What cables do you use in your systems?

[Thomas savage]

@VintageFlanker

I agree, all I want is a pleasing sound system that makes me feel I'm there.

Great but you won't find that by swapping cables about .

 

[Thomas savage]

Ok .my last post in this thread...
When it comes to cables there are measurable differences in their ability to get input signal to output end, and how they shape the signal on the way between sources and receiver AND how that effect the soundwave producing element. This is not my opinion, this is fact with scientific methods from people that I trust way more than anyone at this forum.. this may be or not be a shock to some members here that cables actually make a difference in an audio system and their performance and reproduction abilities .. and you can not only measure capacitance and inductance and claim there's no difference .. no science there...
My only point is, don't piss on people that's trying to get the best out of THEIR sound system with all means available..
And last , I really like comments that add to the discussion with different perspectives.. to the troll lot , please eat the cyanide capsul now, the cometh is coming....

This also falls below standards, no one here denies slight measurable differences between cables when you dig deep in to capacitance and such things. They don't tend to effect audio performance, your welcome to prove otherwise but please no more of this kind of thing.

Thanks

 

[KaiserSoze]

@Harmonie, I think you're missing the all point of Audio there.
Already repeated these basics over and over, but to put it oversimplified:

- Hi-Fi is about Audio Reproduction.
- Audio Reproduction ≠ Audio Production
- Audio Production (Music) IS Art. Therefore, it's is subjective. (Anything emotionally related is there, not elsewhere)
- Audio Reproduction ISN'T. It's all about technical engineering and Science. As such, it is objective.
- Audio Reproduction should ideally have one purpose: to be transparent to Music. That's what High Fidelity means.

The one and only purpose of cables is to transmit a signal flawlessly. The end. This purpose cannot be related to Art in any shape of foam.

That's pretty much it.

Very well put! (Even if you did write "of foam" instead of "or form" )

 

[VintageFlanker]

Very well put! (Even if you did write "of foam" instead of "or form" )

. Thx! Corrected.

 

[Julf]

Ok .my last post in this thread...

I guess that one is just as true as your other claims.

 

[mansr]

My guy's work at Ericsson telecom systems and developed parts of 3G 4G 5G 6G and so on systems .

So did I, if ever so briefly.

 

[mansr]

Troll .... eat your cyanide now !!

Almonds... delicious.

 

[Killingbeans]

This is not my opinion, this is fact with scientific methods from people that I trust way more than anyone at this forum..

I'd like to hear more about those so called scientific methods. This forum has a rather lager amount of members who have lifelong experience working as electrical engineers or technicians in all sorts of fields. People with proper understanding of the scientific method and oodles of useful perspective. There's a reason why people like those gravitate towards ASR. They are sick and tired of the massive inconsistency in awareness of reality they see between real life electronics and high-end audio.

My only point is, don't piss on people that's trying to get the best out of THEIR sound system with all means available..

Nobody is pissing on anybody. If a grown man believes in Santa Claus, are you pissing on that person by telling him it's a myth?

 

[Hipper]

What cables do you use in your systems?

Interconnects: Shunyata Aries_S XLR

Speaker cable: QED Genesis Silver Spiral Biwire

Power cable: Shunyata Python and Taipan

I also had a Shunyata Hydra-8 power conditioner

Most of these I bought in 2004 for a total of around £8,000!

Years later as an experiment I removed all the power cords and Hydra and replaced them with ordinary power cords and block of sockets. There was no loss of detail but a slight edge to the sound. The Shunyata gear sounded a tiny bit smoother. But probably not £8,000 smoother!

I no longer use the power conditioner but a probably over priced power regenerator which I think makes a small difference. I still have all these expensive power chords etc. in my system. As far as I'm aware they do not damage the sound so I continue to use them.

But I agree that I've wasted money on them. If I had my time again......

 

[Julf]

Years later as an experiment I removed all the power cords and Hydra and replaced them with ordinary power cords and block of sockets. There was no loss of detail but a slight edge to the sound.

