Can a Cable Make That Much of a Difference?!

[BigEarl]

To be fair, I was (and still am) going to pick up a compressor to even out the moments that start to break up when I dig in. What was really surprising to me was that there was no breakup at the gig with the new cable. None at all. Even though I had all the usual settings on the MB800 and did not change my attack. And the rig just seemed fatter. Weird!

 

[David Jayne]

Not everything can be measured.

Anything that actually exists can indeed be measured.

 

[afiaowo]

To be fair, I was (and still am) going to pick up a compressor to even out the moments that start to break up when I dig in. What was really surprising to me was that there was no breakup at the gig with the new cable. None at all. Even though I had all the usual settings on the MB800 and did not change my attack. And the rig just seemed fatter. Weird!

The deep end of the pool if you wish to jump!

http://www.cardas.com/pro_golden_chord_cl.php

http://www.lavacable.com/index.php?id=61

Local Austin dealer:

http://www.neplusultrainc.com/Site/Welcome.html

 

[bongomania]

I spent four years selling high-end home audio during which time I lost all credibility.

Fixed it.

 

[David Jayne]

Fixed it.

Oh no you di-int!!!!

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Fixed it.

 

[cnltb]

I do hear a difference from a cable to another, depending on the cables in question.
As is the case quite often, more expensive does NOT necessarily equal 'Better'.(ImE)

 

[Bass_Pounder]

I do hear a difference.

I spent four years selling high-end home audio during which time my ears became accustomed to what cables can do to sound. That experience has allowed me to hear the difference in musical instrument cables as well.

Don't sell yourself or your hearing short.

I'm glad you're enjoying your new cable.

There's always one in the crowd

 

[3armdave]

I love it - everything that actually exists can be measured -so true.
Excluding the Heisenberg principle which doesn't probably enter into our discussion, cable quality is almost irrelevant. IME even expensive cables fail so that is a non argument (save for replacement warranties which are obviously worth money). Buy a decently constructed cable and you r imagination is the only thing that will have you convinced a more expensive cable sounds better. Done and done.

 

[FretlessMainly]

Anything that actually exists can indeed be measured.

Hardly. But cables don't matter.

 

[David Jayne]

Hardly. But cables don't matter.

Hardly? Explain.

 

[FretlessMainly]

Let's take the example of chemical contamination in a reservoir. If chemical x is present at a concentration that is at or above the Reporting Level for that particular chemical using a specified analytical method, the chemical can be measured, both in terms of its identity and within the prescribed statistical requirements (i.e., accuracy, as dictated by precision and bias) of the analytical method.

If the same contaminant is present at a concentration that is below the Reporting Level but above the Detection Limit for the chemical/method, the contaminant can be identified, but its concentration cannot be measured with reliability that is sufficient to meet the statistical requirements of the method.

If the contaminant is present at a concentration that is less than its Detection Limit, it can neither be identified nor quantified because its signal cannot be sufficiently differentiated from that of the instrument signal derived from a blank.

Now you might counter that if it cannot be measured, then how can you know it's actually there to be measured? That is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. My point is that it is possible for a contaminant to exist in a water body at a concentration that is not capable of being measured because the ambient "noise" in the system is greater than the signal caused by the contaminant.

If we improve the technology to the point where the ambient "noise" of the system is reduced, the concentration down to which we can measure gets lower, yes, but there will always be some finite concentration that is theoretically less than the lowest concentration that an analytical method/instrumentation setup can measure. This is because there is no such thing as zero in the field of analytical chemistry, just "less than I can detect," or "less than I can reliably measure."

Further, as one reduces the inherent noise in the analytical setup, the likelihood of cross-contamination from human breath or other diffusive processes from the body can start to play a larger role. You then become uncertain as to whether chemical x was truly in the water sample or if it came from the analyst (this is a real problem in these days of ng/L analytical technology). If you have that level of uncertainty in a result, even if you get a result, one could argue that one hasn't really measured anything.

 

[ggunn]

Don't sell yourself or your hearing short.

Don't oversell it, either.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Retro type coiled cables are pretty bad for having high capacitance, its no surprise the OP is seeing a change in tone when using a coiled cable. Better is subjective in terms of tone, but in terms of fidelity, those coiled cables ain't so hot.

When comparing audio and electrical signals, we can measure the changes with ease.

 

[Scott in Dallas]

If you use a less-expensive cable, make sure to play a bass with a maple fretboard to brighten up the top end.





/sarcasm

 

[David Jayne]

Now you might counter that if it cannot be measured, then how can you know it's actually there to be measured? That is a philosophical question ......

My answer would simply be that for all practical purposes, it's not there.

 

[Bean639]

I just want you guys to know that I read the first page of this and realized that i haven't replaced my instrument cables in almost 5 years, and my speaker cables in almost 10. So, yeah... Long story short, I now have $150 in cables on the way.

 

[FretlessMainly]

My answer would simply be that for all practical purposes, it's not there.

So if one is concerned with hormones in beef and then finds out that the analytical methods for quantifying these hormones in beef are not sensitive enough to quantify levels that are of health concern then, for all practical purposes, there are no hormones in beef and there's nothing to be concerned about?

 

[David Jayne]

So if one is concerned with hormones in beef and then finds out that the analytical methods for quantifying these hormones in beef are not sensitive enough to quantify levels that are of health concern then, for all practical purposes, there are no hormones in beef and there's nothing to be concerned about?

How would the 'levels that are of health concern' be determined in the first place if instruments/methods required to reliably measure such levels don't exist? If you can't measure it, how do you know it's there? Would its presence be inferred somehow? I'm not trying to argue, just to understand.

 

[bongomania]

My point is that it is possible for a contaminant to exist in a water body at a concentration that is not capable of being measured because the ambient "noise" in the system is greater than the signal caused by the contaminant.

You are proposing that this "noise" exists, but it is relatively easy to visually examine every molecule in a sample of water, and identify every element in it through a variety of tests. In other words, "what noise?"