Cable quality question from newbie

[gng]

I am nearly done setting up my home theater and thank you all for your help.
I just put in the sub (hooked up to my new Onkyo). The salesman at the
store stated that I need to use a "subwoofer cable" or it will sound like
"crap". It's a 6 foot run from the receiver to the sub. I was skeptical
and hooked it up with a standard RCA cable and it seems to be fine, but now
wondering if it would somehow make an audible difference to upgrade to a
better cable. My system is better than HTIB, but not super quality: LG
LCD, Onkyo 673, Infinity bookshelf speakers in front, sub is a Sony (had
limited space but wanted more punch to my bass).

Also, last night I knocked the coax out of the wall and broke the cable.
The only other cable I had was the one that came with the TV. It's a
thinner coax cable but has small "barrels" at each end near the connectors -
like what's on a usb connector cord for a digital camera. It seems to be
fine, but after all this work and money I want the best quality - is this an
inferior cable design, or better design, or does it even really matter?

Thank you all again,

Gary

[Phisherman]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:41:11 -0700, "gng" <spammandeggs@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I am nearly done setting up my home theater and thank you all for your help.
>I just put in the sub (hooked up to my new Onkyo). The salesman at the
>store stated that I need to use a "subwoofer cable" or it will sound like
>"crap". It's a 6 foot run from the receiver to the sub. I was skeptical
>and hooked it up with a standard RCA cable and it seems to be fine, but now
>wondering if it would somehow make an audible difference to upgrade to a
>better cable. My system is better than HTIB, but not super quality: LG
>LCD, Onkyo 673, Infinity bookshelf speakers in front, sub is a Sony (had
>limited space but wanted more punch to my bass).
>
>Also, last night I knocked the coax out of the wall and broke the cable.
>The only other cable I had was the one that came with the TV. It's a
>thinner coax cable but has small "barrels" at each end near the connectors -
>like what's on a usb connector cord for a digital camera. It seems to be
>fine, but after all this work and money I want the best quality - is this an
>inferior cable design, or better design, or does it even really matter?
>
>Thank you all again,
>
>Gary
>

It may not matter. I use Monster cables and wiring and buy them
online for a lower price as the cheap stuff sold at Circuit City, Best
Buy or Home Depot. I can't see spending $150 for a cable though.

[John C]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:41:11 -0700, "gng" <spammandeggs@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I am nearly done setting up my home theater and thank you all for your help.
>I just put in the sub (hooked up to my new Onkyo). The salesman at the
>store stated that I need to use a "subwoofer cable" or it will sound like
>"crap". It's a 6 foot run from the receiver to the sub. I was skeptical
>and hooked it up with a standard RCA cable and it seems to be fine, but now
>wondering if it would somehow make an audible difference to upgrade to a
>better cable. My system is better than HTIB, but not super quality: LG
>LCD, Onkyo 673, Infinity bookshelf speakers in front, sub is a Sony (had
>limited space but wanted more punch to my bass).
>
>Also, last night I knocked the coax out of the wall and broke the cable.
>The only other cable I had was the one that came with the TV. It's a
>thinner coax cable but has small "barrels" at each end near the connectors -
>like what's on a usb connector cord for a digital camera. It seems to be
>fine, but after all this work and money I want the best quality - is this an
>inferior cable design, or better design, or does it even really matter?
>
>Thank you all again,
>
>Gary
>
The sub cable is the least critical cable in your system. I carries a
much more limited bandwidth signal than any other audio cable. The
only need for something more comes if you have a long run, 25 or 30
feet, at which point a shielded cable might be desirable to eliminate
any potential hum picked up from electrical lines, etc. But even in
this case the cheapest solution is to simply use some RG6 or RG59
coax, the same stuff your cable tv is wired with. You can either by
RCA cable ends that screw on the to cable, or if a bit handy you can
install RCA cables on bare cable, which is even cheaper.
Your salesman is simply trying to make more money for himself and his
store, at your expense.
Online, you can try Bluejeans cable, Bettercables, or Monoprice, all
have great products, at very nice prices. Far less expensive than
Monster, and the same or better quality.
John

[cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net]

