If the best music you’ve ever heard is in a perfectly furnished room with low oxygen speaker wire then you need(ed) to get out more.
The passion and power of live music or just a big DJ set on a huge Pa.
Well.
Can’t wait for it to be back.
OK. It’s an inferior reproduction of the source material.
No, it’s less accurate.
You're arguing that 'less accurate' is superior? Folk today listen to music on their tinny mobile phone speakers or if you're lucky a single mono BT speaker, by preference. Is that better?
Tell you what, let's step away from the word "better" than as it's seemingly problematic. We're splitting semantics for the purposes of arguing on the internet now and I don't care sufficiently to start digging out dictionaries. All far too silly. </Graham Chapman>
It is objectively, measurably, less accurate and therefore farther away from the source and farther away from the the sound as intended by the artists / producers. This may or may not be subjectively preferable to the listener.
What’s ‘better’? A performance recorded in a small room or a large room? Mic in the front row or mics for each performer? There is no perfect source of truth that you are trying to reproduce here.
Which of those scenarios is 'better' above, again is this not simply whatever is closest to what the artist intended us to experience? The perfect source is the digital lossless masters.
"I find a lot of HiFi folk get too caught up jumping to advanced levels of optimisation and diminishing gains and totally forgetting about the basics."
So true of most hobbies and pastimes really.
Your problem is that 'good enough' appears to be 'as good as it gets ' because noone can demonstrate a measurable improvement. As stated, if the wire is working 100% transimission, which you should assume, then any improvement is actually just the introduction of noise.
"It is objectively, measurably, less accurate and therefore farther away from the source and farther away from the the sound as intended by the artists / producers."
That's a bold statement on their behalf - especially as some producers will create 'a sound' for a specific audience such as when the iPod first came out and everyone was listening on ear buds the quality of some recordings went downhill dramatically (lots of discussions on this online if you care to look) or to sound good on the radio.
Also very very accurate hi-fi systems can be quite harsh and unpleasant to listen to so being super detailed and accurate is not always better for long term enjoyment. Some studios will use older analogue equipment precisely because its less accurate and more pleasant to listen to. This isn't as black and white as you seem to insist it is.
So true of most hobbies and pastimes really.
It’s nice to have nice things.
It’s nice to have very stupid nice things.
I own a £2500 watch and £250 belt. They are nice.
They don’t function any better than a £2.50 watch or no belt as I don’t need a belt.
It’s nice to have nice things.
The only point of expensive speaker cable is the owners joy of having expensive speaker cable.
Your problem is that ‘good enough’ appears to be ‘as good as it gets
My problem is that once it is "as good as it gets" then it is ipso facto good enough. If it's not then it isn't. Is this another Poor Choice of Words issue on my part?
People are seemingly arguing that it could be better than as good as it gets, which is the sort of abject twaddle that sells £2,000 mains cables.
People are seemingly arguing that it could be better than as good as it gets, which is the sort of abject twaddle that sells £2,000 mains cables.
It’s ok. They’d only spend it on something else.
That’s a bold statement on their behalf – especially as some producers will create ‘a sound’ for a specific audience
They will and that's a very good point. I remember Roy Thomas Baker doing this for (forgive my guilty pleasures) T'Pau's China In Your Hand. The single version is produced very differently from the album version, because the latter was intended for CD and the former to sound good on FM radio.
The passion and power of live music or just a big DJ set on a huge Pa.
I've been to plenty of both where it was ruined by a rubbish sound system.
Some people confuse really loud with overpowering bass with good sound quality. Of course that's more than likely not to be down to the speaker cable.. Poor placement of speakers, mismatched speakers and subs, weak amps, poor balance/eq, size and construction of the buildong/room .. The overall quality of sound is a cumulative effect from many components.
Audio is a.c. Alternating Current, so the electrons flow equally in both directions. Hence anything mentioning directivity is just complete and utter BS. For half of each cycle the current flows in one direction down each cable and then for the other half of thc cycle it flows in the other direction. The current is changing direction continually at up to 20,000 a second (assuming you’re young and can still hear 20 kHz).
I’m curious, if the current spends half its time going one way then half going the other way how does it get to where it’s going.
Also very very accurate hi-fi systems can be quite harsh and unpleasant to listen to so being super detailed and accurate is not always better for long term enjoyment.
This always makes me chuckle when people bang on about having studio monitors rather than regular speakers.
They are supposed to be completely 'uncoloured' as when cutting a mix you want to try and taylor the overall sound to something that will sound reasonable on as many playback systems as possible, from £5.99 headphones to £5k audiophile setups.
Studio speakers aren't designed to sound the best of the best, they are designed to be completely neutral.
Junior is half of Blame the Mono. I've just been playing his latest vinyl, Guilt Denied, on a basic 75W per channel stereo with Monitor Audio speakers. It's been fascinating comparing the various digital mixes they did themselves before it was mastered for vinyl and the final result. It's a club mix intended to work well on club systems so the "Blame the Mono" is apparent. The bass is mono so it doesn't get cancelling effects on club sound systems but the rest stereo.
