30-Mar-2018, 21:17
Discipline In Cable Selection?
This forum, in common with pretty much all others, has members who voice an opinion “cable A is better than cable B” or who ask “is cable A better than cable B?”; usually followed by comments of mild agreement or mild disagreement or “try it on loan”; yet at the other end of the spectrum we never see randomised double blind tests proving, or otherwise, that cable A can be identified against cable B on a statistically significant basis. Not necessarily better or worse, but just different. Perhaps manufacturers run these tests but are minded not to divulge the results? And those experiments are probably far too onerous for hobbyist listeners.
Luckily, on this forum, the debate on cable rarely gets out of hand or even entrenched. But if, for example, you looks at WhatsBestForum, loudspeaker cables suitable to mate with very expensive loudspeakers have, themselves, to be very expensive even to enter the debate. I remember once mischievously suggesting that US owners of a certain very expensive Wilson or Magico loudspeaker should try the DNM cable made here in the UK (which they would have never heard of but could obtain) - made by a very distinguished engineer but priced at only £33 per stereo metre. I guess as soon as forum participants saw the price, that idea was rejected. The post elicited no replies.
Rarely has there been any process which seeks to narrow the gap between these subjective and objective approaches and it is perhaps only now, that I have what I hope will be a stable cable selection, that have I thought about the criteria I would use were I going through the process again. A possible process of elimination which leaves a small shortlist, rather than one which seeks to select “the best”.
So here are my selection or elimination criteria:
1 the manufacturer needs to have a credible track record in the area over a number of years.
2 the business is ideally lead by the design engineer who also has a material stake in the business and is clearly a “hands on” guy.
3 the manufacturer makes infrequent product changes.
4 specific product ranges are short - maybe no more than four interconnects, etc.
5 the marketing from the manufacturer and the distributor uses no b***shit (eg Mk 2 trounces Mk 1 which was, last year, the best thing since sliced bread) and/or runs no demonstrations which seek to lead listeners towards the desired outcome.
6 the manufacturer participates directly on a forum.
7 the supply chain is short or the perceived mark up sensible: for example, if the production price is 100 (pre-profit) from the manufacturer and then each of the manufacturer and distributor and retailer wants 30%, 30% and 40% of their price to be profit, then the price to the customer ends up at 340 and it becomes hard to warrant the 240 (or 70%) added value - why have three in the chain when not all add value? And I am lead to believe that, in the cable market, some of these percentages are even higher.
8 the manufacturer is also engaged in the supply of another industry which gives credibility to the engineering input.
9 the manufacturer will take back cables for modification.
I would then use an idea first proposed by Julian Musgrave in an article for HiFiCritic. Specifically, identify ones “Distortion Profile”. Namely define the three most important sound qualities you must have and the three most important sound qualities you must avoid. You cannot use specifications, nor can the qualities be vague, and the qualities cannot be antonyms of one another.
This exercise is a tough one and I ended up with:
- must have: transparency, width, depth
- must avoid: forwardness, bass slam, treble drive
Views?
This forum, in common with pretty much all others, has members who voice an opinion “cable A is better than cable B” or who ask “is cable A better than cable B?”; usually followed by comments of mild agreement or mild disagreement or “try it on loan”; yet at the other end of the spectrum we never see randomised double blind tests proving, or otherwise, that cable A can be identified against cable B on a statistically significant basis. Not necessarily better or worse, but just different. Perhaps manufacturers run these tests but are minded not to divulge the results? And those experiments are probably far too onerous for hobbyist listeners.
Luckily, on this forum, the debate on cable rarely gets out of hand or even entrenched. But if, for example, you looks at WhatsBestForum, loudspeaker cables suitable to mate with very expensive loudspeakers have, themselves, to be very expensive even to enter the debate. I remember once mischievously suggesting that US owners of a certain very expensive Wilson or Magico loudspeaker should try the DNM cable made here in the UK (which they would have never heard of but could obtain) - made by a very distinguished engineer but priced at only £33 per stereo metre. I guess as soon as forum participants saw the price, that idea was rejected. The post elicited no replies.
Rarely has there been any process which seeks to narrow the gap between these subjective and objective approaches and it is perhaps only now, that I have what I hope will be a stable cable selection, that have I thought about the criteria I would use were I going through the process again. A possible process of elimination which leaves a small shortlist, rather than one which seeks to select “the best”.
So here are my selection or elimination criteria:
1 the manufacturer needs to have a credible track record in the area over a number of years.
2 the business is ideally lead by the design engineer who also has a material stake in the business and is clearly a “hands on” guy.
3 the manufacturer makes infrequent product changes.
4 specific product ranges are short - maybe no more than four interconnects, etc.
5 the marketing from the manufacturer and the distributor uses no b***shit (eg Mk 2 trounces Mk 1 which was, last year, the best thing since sliced bread) and/or runs no demonstrations which seek to lead listeners towards the desired outcome.
6 the manufacturer participates directly on a forum.
7 the supply chain is short or the perceived mark up sensible: for example, if the production price is 100 (pre-profit) from the manufacturer and then each of the manufacturer and distributor and retailer wants 30%, 30% and 40% of their price to be profit, then the price to the customer ends up at 340 and it becomes hard to warrant the 240 (or 70%) added value - why have three in the chain when not all add value? And I am lead to believe that, in the cable market, some of these percentages are even higher.
8 the manufacturer is also engaged in the supply of another industry which gives credibility to the engineering input.
9 the manufacturer will take back cables for modification.
I would then use an idea first proposed by Julian Musgrave in an article for HiFiCritic. Specifically, identify ones “Distortion Profile”. Namely define the three most important sound qualities you must have and the three most important sound qualities you must avoid. You cannot use specifications, nor can the qualities be vague, and the qualities cannot be antonyms of one another.
This exercise is a tough one and I ended up with:
- must have: transparency, width, depth
- must avoid: forwardness, bass slam, treble drive
Views?
Innuos Statement 2TB SSD with Next-Gen PSU (with Roon lifetime)
MacBook Pro (with Air)
Draytek Vigor 2860v-Plus/Devialet Original d'Atelier CI Nos. 54A&B/Magico M3 pair
Shunyata cables (digital/interconnect/loudspeaker/power)/Shunyata power units (Triton/Typhon)
Dialog/Phantom Gold/Tree pair
Missing Link cables (power)
England
