Why tune your system with exotic cables rather than DSP room correction and equalization?

[wgscott]

Let's assume cables can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sound different. Even in the unlikely event that we all would agree on that, what is the justification for using expensive cables, rather than digital signal processing (room correction, parametric equalization, etc.), whose properties can be readily controlled and whose results are easily measurable, to alter what the music sounds like?

[Deaf Cat]

I am playing with DRC, I find it so involved even with mic measurements graphs etc, manual correction is tricky, just  to get the graph looking right.  Look right! As opposed to sound right ;-)

 

I cant say I was that impressed after a day and a  half of tinkering trying to get the graphs as flat as possible, not that impressed with the result.  Hence, tinkered then with the EQ to what I liked the sound of...

 

Tuning with ears and cables seems sooo much easier to me ;-)

I guess an auto DRC would be easy but possibly expensive... and take the fun...frustration...reward.. out of the process....

 

I think perseverance is rewarded, however, after another day or so fiddling with PEQ's etc the graph was looking pretty good, sounded bit better than the first attempt, but still not that impressed...  Until I had a play with digitally shifting the Tweeter back in space by 23mm, then I got the impression it may be worth playing more ;-)

 

Driver delay could be tuned with cables I guess, some may be a little long though....

 

:-)

Nice to have the choice to play with cables and DRC which ever one prefers to spend ones money on :-)

Or both :-D

 

Have not attempted the Phase sorting out yet, I think my steep XO slope may have screwed any idea of me sorting phase out, not easy beginner trying to understand all this tech stuff... 

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

4 hours ago, wgscott said:

Let's assume cables can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sound different. Even in the unlikely event that we all would agree on that, what is the justification for using expensive cables, rather than digital signal processing (room correction, parametric equalization, etc.), whose properties can be readily controlled and whose results are easily measurable, to alter what the music sounds like?

I am coming up on my 10-year Aniversary of first discovering Room Correction.  It was one of the biggest audio breakthroughs of my life.  I would never be without it.  Cables as a big audio f__ing deal?  You gotta be kidding.  Never heard the "HUUUge" difference cables make, especially not with digital cables.

[miguelito]

It is tempting to think that DSP can fix all problems. More so when the effect you're trying to replicate is subtle. The problem is that the sound of a system of component is a combination of many things, not just frequency or phase response.

 

Can you make a $500 system sound like a $100K system with just DSP. Not really.

 

As a side note, my home theater amp is a Marantz SR6008, pretty well rated. I don't use any fancy cables on it, and the speakers are 5.1 Orbs. I run it's DSP engine many times. The resulting sound is flat and boring. I always end up tuning it by ear (starting from the flat and boring calibrated sound).

[miguelito]

4 hours ago, Deaf Cat said:

I am playing with DRC, I find it so involved even with mic measurements graphs etc, manual correction is tricky, just  to get the graph looking right.  Look right! As opposed to sound right ;-)

Yeah so true. What I have found is that it's a good guideline, but ultimately there are some parts of the frequency range that matter more than others. For example the midrange vs the upper bass levels - if they are not in good proportion it just doesn't sound right. FWIW, I use Fuzzmeasure 4 with a UMIK-1 calibrated mic.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

37 minutes ago, miguelito said:

It is tempting to think that DSP can fix all problems. More so when the effect you're trying to replicate is subtle. The problem is that the sound of a system of component is a combination of many things, not just frequency or phase response.

 

Can you make a $500 system sound like a $100K system with just DSP. Not really.

 

As a side note, my home theater amp is a Marantz SR6008, pretty well rated. I don't use any fancy cables on it, and the speakers are 5.1 Orbs. I run it's DSP engine many times. The resulting sound is flat and boring. I always end up tuning it by ear (starting from the flat and boring calibrated sound).

Gosh, you mean DSP cannot make my $500 system sound like a million?  Really?  I am so disappointed.  I am going to buy those $5,000 Ethernet cables right away.

[Ralf11]

DSP & EQ takes a lot of effort.  Cables only cost money.

 

Besides fancy cables provide a status effect as Thorsten Veblen explained in The Theory of the Leisure Class.

[avantgardiac]

Only in the weird wacky world of audiophoolery.

58 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

DSP & EQ takes a lot of effort.  Cables only cost money.

 

Besides fancy cables provide a status effect as Thorsten Veblen explained in The Theory of the Leisure Class.

Honestly, if one thinks there's a big difference between cables than either they're listening way, way too hard to equipment and not to music or they're delusional.  Or both

[STC]

8 hours ago, miguelito said:

 

...Can you make a $500 system sound like a $100K system with just DSP. Not really.

 

Maybe not $500 but how about $10K vs $100K? 

[Teresa]

"Why tune your system with exotic cables rather than DSP room correction and equalization?"

 

How are the two related? Aren't expensive cables suppose to be more accurate, using advanced technologies so the output is closer to the input with less audible losses? If so, they cannot be used as equalization such as DSP. I would expect the best made cables to be nearly transparent while cheap cables are less accurate thus more likely to color the sound. IMHO to correct for room frequency problems you either need DSP or acoustic treatments not different cables.

