| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Colloms on Cables
Underpinning a discussion about the merits of potentially costly specialist audio cables is an obvious question: Why do we need them? Doesn't almost all wire conduct audio signals with negligible distortion and very little loss of power? Specialist hi-fi cables seem expensive for what you get. Especially at the upper end, they seem like a worse value than electronics and loudspeakers. Depreciation is greater, too: Cables are almost a consumable.
Footnote 1: Stereophile published a theoretical examination by Malcolm Omar Hawksford on how and why audio cables might affect sound quality in October 1995. Also see this 1998 article on experimental evidence by Ben Duncan.—John Atkinson
But if you wish to finesse the quality endeavor of classic separates-based hi-fi systems, you cannot do without them. Fundamentally, it is not the efficient transfer of audio power that's the issue; that is the easy bit. Rather, it is a matter of optimizing the transmission of the more subtle information that describes recorded acoustic, instrumental detail, the performers, and, not least, dynamics and rhythm: Are your feet tapping unconsciously in time to the performance?
The seemingly high cost of good cable is an inevitable consequence of often-arduous prototyping followed by a costly manufacturing run. Then consider stocking issues and the potential for product returns when the hoped-for improvement is not readily apparent when a cable is installed in a customer's system. What's more, a dealer needs excellent fieldcraft to reliably demonstrate the sometimes-elusive benefits that can come from cable substitutions. And then there's the markup.
How much of your budget should be allocated to a set of cables? Even the least expensive options will perform to some degree. With unlimited resources, you can spend whatever you like, even for small improvements, but 10%–20% of total system cost seems reasonable for a good audio system. Sometimes a given spend will have effectively topped out with just the speakers and electronics; subsequent system improvement can only be achieved by additional, perhaps stressful investments in those other bits, passive "components" such as cables and equipment supports, and—where aesthetically acceptable—room acoustic treatment.
Cables may sound mildly different from each other for a multitude of reasons (footnote 1). Mildly, because the gains to be won with cables are rather less than those experienced with most equipment substitutions. Some of these gains are significantly system dependent.
Take the usual passive loudspeaker–amplifier connection. At its simplest, it comprises a pair of insulated wires a few meters long of moderate—say, half an ohm—loop resistance, readily capable of carrying up to 25A or so of peak current. If our notional amplifier has an output resistance of 0.1 ohm, which is typical, the total resistance presented to the loudspeaker is then about 0.6 ohm. For a nominal 6 ohm speaker, the much-vaunted damping factor will be 6 divided by 0.6, or 10, which is unimpressive numerically. For many loudspeakers, both the Q factor (which controls damping) at low frequencies and the overall frequency response will begin to show increasingly audible changes at damping-factor values much lower than this. This is one way that small changes in sound quality may begin to intrude in a system unexpectedly.
Over-the-air audio signals, once limited to radio broadcast transmissions, now permeate modern domestic environments in the form of wide-bandwidth, high-frequency mobile phone, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals. Hi-fi systems based on wireless connections have two significant implications with respect to cables, one positive, the other negative: On the plus side, they remove the need for interconnects and speaker cables and so one source of variability in system sound. On the minus side, they fill the space around our systems with a haze of high-frequency noise, which has the potential to influence how our systems (cabled or wireless) sound. Yet almost every system requires an AC power cord, which can affect the sound of a system in part by providing a route of entry for some of that noise into our systems via the AC line.
In classic, separates-based hi-fi systems, music information (in the form of electrical signals) travels along a selected cabled "track" from one component to the next—eg, from a phono cartridge to a step-up transformer to a phono preamp and on to a preamp and amplifier—or from a network player then to the preamp, etc., and then on to the speakers—all via suitably low-resistance cable. Each of those separates (except phono cartridges, step-up transformers, and passive preamplifiers) requires a power cable. These interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords all have the potential to moderately influence sound quality, individually and collectively. Moderately is a key word; such changes are small, yet we do get to choose if we want to, and with a following wind, perhaps make a difference that matters musically.
Notwithstanding market research, magazine reviews, dealer demos, and the advice of writers, dealers, and friends, we still must get those cables home and patiently try them out. Upon arrival, they are likely to need some mechanical relaxation and strain relief, gentle reflex bending in all directions following release from their packaging. Electrical running in and conditioning, too, often result in subtle improvements over time, maybe as much as months, with no guaranteed outcome.
Speaker cables may interact with the loudspeaker's load impedance, which typically is not constant over frequency. Such electrical matching effects may affect subtle shifts in timbre, bass weight and attack, and even midrange transparency. These may be rather more noticeable than anticipated from much vaunted superlow-loss insulators and superhigh-purity conductors. Such potential gains are frequently promoted to support heavy spending on hi-fi cables. At the same time, such technology improvements may well be audible in the sound-quality mix, usually as subtle nuances. It is all a matter of proportion.
