I'll use the word different so as not to try and quantify the change, different sound after everything had been connected and running for a few days. Since I didn't alter any settings after my initial setup, I can only assume the change was due to your easily dismissed "burn in" phenomenon.

I respect your right to your own opinion and I certainly am not trying to change your mind or start an argument. Just stating what I have observed in my own, admittedly limited, experience. Also, like I said at the front, just playing devil's advocate to express an opposing viewpoint.

Thanks for the post and I'll be sure and check some of your links!

Let me just say I'm dismissing "I heard it" only as a evidentiary proof that one interconnect is better than another. I am a firm believer in going with what sounds best, regardless of the price. I often find $1000 speaker sets sounding better to me than some costing 10 times as much. But in that case, and in the case of most parts of your audio system .. there really is a difference in sound - and it by all means is up to the consumer to pick what he or she likes best, regardless of the brand or cost.

The main difference in the case of interconnects is the reluctance of those claiming major sound improvements to participate in double blind trials. There have been several tests conducted where so called "golden eared" audiophiles auditioned what they thought were many different interconnect brands. As they got more expensive (and in some cases, just thicker) of course they heard vast improvement .. when in reality the interconnects never changed once the whole time. There are proven psychological reasons for this phenomenon.

As for burn-in .. I agree with burn-in when it comes to speakers .. new speakers will be a bit "stiff" before they settle into the state they will occupy for most of their existence. But burn in for a cable?

Here is an excerpt from one of many who has taken on the burn-in myth: (long)

"We keep hearing that cables (some will say all audio equipment) should be subjected to various techniques to "stabilise" them. This is generally referred to as burn-in, and after the treatment the item(s) supposedly sound better. To aid this process - of course - many entrepreneurs have slaved away for whole minutes to create CDs with pink noise or some other signal "specially designed" to do the job properly.

So far, I have not seen a shred of evidence that any so-called treatment has any effect whatsoever, other than a psycho-acoustical phenomenon known as "getting used to the sound". This indicates that it is the owner's ears that get burned in, and has nothing to do with the cables.

OK, so I am claiming that there is no change in the cable. I have measured cables (as have many others before me), and normally expect to find three main characteristics and two that are not relevant to audio. These are (respectively) ....

Resistance - influenced by the length and diameter of the conductors, and to a very much smaller degree by the purity of the copper used
Capacitance - influenced by the distance between the conductors and the insulation material. The capacitance is also proportional to the length of the cable.
Inductance - influenced by the cable length, diameter, spacing, and the amount of twist between the conductors
Self resonance - in any cable suitable for audio this is insignificant, as it is (or should be) so far out from the audio spectrum that it will have no effect whatsoever
Impedance - all cable has a characteristic impedance, and like self resonance it is meaningless for audio unless interconnects or speaker leads are many kilometres in length - this is unusual.
To some degree, the above comments are tempered a little when radio frequency interference (RFI) is present, but it will ultimately be the way the cable is terminated that makes a difference (rather than the cable itself).
It must be understood from the outset that cables are not very smart. In fact, they are bereft of any knowledge of anything. Indeed, their own existence is unknown to them, and their memory is much shorter even than that of a goldfish. This rather generalised statement applies to the conducting and non-conducting (insulating) materials alike.

A cable has no interest in the current flowing in it (or not) unless it is greater than the current carrying capacity of the conductors, in which case it will get hot (or perhaps only warm). This increases the resistance, but only for as long as the overload lasts, and until the cable returns to ambient temperature. This will take a few minutes at the most.

As long as the temperature is kept well below the melting point of the insulation (or the copper), no permanent change occurs. This is an extreme example, since in practice most cables are at room temperature, and may gain but a fraction of a degree even at maximum amplifier power. Any current that may have flowed at some time is instantly forgotten.

Likewise, the insulation is not the least interested in the voltage that may have existed between the conductors once it has gone away - again making a valid assumption that the output voltage from the amplifier will not cause the insulation to break down, allowing the signal to arc between the conductors. There are some very minor effects with all insulators (dielectrics), where a short memory effect can be noted, but this is not at all significant for audio, and even less so in the long term.

The end result of this is that cable burn-in is an invalid concept. More than just invalid, it is an attempt to convince you (the buyer) that the reason the expensive cable(s) you just bought don't make any appreciable difference, is that they haven't been given the necessary treatment, so you should buy this CD (or some other overpriced piece of equipment) to rectify the situation.

The simple fact of the matter is that changes in room temperature will cause a far greater variation in the characteristics of a cable than pink noise applied for a minimum of 37.5 hours. At the end of the "treatment" the cable will still exhibit exactly the same resistance, capacitance and inductance as before - so what has changed? And the answer is .... nothing.

There are electrical principles that exist despite any marketing hype. The hype and bullshit does not affect these principles in the least, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to a cable with a normal signal that it will remember or that change its long term characteristics."

- pink.

