Kimber cable "how much"

[Dr.EM]

That MIT stuff is the most extreme attempt at creating psudo-science to support these cables I've encountered! It's neat too because they've been clever and come up with reasons why only their cables will offer this performance increase, setting themselves apart in the market. Only cables I've seen with a great big box in the middle of them!

I'm not going to trawl through all those white papers, but the first document, 'transportable power', has the same 2 pages come up twice in it, so that gives me an indication about how many people they actually expect to read it. All I've managed to gather from it otherwise is that the already insignificant (within typical installations) LRC components of the cable are being analysed further by stating how the L or C may fluctuate with voltage or frequency. Well, the LRC components were small, the amount by which they might CHANGE with applied signal is infinitesimal! They were also on about how their 'patented' cable construction will increase inductance; as if that is something we would want?

With a complex space instrument you might very well expect it'd be possible for technicians to miss something. In a cable though? It's not really comparable, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that audio cables all across the world are doing a fine job as we speak!

 

[lucid]

By sterile, you mean closer to the source?

No, sterile means lacking the qualities that sets apart a great performance from something just going through the numbers. There are plenty of stereo systems that do all the Hi-Fi review cliches, "air" "extension" "imaging" etc etc but very few that can start to convey the intonation and dynamics that the performers put in to their playing. With respect, it's why discussions like this are so fraught with difficulties because this kind of level of performance from gear is so rare. That doesn't mean expensive. It simply means that very few combinations of gear do this regardless of what all the 5 star reviews claim. But once you hear it, and tune in past the pretentious hi-fi mag twaddle and really listen to the performance, then it really is wonderful thing and a bit of a revelation.

I mean, according to your logic, you have to have the best possible source/amp/cables in order to not pollute the sound chain, but then the end result isn't meant to sound exactly like the source, so what exactly is it meant to sound like?

Well you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said you have to have "the best possible source/amp/cables". You're very unlikely to get this with a mini-system, but I can put together a system for under £600 that starts to do these things, and stepping up to systems at £2500 and £4K'ish really start to show what's possible and why there's more to music that most people ever experience from their stereo systems.

Right, so it's not precision, and it's about passion.

The precision is the foundation, but it's not the end goal. There are thousands of musicians who are technically proficient, but they're not the ones who become world renown. It's the musicians who build on precision with passion who rise to the top of their game.

Big monster AV amps try to be very precise, but somewhere along the way they kill the passion in their reproduction of music. The subtle intonations and dynamics of the original performance gets crushed and smothered. AV amp manufacturers recognise this which is why they fit buttons for 'source direct' switching off as much processing as possible. Many bits of Hi-Fi also smothers the soul of the music or just does a less than good job of letting that information through.

What do you think people who make hi-fi equipment should be doing then? I would have thought their goal would be to closely replicate the source, which seems a sensible aim, no? If not, then what?

Each manufacturer has their own idea of what music should sound like. For example, Rega produces a very light and fast sound. It is energetic and can be a bit challenging at times. By contrast, Arcam's sound is slower and heavier. It is a safe and plodding sound. There's a world of gear in between, and a customer for every type of sound, so the manufacturers should continue what they're doing and leave the customers to make the final choice. The point is though that some combinations of gear are better at revealing qualities of the performance than others. So it stands to reason that those Hi-Fi systems are better able to help the listener determine hear the contribution of cables too.

 

[oli collett]

No, sterile means lacking the qualities that sets apart a great performance from something just going through the numbers. There are plenty of stereo systems that do all the Hi-Fi review cliches, "air" "extension" "imaging" etc etc but very few that can start to convey the intonation and dynamics that the performers put in to their playing. With respect, it's why discussions like this are so fraught with difficulties because this kind of level of performance from gear is so rare. That doesn't mean expensive. It simply means that very few combinations of gear do this regardless of what all the 5 star reviews claim. But once you hear it, and tune in past the pretentious hi-fi mag twaddle and really listen to the performance, then it really is wonderful thing and a bit of a revelation.

Well you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said you have to have "the best possible source/amp/cables". You're very unlikely to get this with a mini-system, but I can put together a system for under £600 that starts to do these things, and stepping up to systems at £2500 and £4K'ish really start to show what's possible and why there's more to music that most people ever experience from their stereo systems.

The precision is the foundation, but it's not the end goal. There are thousands of musicians who are technically proficient, but they're not the ones who become world renown. It's the musicians who build on precision with passion who rise to the top of their game.

