Expensive compnent /HDMI leads... Why...?

[atpbx]

He probably has some sense as well.

 

[james.miller]

Funny thing is some people are so against the thought that a cable changes the signature of a given piece of equipment that they will themselves into believing a change is impossible and therefore aren’t really interested in wanting to find out. Nevertheless changes are made and input/output circuits will behave differently usually within a group of frequencies. Hence the term dull, natural, bass heavy and bright cables. None of this is science fiction but actual fact. Analogue audio is very susceptible to these changes but it is not always discernable by the listener in their set of variables. Test equipment arguments are again a waste of time. So you really can fine tune equipment with different cables. But what's important to realise is that the best cables ,in price points we can afford, need not make an perceivable or beneficial difference unless, you can experiment with many types and more to the point have equipment can benefit from the changes.

Any audible change can be measured in some way. test equipment of course would show up any differences we cant hear, so it is far from a a waste of time. This is something so many advocates of ludicrously expensive cables seem to avoid. Analogue cables do make a difference of course, true of interconnects and speaker leads. these arent analogue cables though, and different rules apply.

 

[-Ad-]

Jesus that is a dissertation

 

[Mr.Bon]

wasnt this covered in a programme on tv a few months back?

Yeah...

The Gadget Show did a brief article on this and compared a cheap cable to a £120 one and found no difference.

£20 Logitech HDMI cable vs £100+ HDMI cable = no difference!!!!!!!

 

[MikeHunt79]

You realise the markup on some of these boutique cables is something stupid like 5000%? The sales people also get far more commission on cables due to this...

 

[oli collett]

Interesting, i was just about to post about this topic.

Over the past few weeks i've been getting more frustrated atempting to debate this on a hi-fi forum (fortunately not what hi-fi, otherwise i'd be slitting my wrists by now). I've since been repremanded because i'm apparently stirring ****.

There's a big, big problem with the hi-fi industry as a whole, in that nearly all tests carried out on hi-fi equipment are subjective and non-scientific, giving rise to a lot of products on the market today making rather dubious claims.

Here's the thing, how many people, before buying a new piece of hi-fi equipment, have seen the results of a true scientific test carried out on the equipment? By this i do not mean testing the THD, power ratings or whatever, i mean a test that demonstrates whether a listener can tell the difference with the equipment? Such a test is not hard to do using an A/B/X method (see: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295)

Once you start questioning why people spend a fortune on HDMI leads, you then start asking bigger questions about the hi-fi industry. The reality is, cabling makes sod all difference to your hi-fi system. Hatman might think otherwise with his Nordost cabling, but tests carried out in controlled conditions will tell you otherwise. It's not hard to work out why hi-fi mags don't tell you this though, is it?

The most common sense i've heard lately with regards to hi-fi is to invest your money in speakers. Why? Think about what a speaker has to do compared to the rest of your components.

 

[james.miller]

this isnt true. the reality is cables do make a difference, but it inst a difference tied to the cost of the cables. as far as speaker cables go, inductance and capacitance can have a large effect on the final output.

Difficult Loads
While it is true that reasonable quality twin cables (figure eight or zip cord) are adequate for nominal 8 ohm loads over short distances, there are a number of popular loudspeakers that are anything but nominal at high frequencies.

Two that a reader advised me about are the AR11 and the Quad ESL (old model). Both of these drop below 2 ohms in the treble frequencies. The AR bottoming out at 5kHz and the Quad at 18Khz (although anything from 15kHz to 18kHz is common). The dips are fairly sharp and so the load impedance is highly capacitive on the way down and inductive on the way up. The frequencies are high enough to not worry good amplifiers but what about the response at these dip frequencies?

Twin wire cables all have significant inductance which increases in proportion to length. With 10 amp rated twin flex over only 5 metres the response was down by 2.5 dB into one Quad ESL at 18 Khz, and 3.5 dB into the other speaker which had 8 metres. This was audible and unacceptable.