Well, I am just going down to Radio Shack and get their gold interconnects. I am convinced that they will be as good as the $300.00+ CABLES. The links about double blind testing makes sense to me. As Pink stated, digital is digital, just 1's and 0's, and they either get through or they don't. If cable companies could really prove a difference, don't you all think they would? I mean where are the proven specs? Where are the documented studies that prove one cable is better than another. I don't see any of the cable manufactures supplying that info, so that tell be they cannot.
Darth

Wouldn't it be nice when we come to the day when EVERY interconnect in our systems, except perhaps those between the pre/pro and the amp, are digital? Then, I suppose quality of interconnects wouldn't matter. (For the record, I don't believe it will matter. Bits are bits, as long as you're not dropping them. I also don't quite understand why people say that coax SP/DIF interconnects are better or will sound "warmer" than Toslink SP/DIF interconnects.)

My system, however, is going to have a fair amount of analog interconnects running through it. (I'm still waiting for the 950.) I had been planning on using a bunch of Outlaw short stacks for all this. I can believe that Outlaw cables, for analog interconnects will make a difference, especially in a quality system. If I were buying a $200 receiver and $150 speakers, then maybe the selection of interconnects wouldn't matter.

Does anybody think I won't be able to tell the difference between Outlaw cables and Radio Shack cables? Maybe I should buy a load of Radio Shack cables first, and compare them?

Another question I have: I've seen people recommend different cable types for interconnects between components and between the pre/pro and amp. To me, it seems like you'd want to use the same cable all around. Is there any reason to use something more expensive / different between the pre/pro and the amp than between the CD player and the pre/pro?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Why can't we all just get along? Why does people who don't believe in cables always want to prove to us that we are wrong? And all these analytical studies and scientific explanations. Do you think that will convince me that I am wrong about what I hear?

I want to just focus on the sound quality a cable can make for just a minute. We'll talk about price and burn-in in a few minutes. About a month ago, a friend and I did an A/B test between the Cardas Quadlink-Five C and Kimber Cable's PBJ. FYI, the Cardas is about $200 for a 1 meter pair RCA terminated and the PBJ is about $84 a meter pair. Both of these cables are fairly well regarded in the HiFi world. Not bank breakers but good for an entry level HiFi or MidFi system. We tested these cables on my friend's system which consist of the following components:

CD: Arcam CD72
Speaker: Sonas Fabor Concertino
Preamp: Marantz SR-880 MKII
Amp: B&K ST-2140
Speaker Cables: Monster Z2 Biwire cable

I know you won't believe me and may think I am nuts, but the difference between the Cardas and Kimber was night and day. The Cardas was layback and warm while Kimber was forward and precise. The difference was so obvious even my wife notice it and she couldn't care less about the whole thing. But despite the difference in sound, it wasn't like there was a sure winner in which was the better cable. My friend prefer the Cardas, saying that it sounded more natural to him while I much prefer the PBJ for it's clarity and air.

When it comes to burn-in and stuff like that I am kind of on the fence on this issue. Yes, I do think my speakers and cables sounds better after playing them for a while. Usually at least a couple of days if not more. My Paradigm Reference speakers took a lot longer to really sound good to me and I do believe some of which is psychological. Therefore I cannot offer any scientific evidence on this and I think we'll just have to let each person make up his/her own mind about burn-in.

Just because I believe that cables make a difference does not mean I think cable prices are reasonable. Some manufacturers way over charges for their products. It's all part of salesmanship. You charge what you can get. Each industry has it's own business models. And the premium audio cable business, which is very low volume need that higher markup in order to be profitable. Not often do you get a company like Outlaw that breaks the traditional business model and succeed.

I am happy for those of you who do not hear a difference in cables because that means you do not have to spend a lot of time and money on finding that perfect cable for your system. I wished that I had never A/B compared my first HT speaker system, JBL NSP1 to Paradigm Monitor 3's and discover the world of HiFi. Ever since that day, it's almost as if I am on a mission to find that perfect sound in my listening room. But I sure don't need anyone to tell me that I my crazy for "hearing" things that are not suppose to be there b/c of the laws of electricity and physics says that the cable couldn't make a difference to the sound. It does to me. Pure and simple. So this gets me back to my first statement, why can't we all just get along? Don't pick on me and my kind and I won't think that you're tone-deaf, o.k.? Deal?

[This message has been edited by mxy15 (edited December 06, 2001).]

I think mxy15 said exactly what I've been thinking for some time now. Obviously, a lot of the cables out there are obscenely priced, which I think we can all agree on. Some people think the whole idea of "good cables" vs. "bad cables" is nonsense -- I understand the reasoning, even if my experience doesn't necessarily match the sometimes compelling logic. Other people can listen to two different cables and hear a (sometimes drastic) difference, and based on the difference they hear they will decide what cables they want to use. Rather than fight with each other over who is "right," I suggest we all just enjoy our systems. If you're somewhere in the middle and not sure if you would get any benefit from expensive cables, go borrow some from a local audio store and give them a listen. If something like the Radio Shack Gold sound as good to you as some MIT or Transparent cables, stick with the Radio Shack and be happy. I'll also add that Outlaw's PCA's might offer a nice middle ground -- great cables priced on par with or below the Monster Cable junk at Best Buy.