> The sub cable is the least critical cable in your system. I carries a
> much more limited bandwidth signal than any other audio cable. The
> only need for something more comes if you have a long run, 25 or 30
> feet, at which point a shielded cable might be desirable to eliminate
> any potential hum picked up from electrical lines, etc. But even in
> this case the cheapest solution is to simply use some RG6 or RG59
> coax, the same stuff your cable tv is wired with. You can either by
> RCA cable ends that screw on the to cable, or if a bit handy you can
> install RCA cables on bare cable, which is even cheaper.
> Your salesman is simply trying to make more money for himself and his
> store, at your expense.
> Online, you can try Bluejeans cable, Bettercables, or Monoprice, all
> have great products, at very nice prices. Far less expensive than
> Monster, and the same or better quality.
> John

Good advice, John. Another company to try is www.svideo.com They have excellent prices, also.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[girdalia]

I have been doing some recent experiements involving the use of
different type of patch type audio and RG59U coaxial cables into both a
power amplifier connected to a passive sub system as well as connected
to a powered sub. I heard differences in the quality of the bass and
to the imaging of the surround field. I also tried my brother'sMonster
100 cable(I do not know if it compares to the current Monster 100 since
he got it some time ago). The cable that I found that worked very well
and is reasonably priced was the Acoustic Research 15' Subwoofer Cable
RCA AP052. You can find these on E-bay. You may find them at other
reatailers. IMHO it worked the best of all that I tested. There are
some other cables like Monster THX, RCA, GE and Phillips. They may be
good too(though I am not too crazy about Monster after some recent
tests on other things).

[C what I mean]

"girdalia" <girdalia@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1155361922.082593.256240@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I have been doing some recent experiements involving the use of
> different type of patch type audio and RG59U coaxial cables into both a
> power amplifier connected to a passive sub system as well as connected
> to a powered sub. I heard differences in the quality of the bass and
> to the imaging of the surround field. I also tried my brother'sMonster
> 100 cable(I do not know if it compares to the current Monster 100 since
> he got it some time ago). The cable that I found that worked very well
> and is reasonably priced was the Acoustic Research 15' Subwoofer Cable
> RCA AP052. You can find these on E-bay. You may find them at other
> reatailers. IMHO it worked the best of all that I tested. There are
> some other cables like Monster THX, RCA, GE and Phillips. They may be
> good too(though I am not too crazy about Monster after some recent
> tests on other things).

You heard a difference in "the imaging of the surround field"? On a Sub
woofer... with different RG59U and regular shielded audio cables??? No
offence.. but I would question that one.. Perhaps in your mind maybe??

[Gandalf]

C what I mean wrote:
> "girdalia" <girdalia@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:1155361922.082593.256240@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> I have been doing some recent experiements involving the use of
>> different type of patch type audio and RG59U coaxial cables into both a
>> power amplifier connected to a passive sub system as well as connected
>> to a powered sub. I heard differences in the quality of the bass and
>> to the imaging of the surround field. I also tried my brother'sMonster
>> 100 cable(I do not know if it compares to the current Monster 100 since
>> he got it some time ago). The cable that I found that worked very well
>> and is reasonably priced was the Acoustic Research 15' Subwoofer Cable
>> RCA AP052. You can find these on E-bay. You may find them at other
>> reatailers. IMHO it worked the best of all that I tested. There are
>> some other cables like Monster THX, RCA, GE and Phillips. They may be
>> good too(though I am not too crazy about Monster after some recent
>> tests on other things).
>
> You heard a difference in "the imaging of the surround field"? On a Sub
> woofer... with different RG59U and regular shielded audio cables??? No
> offence.. but I would question that one.. Perhaps in your mind maybe??

I dunno man. Personally, I *hate* when the subwoofer soundfield appears
to be coming from the left side about 6in off the floor.
I much prefer it to be centrally located and about 3¼" up.

But then...that's just me.

Besides, it's common knowledge that all powered subs sound better than
passives hanging off a dedicated power amp.

Oh, and RCA plugs definitely sound better than ¼" phone plugs.
[Unless RCA actually made them. They've gotta be higher quality...like
Radio Shack or something. And gold. And shiny.]

-G