The only way to reduce cable linear inductance is to make the two wires talk to each other. Running in close parallel is a start, tight twisting is better but only by using multiple wires for each and interweaving can you really get the inductance down. Several cable makers have done this and sell them as low impedance cables, which is exactly what they are. There are several different cables that use this method, and twin coaxial cable is also used to achieve a similar result.

One construction uses two groups of 72 strands of enamelled wire plaited around a solid plastic core. Using these cables with difficult loads, the droop at either 5 or 18 kHz disappeared and the sound was distinctly better. There would be virtually no other way to solve the problem short of mono amplifiers sited next to each loudspeaker.

One (potentially major) drawback ocurs if you own certain amplifiers that are unstable with capacitive loads. Typical multiple twisted pair cable has about 9nF per metre of capacitance with little resistance or inductance, which causes many amplifiers to go into parasitic oscillation. The fix is simple, wind twelve turns of wire around a pen and put it in series with the beginning of the cable. This tiny coil has far less inductance than even one metre of twin flex.

This description of the possible issues with speaker cables is the first I have seen that makes some sense from a technical perspective. There is sufficient evidence from my own measurements and those of many writers that there are indeed some detectable (and measurable) differences. With this in mind, and wanting to provide all the information I can, I have included this information - and this is the one area where properly sized and well made cables really does make a difference. If you own speakers that present a highly capacitive load, or have deep "notches" in the impedance curve, I would take this information seriously.

http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm#spkr-leads

 

[MikeHunt79]

The most common sense i've heard lately with regards to hi-fi is to invest your money in speakers. Why? Think about what a speaker has to do compared to the rest of your components.

Agreed. Speakers almost always tend to be the weakest link. Money wasted on "high-end" cables is far far better spent on speakers or basic room treatment.

 

[oli collett]

this isnt true. the reality is cables do make a difference, but it inst a difference tied to the cost of the cables. as far as speaker cables go, inductance and capacitance can have a large effect on the final output.



http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p2.htm#spkr-leads

Agreed - there's no doubt at least in my mind in the science of a lot of this, however the question in my mind is whether you can actually hear/see a difference.

It's like compressed vs. uncompressed audio, SACD etc. if you can't tell the difference between the two, why bother?

 

[-Ad-]

I will eventually get my ass in gear and build some enamelled copper speaker cable, just to see if solid core makes any difference compared to my stranded copper cables.

But the fact with speaker cables is that the inductors in the crossovers have a nice long length of copper (10-30m I think) which the signal will have to travel through as well as the cable from amp -> speakers.

If you havea big checkbook then maybe try a pure silver inductor in the crossover section and some silver speaker cable. We can go on about trying different combinations, perceivable differences, scientific measurements, and sales BS, but I will always try a good tweak and try something new if it costs a few pounds for some DIY materials. If there is a big difference to my ears (even fabricated by my mind), then if it sounds better I am happy and have lost nothing

But HDMI and optical cables are a totally different ball game. Even if I needed a long HDMI cable (15m or so), I would probably get a few cheaper cables and a repeater. No need for a fancy outer sheething unless burying it under a floor/wall.

 

[PhillyDee]

I agree that a better quality cable will sound better than the worst quality cable. I have speaker cable costing 80p/metre. When compared to the cheapest thinnest cable, there is a big difference. It us noticeable. But after that, whats the point. Same as interconnects, any are better than the crap ones you get with the systems. Better to spend a little bit on a better quality pair. No point in spending anything over a tenner. No, im not a hifi nut, not in the slightest. But that applies to analogue. Digital, it matters not a jot, unless there is interference.

Heres a couple from new scientist:

Woven wires

READERS of this magazine are experts at spotting hi-fi nonsense - expensive ways of making perfect sound even more perfect by using technology that defies scientific reason and brings benefits that cannot be measured but are supposedly clearly audible to the keen ears of customers with more money than sense. So we think you may enjoy a recent ruling from the UK's Advertising Standards Authority.