Damping factor, which has already been discussed to some degree, is a measure of the connected system's ability to control power coming back from the operating loudspeaker. This may include electrically reactive components, ie, with phase shifts such as those generated in the crossover network and further compounded by reverse/reactive current from dynamic moving parts including driver voice coils. Keeping loudspeaker cable resistance low helps ensure more consistent performance overall, preserving the effective damping factor, especially for "dynamic," moving coil loudspeakers.
Footnote 1: Stereophile published a theoretical examination by Malcolm Omar Hawksford on how and why audio cables might affect sound quality in October 1995. Also see this 1998 article on experimental evidence by Ben Duncan.—John Atkinson
NEXT: Page 2 »
 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||
FEATURED VIDEO
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2025 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
"Knock a live microphone cable, and you'll likely hear a "bang" from the speaker."
This is because you will have induced a mechanical shock to the mic itself, and has nothing to do with the cable's electrical properties. Happens when you bump the mic stand as well (and bumping the cable can, and often does, move the stand).
There are audible differences in cables' sound (especially speaker cables) but misinformation is not helpful in making your point or giving people confidence that you know what you're talking about.
As you say, supamark, it does make one wonder if anyone's home.
to the quality of sound to be substantial. More so than many realize. Just yesterday I was switching between three different cables between preamplifier and amplifier. All three are well regarded in the high end market. Cable A made my system sound smooth and fantastic, possibly a bit less detail than I would like. Cable B made it sound lean, midrange forward and bright. Cable C gave the presentation more impact in the bass frequencies and nicely transparent and burnished in the rest of the bandwidth.
The differences were literally "make-or-break" in comparison.
Unfortunately there are no specifications or qualifications that would allow the user to predict the impact on sound quality beforehand- the only way to know is to buy and try. Without any specs or qualifications to predict the impact it fosters the myth that high end cables are voodoo.
The good news is that certain brands and models of cables can have a predictable effect in different systems or positions.
My final input is that purchasing cables as a percentage of system cost is an industry led mantra that is not necessary. Having gone up the chain in many instances there is no shortage of higher priced interconnects and speaker cables from the same manufacturer that do not sound as good as some of their lower priced lines.
Again, trying them in one's system is the only way to tell.
Well, if you follow the 10-20% of total system cost earmarked for cables guideline in this article, swapping out cables frequently would result in one spending the vast majority of their total system budget on trying out different cables.
Even the most generous lender and trade in programs aren’t going to let you use a $10k set of speaker cables for a few months and return them for a full refund.
One can only go on reviews so much- so how would you suggest trying out so many high end cables- both interconnects and speaker cables - multiplied by the various possible combinations of both- to get the sound they prefer the most?
High end cable swapping seems to me to be the most expensive trial and error for the least potential possible gain when system matching. Trialing different loudspeakers, for example, certainly appears to me to have a much larger effect on the overall sound of a given system than different cables, and so a better use of time and money.
Did you do blind ABX (or here ABCX)?
All this speculation can be taken seriously when that is answered.
AB-X is a verboten threat for some around here, particularly when it comes to very expensive cables.
I have to say that I do enjoy the discomfort at times.
Those tests are done for something as trivial as medicine and surgery but audio is too important to leave to double blind testing.
Strangely, I’ve known some people who assiduously avoided routine checkups even though they were covered through health insurance that they were already paying for through their employer anyway.
I think that in the case of health care, they were afraid of what they would find.
In the case of double blind testing audio cables, I think it’s a fear of what they *won’t* find.
in good faith but trust me when I say the differences were obvious and easy to hear.
Some esoteric loudspeaker cables that are excessively reactive at high frequencies, more especially in combination with loudspeakers exhibiting rising inductive impedance at higher frequencies, can exacerbate stability problems in class A/B/AB amplifiers lacking circuitry well designed to provide stability to help avoid oscillation (eg a Thiele network in series with the output, in combination with a Boucherot cell, aka Zobel network, in shunt at the upstream node of the Thiele network). The instability can lead to a high frequency oscillation, probably ultrasonic, that if you are fortunate will only trigger a protection mode in the amplifier control circuitry if so equipped, else if less fortunate you may fry your amplifier and your tweeters' voicecoils, or worse.
Here is a link to an example of the problem in an amplifier review that was published in Stereophile.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/adcom-gfa-7805-five-channel-power-amplifier-cable-issues
Terminating the load end of the loudspeaker cable with a Zobel network is an inexpensive precautionary action. A good description of that is available in an article titled "Loudspeaker Cable Characteristic Impedance" on the Elliot Sound Products website at the following link.
https://sound-au.com/cable-z.htm
There is also a good brief article on "Stability" on the Neurochrome website at the following link, which includes some description of Thiele network and Boucherot cell.
https://neurochrome.com/pages/stability
... this article, does the connection of a $1,500 pair of speakers (Golden Ear BRX) with a $2K pair of speaker cables (Audioquest Robin Hood ZERO) really represent the best allocation of funds for a hi-fi system?