Big monster AV amps try to be very precise, but somewhere along the way they kill the passion in their reproduction of music. The subtle intonations and dynamics of the original performance gets crushed and smothered. AV amp manufacturers recognise this which is why they fit buttons for 'source direct' switching off as much processing as possible. Many bits of Hi-Fi also smothers the soul of the music or just does a less than good job of letting that information through.

Each manufacturer has their own idea of what music should sound like. For example, Rega produces a very light and fast sound. It is energetic and can be a bit challenging at times. By contrast, Arcam's sound is slower and heavier. It is a safe and plodding sound. There's a world of gear in between, and a customer for every type of sound, so the manufacturers should continue what they're doing and leave the customers to make the final choice. The point is though that some combinations of gear are better at revealing qualities of the performance than others. So it stands to reason that those Hi-Fi systems are better able to help the listener determine hear the contribution of cables too.

So, getting back to basics again, it really should be obvious when anyone does an A/B/X test between the two, right?

So, what explanation do you have for this not being the case? Why can no speaker cable manufacturer do this?

All of your posts talk about these wonderful differences between systems, AV amps always being sterile (i'm still not sure what that means) or lacking soul (again, not sure how that works either) and it goes back to the "you have to hear it to believe it" type thing, but with all these words, there is still an enormous absence of evidence?

I'm not asking for much. White papers are useless, I want real world tests, offering evidence for some of your claims.

Here's an interesting bit of research on neutrality btw:
http://seanolive.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/more-evidence-that-kids-even-japanese.html

Note - real world research!

 

[arad85]

Cables and their influence on a system is a very emotive thing.

On one hand, you have people who wax lyrical about the ability of cables you elevate their system to a place that is divine, and on the other you have people who say cables can make no possible difference at all once they make the basic criteria of passing the amount of current they need to.

Bear with me... but let's take a step back.

Whilst we are talking about speaker cables, there is also another area where cables supposedly play a significant part: between source and pre/power amps. Here the signal is many times lower in value, and has less current/voltage drive, so the ability of the cable to change the sound is many times higher. As a confirmed sceptic, I have heard analogue cables sound different between two pieces of equipment. I have also bought reasonably expensive cables between equipment and they improved performance enough to make them worthwhile.

I have also had bought for me expensive PSU and signal cables. I couldn't tell them apart from the old, but they do make the equipment (Naim) more saleable should I want to sell them on. Yup... that one was a waste of money, but it was a Christmas present so...

I think either extreme of the argument is flawed. A categorical: there is no possible difference in cables is as equally untenable a position as all cables sound different. You have to add context. What is driving the system and what cable characteristics are there.

What I will say is that no esoteric cable COSTS what people pay for it. A £2 cable sold for £100+ is still vastly overpriced. A £2 cable sold for £100 may well be WORTH that amount if the buyer has no money limitations or lusts after said cable - for whatever reason if they think it worth it then good luck to the manufacturer for marketing it. Art is exactly the same: great art is values at many millions what it COSTS but people are happy to pay it as they see it as WORTH the cost.

The most enlightening comment in this thread for me is not the wire ones, but the comment by lucid on Arcam. Safe and plodding is how I would describe them as from 20 years ago - they obviously have the same reputation now. I also have a dislike of Meridian (too boring and sweet), Audiolab (the most "correct" sound I've ever heard and yet the most unemotional), Mission/Cyrus (uncontrolled and their speakers are veiled) and B&W (how anyone can live with their boom and tizz is beyond me). My preferences don't make me right though!

I've never really experimented with speaker cables, but everything else I've experimented with - including weird things like CD player supports - have made a difference. Not always for the good, but they generally have made a difference. I've also had people pick out different equipment 100% accurately when I can't reliably tell the difference - that was a real eye opener!

Can you relate them back to pure electrical measurements? Yes, probably, but not many of us have the equipment or the inclination to do so....

 

[james.miller]

All of your posts talk about these wonderful differences between systems, AV amps always being sterile (i'm still not sure what that means)

What's not to get?

 

[arad85]

What's not to get?

If you've not heard it, you won't understand how an source/amplifier/speaker (leaving cables out of the discussion) set can have profound influence on the sound.

 

[oli collett]

If you've not heard it, you won't understand how an source/amplifier/speaker (leaving cables out of the discussion) set can have profound influence on the sound.