The ASA has upheld a complaint about adverts for mains power cables costing up to £1805 a metre - yes, really! - and sold by UK dealer Russ Andrews. The adverts claimed that making mains cables from woven wires "vastly reduces distortion levels... letting you hear a sound that is vastly clearer and purer, more detailed and far more dynamic... eliminating system sound fluctuation... allowing more believable dynamics... and a much more cohesive musical sound". In his defence, Andrews cited what he claimed were recognised facts, techniques and effects which are "easy to hear but impossible to measure". The ASA was not impressed and told him not to make the claim again until he had "robust scientific evidence".

"We are incensed at what we feel is a serious injustice," Andrews told us when we emailed him about the judgement. "The ASA has told us that we cannot use these claims again unless we could substantiate them with robust scientific evidence. We have commissioned a research scientist to investigate our claims and provide such evidence."

We wait for this evidence with bated breath, but not much hope

Gold-plated sound

FOLLOWING our story about the UK Advertising Standards Authority not accepting claims that hi-fi cables made from woven wires give a better sound (10 May), James McMillan tells us he is puzzled by the blurb for a "Digital Audio Optical Lead" sold by electronics store ******. An optical lead carries digital audio as light pulses from one piece of hi-fi equipment to another, and usually has plastic plug connectors at each end. ****** cable boasts "24k gold plated connectors". This, apparently, "gives a better connection".

"I didn't know gold was a good conductor of light," McMillan observes. Nor did Feedback, so we went to ****** to buy one of the leads and ask why putting some gold on a plastic plug that holds an optical fibre was a good thing. "Gold is better than silver," we were told, leaving us as puzzled as McMillan.

Furthermore, ****** website reassures anyone wanting to connect a lot of cables together that this isn't a problem: "There is no loss with optical cables so there is no maximum length." Although we were prepared to pay £15 for a 75-centimetre lead to scrutinise the gold connectors, we don't feel able to buy a thousand of them to put this intriguing information to the test.

Think i managed to star out all the competitors, apologies if I missed one . . .

 

[valve90210]

When I was buying interconnects for my CD player to my amp, I initially compared several different makes at the approx £30 price bracket. Whilst they all sounded better than the cheap rubbish that came with the cd player, they were all missing something.
Some gave me lovely warm deep bass but at the sacrifice of nice detailed high end, others the reverse.

In the end I decided to move up a price bracket to approx £60 and found there to be a huge difference, I found some lovely interconnects that gave me fantastic warm deep bass and wonderfully detailed high end. I did wonder whether I was subconciously wanting to hear a difference because of the extra cost, so I roped my mother into a listening test. I played the same song to her with various different interconnects and asked what she thought. With no prompting, and with no knowledge as to which leads were which, she chose exactly the same £60 leads as the best sounding ones and even commented exactly as I had that the others were all lacking either in the bass of the high hats and cymbals etc.

I truely believe there is are differences between analogue interconnects, and have heard for myself the difference they can make. However, would I have taken the next step up to the £100 price bracket or higher... probably not because I think it's very likely that you will hit the law of diminishing returns very quickly and could end up paying an auful lot more for very little extra difference!!!

As for digital leads....either the 1s and 0s get there or they don't, if they don't, you might need a lead with better shielding or something but you are very very very unlikely to NEED a lead costing £125 or whatever they might cost!!!


On a similar note, my girlfriends Dad recently purchased and LCD tv, the shop he got it from told him that they are very succeptible to power surges and that he really needed a special surge protected power supply...costing £60... Fortunately he thought it sounded like a load of rubbish and told the salesman where to go!!!

Valve

 

[oli collett]

When I was buying interconnects for my CD player to my amp, I initially compared several different makes at the approx £30 price bracket. Whilst they all sounded better than the cheap rubbish that came with the cd player, they were all missing something.
Some gave me lovely warm deep bass but at the sacrifice of nice detailed high end, others the reverse.

