[Closed] Does speaker cable actually make a difference?

daddy or chips?

My phone is currently plugged in with a quite nice AKG USB cable. It's actually vastly better sound quality than any other USB cable I own as it doesn't fall out of the socket resulting in no audio at all.

daddy or chips?

Chips, down with the patriarchy!

I took the content of all the posts on this thread which were in confilct
and sumed them together without any phase reversal

guess what the output was.

I took the content of all the posts on this thread which were in confilct
and sumed them together without any phase reversal

guess what the output was.

Pink noise?

Brown noise.

But “better” in this context is subjective. AFAIC vinyl is better because I prefer the sound.

Which is what I said.

You prefer inferior. There's no shame in that.

Never mind the cables, you need to ensure they run parallel to ley lines.

Cougar  "You prefer inferior. There’s no shame in that." But your trying to imply, with your endless wit and sarcasm, that there is 😉

"Never mind the cables, you need to ensure they run parallel to ley lines."

I love it when comments (like this one but not exclusive to this one) end up resorting mockery because that's the best they can come up with. Not sharing any personal experience or knowledge on given subject (but that's probably because they haven't got any to share) 🙄

The comments I really enjoy though are the ones that say something like...

"No, speaker cable makes no difference as long as your not using xyz.." (with xyz usually being bell wire or zip wire) without seemingly realising they have just agreed that speaker cable does make a difference but then seem incapable of accepting that maybe some speaker cable sold as 'speaker cable' that costs money could possibly also make a difference, the mind can take a narrow path sometimes.....

I'm guilty of that.

So - to add some actual input no just silliness

Upgraded QUAD405 fed by a RaspberryPi/PI-DAQ+ through a Tisbury Audio passive pre, going into Snell Acoustics Type E/ii speakers, so nothing high-end buy fairly decent.

I've used cheap thin Maplin cable, then twin and earth and now Van Damme Studio 4.0mm2.
I've not heard any difference whatsoever during those changes. Twin and earth is a right nightmare to work with as its so inflexible. Van Damme much easier to work with and also looks nice as it's chunky and a pretty colour.

Because of different capacitance etc I imagine there there probably are subtle audible differences between different cable types if listened to directly back to back. I doubt that either are objectively "better" but if there's a preference for one or the other then what's the harm (apart from to the wallet for those buying expensive cable).

Moving the speakers closer to or further from the wall however makes significant difference, so from that my view is that changing speaker cable is a very expensive, difficult way to make a tiny change to sound which is a distraction from getting other factors right.

markwsf..... yeah some knowledge and experience at last.

I agree with what you say about differences being very subtle sometimes. So much so that I feel doing back to back tests is fairly worthless because it's very difficult for the brain to really compare one setup followed by another. The best way I've found is to make a change and then spend a few weeks listening to stuff you know well but DON'T focus on detail such as "was that guitar intro clearer.." etc. but rather relax and think "is the music more musical , more enjoyable, engaging". Then go back to the original setup for a week or so and listen to the same stuff with the same focus on the musical enjoyment. Then make a judgement.

I love it when comments (like this one but not exclusive to this one) end up resorting mockery because that’s the best they can come up with.

I was having a laugh, clearly something got lost in translation.

But to answer your question I can't remember what cables I've used on my speakers. I did have some bi-wired cables that I used for years but they were really thick and being dark blue were deemed inappropriate for the lounge, along with the musical technogy kestrel speakers they were plugged into. So when I bought some monitor audio bronze speakers to replace them I also got some nice white thin cables that weren't bi-wired to connect them up. That's much easier to run round the skirting board and hide away.

As someone above said, in my experience the position of speakers and use of any baffles in the ports has a much greater impact on sound than the cable. But each to their own.

Because of different capacitance etc I imagine there there probably are subtle audible differences between different cable types if listened to directly back to back

Watch that YouTube video, there aren't.

“is the music more musical , more enjoyable, engaging”.

He addresses this point directly at 28:35 😉

So, to those who can tellthe difference between cables sold as speaker cables, do you think that has more or less effect than the weather? You're transmitting sound through air, but if you calculate air density, using pressure, temp and humidity as variables you'll get 5% density variations pretty easily, plus the differing air humidity will affect how differing frequencies are preserved.. so tests that aren't back to back, start to be affected by a lot more variables than the cable

So that YouTube video is the one and only gospel now is it ...  says who.

"So, to those who can tellthe difference between cables sold as speaker cables, do you think that has more or less effect than the weather? You’re transmitting sound through air, but if you calculate air density, using pressure, temp and humidity as variables you’ll get 5% density variations pretty easily, plus the differing air humidity will affect how differing frequencies are preserved.. so tests that aren’t back to back, start to be affected by a lot more variables than the cable"

Yes there are many variables, some can be controlled and some can't, what we can do is have some say in what we can control and do our best to come to the best judgment call we can. If someone disagrees with my thoughts and findings that's fine I'm not going to force it on anyone. Often in these sorts of matters the people with negative opinions are much more forceful in sharing them and often have no experience on the topic whatsoever but nevertheles behave like they do. But ultimately who cares, who am I to take away someone's enjoyment from whatever interest they follow and call them mad for spending their own money wherever they see fit.

@petercook80 - I'm in that camp; what's so controversial about saying "Once the cable is sufficiently large to handle the power requirements further improvements to the cable will not make a measurable difference" ?

Yes; speaker cables make a difference - up to a point. And that point is pretty low unless you are running kW size amps/speakers.

So that YouTube video is the one and only gospel now is it … says who

Science?

Also; the source / what's better or not - I think it's clear that a source can be measurably *more accurate* to the original masters. Whether someone perceives that as better or worse is entirely subjective and everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

Nothing controversial anywhere.....