Well that is essentially the argument you are repeating, but still no one seems to want to contribute any evidence

James - describe, in words, how a sterile system sounds. Too bright I can understand, which suggests there's an excess in higher frequencies, but sterile suggests bland/dull to me, what does that mean in terms of audio? Neutral? And if so, why is that a bad thing?

 

[james.miller]

James - describe, in words, how a sterile system sounds. Too bright I can understand, which suggests there's an excess in higher frequencies, but sterile suggests bland/dull to me, what does that mean in terms of audio? Neutral? And if so, why is that a bad thing?

music is VERY subjective and emotive. neutral/sterile/analytical or whatever people wish to call it; it can be summed up with one word: Boring.

Take my onkyo 805. it does a great job with movies; the Audyssey processing does a fantastic job of making sure the movie sounds as close to the producer's intentions as possible and it really works, but it's a double-edged sword as a flat frequency response really doesn't work for music. This is why a sterile AV amp isnt good for music, at least, obviously there are lots of other reasons why particular av amps might not be great for music.

 

[lucid]

So, getting back to basics again, it really should be obvious when anyone does an A/B/X test between the two, right?

So, what explanation do you have for this not being the case? Why can no speaker cable manufacturer do this?

Well no, not really. In any randomly selected group of observers there will be those who, for one reason or another, just don't hear the difference. That's not because a difference doesn't exist, but because there's some impediment to why they aren't sensitive to it. For example, I could do an experiment with wine tasting. Most uneducated palettes could differentiate between say a £3.99 plonk and something better at £10, but beyond that it could be hit and miss. Some won't care - they'll have hit their ceiling at a tenner. Others might be smokers or have a hatred of wine. So suggesting that "anyone" could tell the difference leaves any comparative experimenter of a specialist nature open to wild swings in the results.

Then there's the question of the A/B/X testing procedure itself. In order to stand up to the rigours of scrutiny then it's necessary to introduce a foreign item in to the signal chain. So the test becomes invalid because it's now a test of the cables and the switch. There's no way to A/B/X test the effect of the switch without having a switch in the system. Catch 22.

All of your posts talk about these wonderful differences between systems, AV amps always being sterile (i'm still not sure what that means) or lacking soul (again, not sure how that works either) and it goes back to the "you have to hear it to believe it" type thing, but with all these words, there is still an enormous absence of evidence?

And I'm afraid you're just going to have to settle with being disappointed.

The fact that you can't relate to the word "sterile" or the phrase "lacking soul" tells me a lot. We are talking at two different levels of experience. Sorry, but there it is. What would be useful for you is an opportunity to listen to some music systems and understand what it is that's being described when I talk about passion in the music or the sterility of an AV amp. You just can't get that from reading a set of data.

I want real world tests, offering evidence for some of your claims.

Why don't you come and be part of a real world test?

Here's an interesting bit of research on neutrality btw:
http://seanolive.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/more-evidence-that-kids-even-japanese.html

Note - real world research!

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to demonstrate with the neutrality test results. 30% of the people tested preferred 128kbps MP3 to CD, didn't they. Also look at the rise(!) in preference of the worst performing speaker on test. I suppose that in some ways it supports what I said here in this post. Randomly selected observers produce some wild results, and that those who know what they're listening for are better able to tell the difference when they hear it.

 

[arad85]

Well that is essentially the argument you are repeating, but still no one seems to want to contribute any evidence

James - describe, in words, how a sterile system sounds.

I'll take a stab at that - even though I'm not James .

A sterile system sounds very clean (all the right notes, played pitch perfectly) but with little or no emotion portrayed. No nuance to the way the musician plays the notes, no flow and ebb to the phrasing, and little or no drive and attack where it is needed. These are subtle cues, but are there and can be (and are in many cases) masked by the system in use.

Yes, they can be measured, but attributing a particular measure to a particular sound effect isn't easy!

I have to say that once you are used to high end audio, the easier it is to hear different ways of presenting the sound. To my ears, different amps at the "high end" sound more different than amps at the low-mid end (assuming the source is capable of course). And don't even mention ported speakers - they are the work of the devil

 

[Strife212]

To point a finger and laugh is ignorant. To judge purely on what is provable with measurement is narrow minded. How can one measure the taste of an outstanding vintage, or quantify the value of a Matisse or Da Vinci purely on the cost of paint and canvass?

I actually laughed.

It's a bit different from a cable, it's literally someone sticking a high price tag on something and calling it better.