It all goes back to one of the best rules to this whole hobby -- get the equipment you like. That's the only really important part.

Well, I liked reading MXY15's reply the best so far. My hope in talking about cables was to find out how much I needed to spend to get the most out of my investment. I too plan on buying the 950 combo. I still do not know if Radio Shack Gold cables will do the job, since I cannot return the Outlaw's cables I will not be able to do any type of sound test against them. So I am still on the fence as to what cables to buy. But I agree with MYX15, that to each his own. After all it is our money we are spending.
I kinda wish I was tone deaf, then I could stay with my old stereo system, and save the pocket book.

Also, how come our wifes never care about sound systems? I know they are from Venus, and we men are from Mars, but I thought Venus had some fine music.
Darth

Or is it maybe just you dismissing tested evidence because it didn't follow your own sense of how a test should be completed?



How many interconnects have you tried? I'm sorry to say that $10-20 for an interconnect means the manufacture has to be able to build it out for $2-4 (need to build in profit for manufacture, distributors, dealers, plus marketing and misc overhead costs), that's what about a whole 2 minutes of man hours to insure a quality product? So tell me how good of a product you can make for that money? Could you even build your own for that money?



JITTER, your post here reads like you're taking a whole bunch of stuff you read off the net, and kind of assembling it together. Because if you were 100% up on your digital audio trivia, you would know that there is also regular non-digital information sent along with the bits. Have you ever measured a digital coax cable, specifically one of your $10-20 models? Did it measure out to full spec? Did you still get quality in that price range?



The good ol' ABX test, where are the specs of the test? How was the ABX box hooked up? A test of 7 listeners is pretty much as far from conclusive as you can get. And if you read the results, 50% of the time somebody heard a difference...so while inconclusive data, it's still far from 0%.



I suppose that's why Dunlavy now sells $500 speaker cables and $200 interconnects.



Call the company in question and get their side of the story. Or do you just blindly follow one side of a story?

As you mentioned, the wire debate will never end. There will always be people who believe and those that don't. So I'm a believer in cables, and I think you do need to spend more than $10-20 to get a good quality cable, most of the time. There are of course exceptions, but they are going to be few and far between. On the other hand, I don't think you need to spend thousands of dollars on cables either. Go hit AudioAdvisor and do a search on interconnects, and then list them by price. There are lots of good quality interconnects in there for a very reasonable price.

Andrew

This is a dangerous subject. Somewhat like religion. There's no measurable evidence so you must take it on faith.

Andrew is dead wrong about analog information on the digital cables. This is one subject that is not a matter of conjecture; functional digital cables cannot sound different. Optical and electrical interfaces cannot sound different. If they do then one is dropping data; period.

Interconnects and speaker cables do not break-in and are not directional. Both would be very bad for audio. If they actually physically changed then they should where out after a period of time; all the more reason to avoid the high dollar items. If they exhibited any directional qualities the result would be distortion which we don't want.

Now for an unsolicited plug. I usually build my own interconnects. I buy the rca connectors from ACI, they are DH Labs cheap $6.00 RCA SS-1. I use some rather expensive mini-coax I have laying around which we uses for single ended 155 mbit NRZ data transfers up to 30 meters (Barely works at 30 meters by the way). It has your standard foam Teflon dielectric, silver coated wire and is fully shielded . I'm going to buy the Outlaw cables. They have better connectors and I don't have to spend an evening building cable. My guess is that equivalent connectors would run $10 or more retail so I really see no reason not to buy the Outlaw cables. The Outlaw optical cables look quality also.

Can I hear the difference between the Outlaw cables and the ones that came in the box? Probably not; I doubt I can tell the difference between a 10 KHz sine wave and a 10 KHz square wave either. But the Outlaw cables do provide a corrosion resistant, air tight connection that will not require attention for a long time. I personally believe that the connectors and lugs are more important for line level audio cables than the cable itself, within reason of course.

I really don't think dielectric absorption is an issue with speaker level audio signals. Building/buying expensive cables with Teflon or polypropylene dielectric is overkill. A low inductance design is desirable. Check out posts from Jon Risch on audio asylum. He had a web page that illustrated building speaker cables from a high quality Beldon cable. While I don't really buy into this, building your own cables will save you a lot of cash. I will most likely use the flat 12 GA Monster cable so I can run it under the carpet, $1.50 per foot.

I really think that your money is best spent on better speakers. They are the only thing in the signal path that you hear. The John Dunlavy link is more eloquent than my post and I agree with most of his comments. Expensive cables usually have good terminations and connectors which is the only advantage they offer.