It sounds OK but nothing like in a club, my system just doesn't move enough air at the bottom end.
If you're used to playing instruments then just about any hi-fi sounds different compared to the original whatever the cable used. However good the microphones used in recording, the processing and the equipment used to reproduce the sound will be coloured. The most striking difference I find is the lack of bite or attack. The hi-fi sound is smooth, round and warm and the original instruments take your head off. Plug a guitar into a 100W valve Marshall linked to a 4x12 cab loaded with Celestion's finest with a Fender coaxial cable and strike a chord - it hits you in a way no hi-fi I've heard can reproduce.
I’m curious, if the current spends half its time going one way then half going the other way how does it get to where it’s going.
Science...
The single version is produced very differently from the album version, because the latter was intended for CD and the former to sound good on FM radio.
Don't get me started on BBC Radio 3. Tune In on SONOS is terrible. Line in from BBC Sounds demonstrably better. The former is 48K though I believe. FM has already been preprocessed digitally so don't start on that one either (all you 303/33/ESL owners).
But the desk stands I have made a huge difference (as does most speaker placement). And I'm sat here with something similar to BBC monitors on the desk. They are great. Might replace with some real LS3/5a's.
So what banana connectors should you get and from where?
And sod the cable, I've still not found an amp/receiver that's lasted me more than 5 years without developing some sort of problem. I think these days I'd be somewhat comfortable opening them up and having a go with a soldering iron.
The current is changing direction continually at up to 20,000 a second (assuming you’re young and can still hear 20 kHz).
If you can't hear it, does the current slow down?
What if the cable was on a conveyor belt?
Several years ago I bought some cheap 4,0mm2 cable for speakers as previous ones were too short. The new cables went from clear copper colour to very dark brown and clear cover turned to yellow in just few months, after replacing the cable due it's looks there was definitely some improvement in sound. Absolutely worth the 11 Euros spent.
I own a £2500 watch and £250 belt. They are nice.
They don’t function any better than a £2.50 watch or no belt as I don’t need a belt.
You must have bought the wrong one. Mine expensive watch is way better than my cheap ones. More accurate too.
This is interesting I think and pertinent to the general discussion
https://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/british-grove-studios-london
I'm fairly sure they went to those lengths for a damn good reason and not just to waste a load of money.
My problem is that once it is “as good as it gets” then it is ipso facto good enough. If it’s not then it isn’t. Is this another Poor Choice of Words issue on my part?
Yes. Over the last year, this government has been as good as it gets. Has it been good (enough) for you?
This is interesting I think and pertinent to the general discussion
https://www.soundonsound.com/music-business/british-grove-studios-london
I’m fairly sure they went to those lengths for a damn good reason and not just to waste a load of money.
David Gilmour's old boat says this is probably a bit over the top.
Yes. Over the last year, this government has been as good as it gets. Has it been good (enough) for you?
False equivalence.
A shit government could be as good as gets for that government but could readily be improved by a replacement party.
Shit cable could be as good as gets for that cable but could readily be improved by replacement cable.
In both cases you're eventually going to reach saturation or at least diminishing returns.
David Gilmour’s old boat says this is probably a bit over the top.
Also, whilst interesting I don't see any mention of cables.
Which of those scenarios is ‘better’ above, again is this not simply whatever is closest to what the artist intended us to experience?
It's whichever I enjoy listening to the most.
False equivalence.
Not at all. Unless there are stipulations laid out as to what the 'it' refers to. Which is why as good as it gets cannot equate to good enough.
My CPR technique is a good as it gets. May not keep you alive, though, so not good enough.
That's the same argument. Your CPR technique is not "as good as it gets," it's merely as good as you get. What, CPR 2.0 really make the patient come alive!?
I fear you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I'm saying. It the output is the best it can be then there is no room for further improvement, it is "good enough." If there is in fact room for improvement then it is not good enough. Within your needlessly emotive scenario there is scope for improvement which may well be "let a trained paramedic do it instead".
Christ I'm getting bored now arguing semantics. Either you know what I mean and you're just being obtuse in order to 'win' or you still aren't following in which case I have no further ways to explain myself.
I don't know how I can explain it better. Good enough is good enough, it gets the job done. It could be better if you want but we stopped trying because it's good enough.
As good as it gets means it's a good as we can make it. It may not do the job. I might make make the best chocolate teapot. It might be as good as it gets as far as chocolate teapots go. It will not be good enough to make tea though.
They in no way equate.
And it genuinely is as good as it gets. My stats prove that.
So as I said, you're arguing semantics. You're talking about definitions of words and phrases rather than listening to intent of meaning. You're hanging onto your own inference of what you thought I meant despite me repeatedly trying to clarify the opposite, because Words.
I might make make the best chocolate teapot. It might be as good as it gets as far as chocolate teapots go. It will not be good enough to make tea though.