Guaranteed. And he uses that combination for his reference in his magazine reviews.
You wanna argue with him? Let's see you do it successfully.
... those speakers and speaker cables?
Might he prefer to have those $2K speaker cables or an $1,100 Golden Ear subwoofer and a $900 set of speaker cables plus a single line-level interconnect cable?
You didn't read the reviews??
Tsk tsk.
... the AQ Robin Hood ZERO cables. In which issue did you see it?
The late, great Peter Aczel did successfully argue with JA, even when sabotaged!
THIS
I’m going to stay out of the comments for this one. Suffice it to say, I’ve always been skeptical of megabuck cables.
Edit- I can’t help myself
How much do the tires of a VW Polo cost on average?
How much do the tires of a BMW (M)5 cost on average?
How much do the tires of a Bugatti Tourbillon cost on average?
Is there also a so-called and seemingly limitless 10-20% rule (but then translated to the % for the value of the car compared to the tires)? Or does the BMW (M)5 have the same priced car tires as the Bugatti Tourbillon?
just checked that for you - for the Chiron & the Polo: 1.3% for the prior and ca 2.5% for the latter (1 set of tires). I'd say the difference is small enough to call it a robust relationship.
Of course this is a nonsensical comparison: cables are not wearing out. Used cables exist. 10-20% is a very system dependent number (think active speakers with streaming fct - 2 power cables, vs complex conventional with many external psu, digital and analog interconnects, many power cables, LS cables, power distributor, and yes a non-standard ethernet path.. etc).
Thank you for this. If anything, replacement costs should go into things with moving parts like motors or even speaker cone surrounds… or capacitors that eventually need to be replaced. A cable is an inert wire at the end of the day. They don’t wear out.
So the car tire analogy is a particularly bad one. I’d say excessive cable swapping is more akin to tire kicking.
of course, there are certainly 100 points to think of why this comparison is flawed, but it is about the principle behind it, just like with tires you also reach the point of diminishing marginal utility with audio cables at some point. Then every extra investment is no longer in proportion to the (sound) profit. If there is one. But hey, everyone is the boss of his own money.
The principle behind it is flawed as well. Nobody in their right mind would pay 20% the value of their car on a single set of tires. In fact, you can’t even *find* tires that cost so much relative to the car unless that car is an old beater.
Tires are a mass produced, consumable commodity. Are you suggesting that cables should be as well?
that's not my point (that anyone would pay 20% of the budget car on tires), my point is that the buyer of a BWM spent the same amount on tires then a Bugatti buyer.
None of that is relevant or in any way comparable to interconnects and their role in stereo systems. That’s my point.
Tires are really easy to test and quantify the differences.
Users also *have to* replace the tires when they wear out, which they do regularly. Even if the tire tread isn’t worn out, the rubber degrades over time and tires must be replaced every six years or so.
These are all essential safety reasons.
Interconnects in stereo systems aren’t like this… at all.
During the recording and production process the audio signal travels through a great length of cables and connectors - microphone to mixing desk, mixing desk to effects boxes, mixing desk to recording device, some of these multiple times, and, for the vinyl people, recording device to vinyl mastering chain and finally to the cutting lathe. None of these connections are made using "audiophile" cables. All together present a signal path many times the complexity in a HiFi system. So I fundamentally do not understand the argument that ultra-expensive cables, sold with claims that often do not just strain credulity but veer deep into "alternative physics", are required in playback.
... studios are not wired via unshielded give-away asymmetric interconnects, are they? I guess the engineering and construction effort goes elsewhere, so that cables can be robust and cheap. I read somewhere, if studio cables were expensive, they would get stolen in short time..
Both your points are among many compelling arguments. Cables that are good enough for recording studios and engineers are good enough. To throw 20% of one’s entire system budget at them to try to do better is not cost effective. And many would argue not practically effective at all.
Without experience yourself, for your own ears. You're relying on some un-named studio to make engineering or listening decisions, instead of your own ears? Studios run crap and also run what audiophiles use, wildly varying in price. It depends on their clientele and their budget.
If cables do add 'synergy' as MC puts it in his review, that's value to him. Especially if he's happy with the system the way it is at his investment level. The AQ cables enable him a deeper connection for not a ton more money invested. It's worth it to him, a deeply respected reviewer.
You didn't argue one iota on why not or why for. "Many"? What reviewers or people on the internet are you referring to that think 20% is stupid.