So that YouTube video is the one and only gospel now is it

Well, it explains, with a repeatable empirical measurement, that the signal transmitted via different cables is exactly the same. Exactly. The. Same. If the signal is the same, the sound you hear is the same. Any differences you think you hear are imagined.

But ultimately who cares, who am I to take away someone’s enjoyment from whatever interest they follow and call them mad for spending their own money wherever they see fit.

And fair enough. There's plenty on here who will say that they can tell the difference in the relative stiffness of different stems, bars or cranks, or the 'vertical compliance' of different frames, when they can't.

IHN

So that YouTube video is the one and only gospel now is it

Well, it explains, with a repeatable empirical measurement, that the signal transmitted via different cables is exactly the same. Exactly. The. Same. If the signal is the same, the sound you hear is the same. Any differences you think you hear are imagined.

At the end of the day, what we hear has to be influenced by our own physiology as well as mental interpretation of that sound.
Even if there is scientifically no measurable difference to the signal, if the listener perceives an difference/improvement (even if there isn't one) does it matter?

Do you not give a placebo to someone even if it makes them feel better, because it actually 'isn't doing anything'?

Interestingly nobody seemed to mention the video isn't actually testing speaker wire....  what he does test is 4 (I think it was) RCA interconnects.

So as 'Science' was brought up, the scientific result of the tests is that the 4 interconnect cables tested none made a difference in that testing setup - possibly this will continue with the same results with many interconnects but we would be making an assumption with that. We don't know the results for speaker cables and I don't think this test could be used for speaker cables. But as it stands it does not really qualify as a definitive scientific study, it may well be correct but with 'Science' many different experiments carried out by different people in different test environments and with different equipment need to be done to be considered 'Science'

Which is what I said.

You prefer inferior. There’s no shame in that.

No, it's not what you said. If I prefer the sound then it's not inferior. Less accurate maybe, but that's not the same thing.

OK. It's an inferior reproduction of the source material.

Well that depends on the source material 😉

The comments I really enjoy though are the ones that say something like…

“No, speaker cable makes no difference as long as your not using xyz..” (with xyz usually being bell wire or zip wire) without seemingly realising they have just agreed that speaker cable does make a difference but then seem incapable of accepting that maybe some speaker cable sold as ‘speaker cable’ that costs money could possibly also make a difference, the mind can take a narrow path sometimes…..

To my mind, there's "good enough" or "not good enough". If you have a hosepipe on a tap, replacing it with a pipe the width of a drinking straw is going to cause problems but the reverse isn't true, using a hose two inches in diameter isn't going to magically give you any more water.

Or, try to pour a pint into a shot glass, a pint glass and a litre stein. The former proves that glass size makes a difference, do we then conclude that the stein must also be an improvement and it's narrow-minded to think otherwise?

Your perfectly welcome to your mind...

But comparisons of hosepipes and drinking receptacles seems somewhat meaningless in this context. But as you say it's your mind. 😃

And is 'Good Enough' really enough goodness, wouldn't it be ever gooder to have more goodness then 'Enough' , why be content in life with just 'Good Enough' - having just those two levels somewhat makes my point on the narrowness really 😉 (attempt at humour alert there not an insult)

If there is room for improvement then it is, by definition, not good enough.

If 100% of what is going in one end is coming out of the other, no cable in the world is going to give you 110%.

How good is "good enough" is entirely down to personal preference.

For me personally there is a point at which there is no need to optimize, improve or adjust to improve things - i.e. it's good enough. For me that point is reached way before speaker cables get into the picture, but after things like a proper hifi amp and speakers, speakers placed properly etc.

Others think differently. I know a few people quite happy to listen via an Amazon Echo dot for example as their main system.

I always used the cheapest wire I could find, but when I got my new stereo I wanted some slightly nicer wire to go with it.

Still pretty cheap, but looks loads better.

So for me, it makes s difference,justnit an audio one.

"If there is room for improvement then it is, by definition, not good enough. If 100% of what is going in one end is coming out of the other, no cable in the world is going to give you 110%."

Oh all the fun has gone out of life.......  still you should see the performance of my 10 grand hosepipe, its exceptionally good.

If the media / cabling / equipment is adding artefacts and noise then it is objectively, not subjectively, worse.

That's where you're wrong. A system could introduce artefacts that the listener perceives as more pleasing. For example, if your ears or brain are more sensitive to higher frequencies, you may fit a cable that actually attenuates higher frequencies they may prefer it. Given that all systems reproduce the sound differently, with different frequency responses etc it is not possible to say that one is objectively better.

Remember the goal of hi-fi isn't to simply reproduce what's on the source material. After all, that's simply a representation of the original music which has been processed both digitally and acoustically during recording. 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.

don't forget the cables need to be burnt in too!

"don’t forget the cables need to be burnt in too!"

A good point but perhaps that needs another thread all of its own 🙂

OK. It’s an inferior reproduction of the source material.

No, it's less accurate.

Hi-fi is funny stuff.

Years ago I had a half decent, "entry level" separate's system.

It was sitting underneath my TV in an Ikea, pine TV stand on pine shelves.

For some reason I got rid of the TV stand and temporarily moved it on to the floor, which was a heavy duty laminate. It was very rigid.

The sound was definitely "different" and my opinion "better". Nothing else was changed, the speaker positions, the cables, etc all the same but it produced a different sound.

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.

Things like speaker positioning and tuning your room can make such a huge difference and usually at less cost than super fancy cables.

If there is room for improvement then it is, by definition, not good enough.

You'll need to be custom building your house then, because they are definitely built to be 'good enough' with massive room for improvement.

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....