[audiventory]

22 hours ago, wgscott said:

Let's assume cables can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sound different. Even in the unlikely event that we all would agree on that, what is the justification for using expensive cables, rather than digital signal processing (room correction, parametric equalization, etc.), whose properties can be readily controlled and whose results are easily measurable, to alter what the music sounds like?

 

I can't understand: why cables comapred with digital EQ, but not compared with analog EQ?

 

Destination of cables is minimal impact to sound.

 

Destination of EQ is opposite - wide changing of amplitude-frequency response.

 

[Jud]

9 hours ago, STC said:

 

Maybe not $500 but how about $10K vs $100K? 

 

I've listened to systems using $30K cables on multiple occasions that I thought sounded bad.

[mansr]

18 hours ago, miguelito said:

As a side note, my home theater amp is a Marantz SR6008, pretty well rated. I don't use any fancy cables on it, and the speakers are 5.1 Orbs. I run it's DSP engine many times. The resulting sound is flat and boring. I always end up tuning it by ear (starting from the flat and boring calibrated sound).

 

The SR6008 has Audyssey MultEQ XT room correction. The more advanced XT32 used in the current top Marantz models sounds much better.

[crenca]

7 hours ago, Teresa said:

"Why tune your system with exotic cables rather than DSP room correction and equalization?"

 

How are the two related? Aren't expensive cables suppose to be more accurate, using advanced technologies so the output is closer to the input with less audible losses? If so, they cannot be used as equalization such as DSP. I would expect the best made cables to be nearly transparent while cheap cables are less accurate thus more likely to color the sound. IMHO to correct for room frequency problems you either need DSP or acoustic treatments not different cables.

 

As near as I can tell Teresa, most high end cable aficionados use cables to "tune" the sound.  They don't appear to believe that cables are about "accuracy" as such, but rather are firmly in the subjectivist camp where everything has an unmeasured euphonic quality that gets you to certain audio SQ places that only those in the know know.  IMO, this philosophy is only a shade to the right of sound pebbles and the like...

[miguelito]

50 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

The SR6008 has Audyssey MultEQ XT room correction. The more advanced XT32 used in the current top Marantz models sounds much better.

Understood. And related to this: the amps out of the Marantz are decent but running some old Adcom 535ii (three of them, out of the pre outs) sounds massively better even when running the tiny Orbs. My point is DSP cannot give you more power headroom. 

[miguelito]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

Maybe not $500 but how about $10K vs $100K? 

No I don't think so either. I think the best that can be said is DSP when implemented and used properly will make the most of what you have. Look at my comment to mansr's reply, the part where I use the Adcoms. 

[miguelito]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

Maybe not $500 but how about $10K vs $100K? 

Honestly I find this question unanswerable. Put it some other way: Can a 100k system with badly placed speakers sounds worse than a 5k system that's been properly set up? Of course!

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Understood. And related to this: the amps out of the Marantz are decent but running some old Adcom 535ii (three of them, out of the pre outs) sounds massively better even when running the tiny Orbs. My point is DSP cannot give you more power headroom. 

Obviously DSP can't fix an under-powered amp. I'm using an external power amp (also Marantz) for the front left/right channels with my SR7010. I'm not sure it makes any real improvement, but since it has the theoretical potential to do so, I'm leaving it.

[audiventory]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I've listened to systems using $30K cables on multiple occasions that I thought sounded bad.

 

I think, if you have $200k system, then $30k cables is right option. Not for sound, but for aesthetic reasons.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, audiventory said:

 

I think, if you have $200k system, then $30k cables is right option. Not for sound, but for aesthetic reasons.

 

That assumes more expensive cables will look better.

 

But personally I could not give up performance for looks, at least in audio.  Automobiles, perhaps.

[Jud]

54 minutes ago, crenca said:

As near as I can tell Teresa, most high end cable aficionados use cables to "tune" the sound.  

 

Is "crenca" a form of "Kreskin"?  Because you appear to have ESP regarding what "most high end cable aficionados" think.

[audiventory]

19 minutes ago, Jud said:

That assumes more expensive cables will look better.

But personally I could not give up performance for looks, at least in audio.  Automobiles, perhaps.

 

I only want to say, what need exactly know, what you pay for

[miguelito]

36 minutes ago, mansr said:

Obviously DSP can't fix an under-powered amp. I'm using an external power amp (also Marantz) for the front left/right channels with my SR7010. I'm not sure it makes any real improvement, but since it has the theoretical potential to do so, I'm leaving it.

SR6008 vs Adcom 535ii: massive difference in effortlessness and dynamic range. I did many A/B tests, and wanted to avoid setting them up as they take space and power. And these are 60W/ch amps (designed by Nelson Pass when he was less famous).

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, miguelito said:

SR6008 vs Adcom 535ii: massive difference in effortlessness and dynamic range. I did many A/B tests, and wanted to avoid setting them up as they take space and power. And these are 60W/ch amps (designed by Nelson Pass when he was less famous).

Everything in our systems is different, so I suppose it's hard to reach any solid conclusions.

[crenca]

40 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Is "crenca" a form of "Kreskin"?  Because you appear to have ESP regarding what "most high end cable aficionados" think.

 

lol I had to look him up!  No, mine is an "empirical" evaluation (of said thinking) based on the reading of many post's here and elsewhere, as well your typical cable review in the typical publications...