Sighted listening relying on auditory memory?

 

[Harmonie]

I'm amazed, but yet sorry no to be able to measure the "tension in the cloud" of last 3-4 pages of posts.
All this about a copper lead ....

 

[Harmonie]

Sighted listening relying on auditory memory?

There is another topic a bit similar here and this posts details your point well and I agree.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/post-486245

 

[paddycrow]

I suppose I can answer the question in the original post. For preamp toamp interconnects I use Benchmark StarQuad XLR, 3' length. From server to preamp, AudioQuest Carbon USB 2.5'. Speaker cables are AudioQuest Rocket 44, I believe 6' length. I have used 14 AWG lamp cord and 12 AWG speaker cable from MonoPrice. I have also used MonoPrice and AQ Yukon XLR interconnects. (The AQ stuff was purchased at dealer's cost.)

I have never tried an aftermarket power cable, I use the ones that came with the equipment.

I have never been able to discern a difference from switching cables on any system (except defective ones). That includes XLR vs RCA interconnects. I confess that I also can't detect anything with different feet on my speakers or other components.

 

[Hipper]

Sighted listening relying on auditory memory?

You know the answer of course. It's all I have to go on and it will do for me. In this case it is surely obvious that the practicalities in a domestic setting leave little choice.

I don't ask you to accept my judgement, just offering it.

I gave my experience as an example of how many of us were persuaded to invest in expensive cables, and other equipment, that offered very little if any sonic improvement. I'm aware that I've 'been done' and I hope that others can learn from this.

Not all of us were so wise as some on here appear to be.

 

[polmuaddib]

I agree that HDMI cables do make a difference for UHD HDR. In most cases, you must use new HDMI cables certified for UHD HDR or you will have drop outs, or other issues. Of course, when it works, it works. I don't think your picture or sound will be better with more expensive cables as some manufacturers claim.
When it was only 1080p, it was easy, every cable worked. But now...
I remember a great lecture on HDMI from RMAF I watched on Youtube.

 

[KaiserSoze]

I agree that HDMI cables do make a difference for UHD HDR. In most cases, you must use new HDMI cables certified for UHD HDR or you will have drop outs, or other issues. Of course, when it works, it works. I don't think your picture or sound will be better with more expensive cables as some manufacturers claim.
When it was only 1080p, it was easy, every cable worked. But now...
I remember a great lecture on HDMI from RMAF I watched on Youtube.

If a given HDMI cable delivers an error-free stream of bits from source to destination (all features work correctly) it is 100% as good as any other HDMI cable in that same application, i.e., carrying that same bit rate. If you have an error-free picture with a given HDMI cable, there is no way that any other HDMI cable can improve the picture. The same is true for audio, however bit errors are likely not as apparent with audio as with video.

It has been a while since I've paid any attention to the HDMI specs, so out of curiosity I just took a quick glance at the information given on HDMI.org, concerning the 2.1 specification. Unless changes are stipulated for the physical connectors (i.e., an increase in the number of pins and conductors), the new features all reside at a protocol layer above the silicon and copper. There appear to be a lot of enhanced features and a vastly more elaborate scheme at the layer immediately above the silicon/copper. But with the quick glance I took I did not see anything that suggested any change to the connectors or the number of pins. As such, and notwithstanding the repeated assertions in their Q&A that you need a cable certified for 2.1 in order for the new features to work, you might not need a cable with that certification. It seems reasonable to prognosticate that a high-quality older HDMI cable, especially a shorter one, would pass the new certification without difficulty. In HDMI 2.0 there was a pin (14) that wasn't used, so there is some possibility that in a cheap cable the manufacturer would have saved a smidgen of copper by not connecting pin 14 at the two ends of the cable. But even if you were to encounter a cable of this sort, which seems rather unlikely, it wouldn't cause any problem unless the 2.1 spec makes use of the pin. I haven't looked into it enough to know whether it does or doesn't. But even if it does, it isn't likely that in a cable of decent quality pin 14 would be left unconnected end-to-end. You could always check this with an Ohmmeter or continuity tester.