If I fashioned some cable myself and charged £100,000 a meter would it be one of the best cables in the world? No.

 

[oli collett]

music is VERY subjective and emotive. neutral/sterile/analytical or whatever people wish to call it; it can be summed up with one word: Boring.

Take my onkyo 805. it does a great job with movies; the Audyssey processing does a fantastic job of making sure the movie sounds as close to the producer's intentions as possible and it really works, but it's a double-edged sword as a flat frequency response really doesn't work for music. This is why a sterile AV amp isnt good for music, at least, obviously there are lots of other reasons why particular av amps might not be great for music.

Yes, I see what you are saying, but everything I've read seems to indicate otherwise - that paper for example demonstrates that people (both trained and untrained listeners) tend to prefer systems that produce the flattest response possible when it comes to music, so I'm not sure why people are going around saying AV amps are no good for music, because that doesn't seem to match up with the available evidence.

Well no, not really. In any randomly selected group of observers there will be those who, for one reason or another, just don't hear the difference. That's not because a difference doesn't exist, but because there's some impediment to why they aren't sensitive to it. For example, I could do an experiment with wine tasting. Most uneducated palettes could differentiate between say a £3.99 plonk and something better at £10, but beyond that it could be hit and miss. Some won't care - they'll have hit their ceiling at a tenner. Others might be smokers or have a hatred of wine. So suggesting that "anyone" could tell the difference leaves any comparative experimenter of a specialist nature open to wild swings in the results.

Do a test of people who are sure there is a difference! it's not hard!

Then there's the question of the A/B/X testing procedure itself. In order to stand up to the rigours of scrutiny then it's necessary to introduce a foreign item in to the signal chain. So the test becomes invalid because it's now a test of the cables and the switch. There's no way to A/B/X test the effect of the switch without having a switch in the system. Catch 22.

There's no way to ABX test the effect of the switch? Of course there is. Hook a switch up so that the ABX box actually just switches it in/out of the system, see if you can identify when it's plugged in. You do this at the start of the test

The fact that you can't relate to the word "sterile" or the phrase "lacking soul" tells me a lot. We are talking at two different levels of experience. Sorry, but there it is. What would be useful for you is an opportunity to listen to some music systems and understand what it is that's being described when I talk about passion in the music or the sterility of an AV amp. You just can't get that from reading a set of data.

Ah, in the absence of evidence you settle back towards being condescending, claiming to know more, have more experience. Nicely done. Funnily enough you don't bother offering evidence of these assumptions.

Why don't you come and be part of a real world test?

Why don't I come and do a test to prove your hypothesis? That's not how it works is it? You're the one making the claims, back them up with some evidence.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to demonstrate with the neutrality test results. 30% of the people tested preferred 128kbps MP3 to CD, didn't they. Also look at the rise(!) in preference of the worst performing speaker on test. I suppose that in some ways it supports what I said here in this post. Randomly selected observers produce some wild results, and that those who know what they're listening for are better able to tell the difference when they hear it.

I don't see how you can possibly conclude that this paper supports any of what you say.

 

[Somnambulist]

So what's everyone take on Mains Conditioners

Some of the cheap ones actual degrade the sound. If you don't suffer from ground loop hum and your equipment has a well designed power supply (and like amps, some 'audiophile' stuff doesn't) then there's no need. The electric in my house is a bit **** - i.e. turn the shower on and the lights dim for a second. I might consider some sort of solution BUT it'd have to be something that's woo-free.

Again, the design of a lot of the esoteric equipment is a bit of a fudge from an engineering perspective, which means it's more suspetable to (also fudged) cables, interconnects and such and such.

See what's really inside an expensive Virtual Dynamics power cable, for example - not something I'd want plugged into my wall.

 

[arad85]

Yes, I see what you are saying, but everything I've read seems to indicate otherwise - that paper for example demonstrates that people (both trained and untrained listeners) tend to prefer systems that produce the flattest response possible when it comes to music, so I'm not sure why people are going around saying AV amps are no good for music, because that doesn't seem to match up with the available evidence.

The problem is that sound reproduction isn't just about frequency response. You also need to worry about how quickly you can start and stop a note (transient response), how well you can minimise distortion and the ability to have dynamic range (difference between loudest and quietest points) to name but a few.

 

[oli collett]

The problem is that sound reproduction isn't just about frequency response. You also need to worry about how quickly you can start and stop a note (transient response), how well you can minimise distortion and the ability to have dynamic range (difference between loudest and quietest points) to name but a few.