It might be "as good as it gets as far as chocolate teapots go" but it is not as good as it gets as far as teapots go and that's the point. Whereas a porcelain teapot with a tea cosy might well be as good as it gets for teapots and a diamond-encrusted nickel-cobalt directional teapot isn't going to be any better.
This is, again, the same argument, I don't know if it's you or me but you're trying to argue against something I'm not saying.
I give up, I'm going to bed.
A lot of the robust debate seems to have been sparked by the video posted that wasn't even about speaker cables...... yet the results have been transferred to speaker cable which is nothing more than a massive assumption.
So as I said, you’re arguing semantics.
As have you been right thru this cougar.
Its really simple - "better" is subjective because it is an opinion. It cannot be measured. " most accurate" is objective. It can be measured.
Definition of better
(Entry 5 of 5)
: improved in accuracy or performance - building a better engine
This definition is a combination of Better and Accurate - which should be measurable and not an opinion
🤯
Cougar : "Shit cable could be as good as gets for that cable but could readily be improved by replacement cable."
But I thought from your previous posts you were of the camp that all cable is 100% good and can't be improved on ....
I'm confused now 🤔
😂😉
after replacing the cable due it’s looks there was definitely some improvement in sound. Absolutely worth the 11 Euros spent.
You would also have got the same effect by cutting off an inch of cable and reterminating it.
I'm sticking up for Cougar here - you are making a very false equivalence. With 'Yes. Over the last year, this government has been as good as it gets. Has it been good (enough) for you?' it is nonsense - the governament has made mistakes, and hasn't been as good as it could be.
With wire , once you're transmitting signal at 100%, that is as good as it gets, it can't get any better, no much how more money you pay, and you're wrangling with physics, physical properties of materials. Not all cable is 100% good, but you soon get to a limit where it doesn't matter. Did you think about what I said about air density, velocity. Signal coming out of the speaker has a wavelength in air. Wavelength thro' air is frequency * velocity, and transmitted wavelengh is a constant so if it's a cold day, velocity is down and frequency is up, but because your ears are effectively a bandpass signal filter to your brain thehigher frequencies are lost, and the sound on a cold day is changed... That sort of thing is why studios go to great lenghs to reduce variables like external noise, current hum
A lot of the rest of this thread is nothing to do with wire, and so subjective that actually it is more comparable to the first argument.
But I thought from your previous posts you were of the camp that all cable is 100% good and can’t be improved on …
Could you quote the bit where he said that? Because to my knowledge he has never said anything of the sort.
What he actually said was something along the lines of:
With wire , once you’re transmitting signal at 100%, that is as good as it gets, it can’t get any better, no much how more money you pay, and you’re wrangling with physics, physical properties of materials. Not all cable is 100% good, but you soon get to a limit where it doesn’t matter.
Wire is wire is wire. I work in the nuclear industry where if something needs to be top spec it is, if not for safety then definitely for commercial considerations. You lot would shit a brick if you ever saw what we use for signal cable.
Nobody likes to admit they have been fooled but it takes a special sort of fool to argue the cases some of you are.
If it wasn't clear with the smiley faces and winks, I'll make it clear with text - I was having a leg pull ! Clear.
But I thought from your previous posts you were of the camp that all cable is 100% good and can’t be improved on ….
Then you would be mistaken.
I don't know what else to add to that really. I've said the same thing in slightly different ways in multiple posts. I can only think you've confused me with someone else.
🤷♂️
Lighten up guys....
Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. I think what you meant by as good as it gets...ipso facto...good enough is that if something exceeds the req'd specification, it also meets the spec. Not actually always true but leaving that aside for the moment.
If something is as good as it gets it may have surpassed good enough but it cannot be both at the same time. Just like you cannot simultaneously get 51% and 98% on an exam. It is possible for something to be as good as it gets (a quality of the thing) and good enough (for a task) because those are different things. It is also possible for something to be as good as it gets but not good enough for the task req'd. ( The chocolate teapot)
Hope that explains where I'm coming from.
So I feel in summary, and after quite some drift in other directions - the original question "Does speaker cable actually make a difference?" The answer is Yes it does, but don't bother spending too much on it as you won't hear any difference other than a subconscious difference which may give you more enjoyment from your listening. This may be worth it to you personally in which case go ahead and treat yourself.
Some reasonable discourse...very welcome...it's so dull when those with the strongest beleifs just bash the other side with them.
petercook80
Free Member
So I feel in summary, and after quite some drift in other directions – the original question “Does speaker cable actually make a difference?” The answer is Yes it does, but don’t bother spending too much on it as you won’t hear any difference other than a subconscious difference which may give you more enjoyment from your listening. This may be worth it to you personally in which case go ahead and treat yourself.
well not really, the answer is, it will make a difference up until some basic electrical requirements are met to be able to carry the signal, after that it doesn't matter a hoot. 😆
Whatever makes you happy...