 

[polmuaddib]

All i know is that when i got a UHD HDR TV from 1080p, none of my old HDMI cables worked. Either it was black screen, some gave a picture but kept losing it ( I am watching a movie and HDMI keeps handshaking every 15 minutes or so) and stuff like that. Shorter cable exhibitied less trouble, true. But I need at least 2m HDMI. And that was for a direct connection from GFX card to TV connection. Not through AVR.
Then i bought 50 euro brend cables and things are good now. Even now i get occasional handshake for no reason, but it is one every few days.
I believe that cheap cable manufacturers are not doing everything strictly to spec and that was fine for 1080p, but now it's more data.

Here he talks of HDMI testing among other things. Great lecture.

 

[superczar]

If a given HDMI cable delivers an error-free stream of bits from source to destination (all features work correctly) it is 100% as good as any other HDMI cable in that same application, i.e., carrying that same bit rate. If you have an error-free picture with a given HDMI cable, there is no way that any other HDMI cable can improve the picture. The same is true for audio, however bit errors are likely not as apparent with audio as with video.

It has been a while since I've paid any attention to the HDMI specs, so out of curiosity I just took a quick glance at the information given on HDMI.org, concerning the 2.1 specification. Unless changes are stipulated for the physical connectors (i.e., an increase in the number of pins and conductors), the new features all reside at a protocol layer above the silicon and copper. There appear to be a lot of enhanced features and a vastly more elaborate scheme at the layer immediately above the silicon/copper. But with the quick glance I took I did not see anything that suggested any change to the connectors or the number of pins. As such, and notwithstanding the repeated assertions in their Q&A that you need a cable certified for 2.1 in order for the new features to work, you might not need a cable with that certification. It seems reasonable to prognosticate that a high-quality older HDMI cable, especially a shorter one, would pass the new certification without difficulty. In HDMI 2.0 there was a pin (14) that wasn't used, so there is some possibility that in a cheap cable the manufacturer would have saved a smidgen of copper by not connecting pin 14 at the two ends of the cable. But even if you were to encounter a cable of this sort, which seems rather unlikely, it wouldn't cause any problem unless the 2.1 spec makes use of the pin. I haven't looked into it enough to know whether it does or doesn't. But even if it does, it isn't likely that in a cable of decent quality pin 14 would be left unconnected end-to-end. You could always check this with an Ohmmeter or continuity tester.

Yes and no.
i don’t think anyone is saying that an expensive hdmicable = better image for a given frame.
what the OP is saying (and which I have experienced too) is that the bandwidth on a 4k HDR is high enough for cheap cables to have a negative impact.
Again, not On a specific frame while it works... but due to recurrent dropouts when it fails to keep up with the data.
Or delayed startup due to handshake problems.

his wasn’t an issue with 1080p - where I’ve used 1.5USD equivalent cables for a trouble free experience.

It’s Like how a frayed and old Ethernet cable will gladly do 100mbps but good luck getting it to maintain a stable gbe link.

I had to replace quite a few cables (including cables rated for 4k hdr) when I switched a few years ago

 

[bobbooo]

One area where cables can matter more is with IEMs (especially multi-driver) that have low, wildly varying impedance with frequency. Some come with stock cables with ridiculously high resistance of 2 ohms or more, which effectively adds to the output impedance of your source, resulting in sometimes audible changes in frequency response compared to using a low-resistance cable.

 

[polmuaddib]

Exactly. The worst brend name company that i bought HDMI cable is Oehlbach. Because they advertise a better picture quality with more expensive HDMI cable. Not believing them, i bought their entry level hdmi cable certified (but by them, not third party certification) for HDR and the entry level one still had some drop outs. I think they are intentionally building inferior cable so that they can sell more expensive cable.