In the end I decided to move up a price bracket to approx £60 and found there to be a huge difference, I found some lovely interconnects that gave me fantastic warm deep bass and wonderfully detailed high end. I did wonder whether I was subconciously wanting to hear a difference because of the extra cost, so I roped my mother into a listening test. I played the same song to her with various different interconnects and asked what she thought. With no prompting, and with no knowledge as to which leads were which, she chose exactly the same £60 leads as the best sounding ones and even commented exactly as I had that the others were all lacking either in the bass of the high hats and cymbals etc.

I truely believe there is are differences between analogue interconnects, and have heard for myself the difference they can make. However, would I have taken the next step up to the £100 price bracket or higher... probably not because I think it's very likely that you will hit the law of diminishing returns very quickly and could end up paying an auful lot more for very little extra difference!!!

As for digital leads....either the 1s and 0s get there or they don't, if they don't, you might need a lead with better shielding or something but you are very very very unlikely to NEED a lead costing £125 or whatever they might cost!!!


On a similar note, my girlfriends Dad recently purchased and LCD tv, the shop he got it from told him that they are very succeptible to power surges and that he really needed a special surge protected power supply...costing £60... Fortunately he thought it sounded like a load of rubbish and told the salesman where to go!!!

Valve

Interesting - but the problem from my point of view is that there are no credible test results out there supporting these claims, even though using the A/B/X comparator could quite easily demonstrate such differences between such equipment. All of the evidence i have seen on hi-fi forums is subjective, i.e. we switched cables and the difference was dramatic.

Bizzarely it seems to come down to the heretics like myself to have to prove to people things don't make a difference, rather than the cable manufacturer proving that they DO make a difference. Doesn't that strike people as being a bit, wrong?

 

[oli collett]

btw, some interesting reading:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/id3.html

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

 

[valve90210]

Interesting - but the problem from my point of view is that there are no credible test results out there supporting these claims, even though using the A/B/X comparator could quite easily demonstrate such differences between such equipment. All of the evidence i have seen on hi-fi forums is subjective, i.e. we switched cables and the difference was dramatic.

Bizzarely it seems to come down to the heretics like myself to have to prove to people things don't make a difference, rather than the cable manufacturer proving that they DO make a difference. Doesn't that strike people as being a bit, wrong?

I can see exactly what you're saying, and I do agree, it would be good to see some decent comparative test results but it must be difficult for the people producing the magazines. They will be working to tight deadlines and will be having to do the tests as swiftly as possible, it just wouldn't be viable for them to perform the tests with numerous 'blind' testers, at least not in great enough numbers for the results to be truely meaningful.

In my case, the difference in the sound from the cheap cables to the more expensive ones was so incredible that I would be totally confident that if blind tested, everybody would pick out the more expensive cables as the best sounding.

On your point about it coming down to people like you having to prove that cables don't always make a difference (especially in the digital field) rather than the cable manufacturers having to prove their claims, I agree, that is very wrong indeed but if this did become the case, it would most likely lead to a situation like we find with speakers and HiFi equipment whereby the manufacturers use a set of non standard data to prove what they want to show.

Valve

 

[oli collett]

I can see exactly what you're saying, and I do agree, it would be good to see some decent comparative test results but it must be difficult for the people producing the magazines. They will be working to tight deadlines and will be having to do the tests as swiftly as possible, it just wouldn't be viable for them to perform the tests with numerous 'blind' testers, at least not in great enough numbers for the results to be truely meaningful.

I'm sure deadlines are tight - but surely the tests are fairly rigorous anyway, or at least should be? A/B/X testing could be done easily enough, you might not be able to get 100 different reviewers but you could at least provide information on whether there was a difference between one cable and another. A v big hi-fi mag claimed on their forum that they do tests by having someone swap cables out whilst they did not know what the equipment was. I would suggest that if this comes out with results like digital cables being more vibrant, bringing out more vivid colour and whatnot then the testing methodology is massively flawed because these conclusions are simply illogical.