And AV amps tend to be bad for transient response an dynamic range, do they?

 

[arad85]

And AV amps tend to be bad for transient response an dynamic range, do they?

It's all comparative.... you might get 90% of the way there with an a/v amp or a cheaper stereo amp. You forget that consumer electronics is designed to a budget - compromises are made everywhere and that the parameters interact.

I once (15+ years ago) had a tour of the Naim factory (I'm exclusively a Naim user). The difference between their amplifiers at the time was simply the power supply. The more expensive amps sounded better as the power supply in them was better. Same amplifier circuit, just different power supplies.... It's not all snake oil you know

 

[Dr.EM]

A sterile system sounds very clean (all the right notes, played pitch perfectly) but with little or no emotion portrayed. No nuance to the way the musician plays the notes, no flow and ebb to the phrasing, and little or no drive and attack where it is needed. These are subtle cues, but are there and can be (and are in many cases) masked by the system in use.

Perhaps the word we should be using is 'blameless'? This is what Douglass Self decided to term his ultra low distortion, wide bandwidth amplifier designs. This is because, simply, that's what they are! They amplify the signal, nothing else, and truly this is what you should want. All the emotion and nuances were (or should have been) captured from the artist during the recording, and hopefully maintained up to the final medium. So, by your definition, a sterile amplifier is not in fact a blameless amplifier, rather it has distortion mechanisms in it that may prevent those performance cues from being reproduced.

Let's not mix up excellent technical design with this definition of sterile sound, as it simply isn't true! I'm using the technically excellent Symasym amplifier design (actually tri-amped) in my set-up and it produces emotive performances if that's what's there in the first place! A lot of AV amplifiers aren't too wonderful as they are built to a cost, sharing power supplies across several channels won't help and the measurements are more likely to be 'chipset' or simulation measurements than in-situ measurements. They should still be very capable as amplifiers mind, with the speakers and room always having the most dramatic impact on the sound.

 

[Somnambulist]

That things like speakers and amps aren't all snake oil is what people like Nordost and so on rely on. If you've paid a princely sum for say, some B&W Nautillus speakers, with a load of R&D, only a small run produced, using high end parts... that's a reasonably fair price, much like the first OLED TVs are going to cost the earth for consumers. At some point, cable manufacturers saw this and had a lightbulb moment and started coming out with ever higher-priced speaker, interconnect and power cables (and lets not forget digital cables where it gets REALLY silly), because the infamous 'spend 5-10% of your system budget on cables' thing can be abused nicely given the massively huge mark ups on them.

Of course, even with £15k speakers they didn't call it quits, as there are things like the Focal Grande Utopia EMs costing £110,000 - think of the profit margin for selling cables for that kind of system, given you'd have to be sprinkling the wire with sand from Mars for the parts of that wire to cost anything even remotely close to that.

 

[arad85]

That things like speakers and amps aren't all snake oil is what people like Nordost and so on rely on. If you've paid a princely sum for say, some B&W Nautillus speakers, with a load of R&D, only a small run produced, using high end parts... that's a reasonably fair price, much like the first OLED TVs are going to cost the earth for consumers. At some point, cable manufacturers saw this and had a lightbulb moment and started coming out with ever higher-priced speaker, interconnect and power cables (and lets not forget digital cables where it gets REALLY silly), because the infamous 'spend 5-10% of your system budget on cables' thing can be abused nicely given the massively huge mark ups on them.

We agree .

I run my DBLs (I think they were £10k+ to buy new when I bought them second hand) using two 5m lengths of NACA5 that was sub £5/m at the time. NACA5 is now running at £14.50/m which is vastly overpriced IMHO (but Naim have moved into high priced cabling in the last decade - I'm sure Julian is turning in his grave...).

 

[Somnambulist]

The saddest thing is that, from what I've read (as I was a tiny nipper at this point) is that hifi didn't used to be mega expensive to get into the high end.

I'm looking at buying a new DAC and it's crazy how the NAD M51 I'm looking at buying is merely considered 'affordable high end' and there's dozens of DACs that cost double, triple, etc. For DACs I can't really do it, but w/speakers and amps I look at DIY as a more and more attractive option considering the price/performance ratio.

Goal will be something like a Linkwitz Orion+ setup, DIY amps, the NAD M51 connected to a source via I2S etc etc.