If one has a great integrated amp and speakers with a DAC they are satisfied with and they want to experiment with pricier cables because they have the means and the inclination, that specific system may and will react to a specific set vs. another. The informed poster above states a similar reaction to 3 different looms. Experience in testing breeds knowledge.
To dismiss cabling at particular price point is naive until one has used it for themselves. One simply doesn't know until so. All else is conjecture.
No one needs "months" of auditioning to eval cables. A credit card allows you 1 month to audition to your heart's content or return them after auditioning multiple sets from multiple makers. More than enough time to hear 95% of what the cable brings to the listening.
I responded here because it needs a response from an experienced audiophile.
... has been spent on interconnects and cables?
as well as the discounts under retail I've enjoyed, just for being a savvy consumer.
Ironic you haven't read that either... lol.
Some people spend all their time and money on tinkering with snake oil. We know who those people are.
are the cheapest upgrade.
It’s only an upgrade if you can reliably hear the difference.
While I do think cables quickly get ridiculous, I also find it entertaining that the data only crowd will get excited about changing to better 'performing' equipment where the difference is way beyond the audible range.
It is also strange that on the site for the measurement fanatics, their leader never does the hallowed double blind tests. He actually listens after he does the measurement so he knows what to listen for and... surprisingly hears it. That is the measurement equivalent of having the salesman tell you what you are going to hear before you listen.
If you’re referring to the ASR crowd, sure, they should be taken with a grain of salt, but personally, I do take into account what they have to say, particularly about very large anomalies in things like speaker frequency response and dispersion curves. Many of those things are easy to discern.
And they do review a lot more accessible mid fi gear than most mags do. And practically speaking, isn’t that more useful to more people than take-our-word-for-it hymns to esoteric, unobtainable gear?
And they do provide another set of independent measurements that one can cross reference with the manufacturer’s claims, JA’s measurements, and others. The more data the better as far as I’m concerned. Words are cheap.
Sure, distortion figures and things like jitter and IMD distortion are much harder to hear and in many cases inaudible.
But I think you might agree that it would be a stretch to say that the differences between cables that have similar electrical and conductivity characteristics are just as audibly discernible as these other measurements.
ASR doesn't listen to components so they are no position to comment on sound. So they don't.
The data for Benchmark equipment, the specs, are published with every manual. They are the same as ASR's measurements. Exactly the same. ASR doesn't do anything that Stereophile does. Stereophile does more.
You, rather, mistrust everyone, writers, people with more knowledge than you. So you hate. AND that hatred is very obvious in your contempt of every single product you've decided to comment on- and in a ignorant manner (given your lack of listening to the product or experience owning it).
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2024/04/as-we-hear-it-audiophile-cable-truths.html
The case for expensive audiophile cables
always faces a central conundrum:
We are often told That these super duper cables will transmit Sound in way
That you will not get from cheaper cables, Uncovering new realms of detail and
improving Sound quality in various ways.
And yet as many point out, The vast majority of recordings that any audiophile or reviewer is likely Listening to were recorded using reams of bog standard cables. The cable lifters crowd would be horrified by seeing tons of old cables strewn together or tracing the floors. Nobody had these expensive cables when making most recordings.
What does this mean? It means every time an audiophiles or reviewer places one of these expensive cables in their system revels in some new sonic revelation “ Oh my gosh, the most subtle acoustic from that hall is revealed!” - They are hearing sound that was obviously capably transmitted by the cheap cables used in those recordings! Every revelation is a revelation about the performance of cheap pro cables themselves.
A while back, I got a new preamp in my system And I didn’t have the extra cabling yet, So an audio file more into cables than I am lent me some $6,000 cables - ones that had been raved about in Places like the absolute sound. When I eventually replace them with $40 audioblast cables from Amazon (standard pro grade)…. Out of curiosity, I listened for a difference and heard none.
Just as electrical theory would predict.
As any electrical engineer or physicist will point out, a decent conductor only conducts current in the manner defined by the laws of nature. If you hear differences in cables, that can be fully explained by the amplifier interaction with the cables lumped L and C characteristics and DC resistance and the speaker load on the other end. There is no such thing as ‘alternative physics’ when it comes to cables.
There is nothing more frustrating for an amplifier or speaker designer than seeing an audiophile getting duped into spending hundreds or thousands of $ on cables which are then paired with an amplifier and speakers costing the same for some claimed sonic benefits.
When it comes to cables, subjective fantasy meets objective reality.
The one thing that baffles me the most is when words like "dynamics" and "rhythm" are thrown as examples of what can be improved using expensive cables. While I can understand people expecting improbable improvements to the signal that are improbably audible, claiming that things like "dynamics", "rhythm", and specially (although, NOT mentioned in this article) "musicality" are improved is where I draw the line. Reminds me the way pseudosciences like Homeopathy and UFOlogy use scientific-like language to make unverifiable, improbable claims.