It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why cables sound the way they do. When I see discussions on cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like shielding, gauge, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things like resistance, impedance, inductance, capacitance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
I recall many of John Dunlavy’s emails from that 1996 time period. The DAL speakers pretty much had a 6 ohm nominal impedance. When he entered the speaker cable business, he believed his cables should reflect the impedance of his speakers. So he designed his cables to be an extension of the impedance of his speakers as seen by the amp outputs.
John Ulrick, the man behind the Infinity Systems SWAMP and Infinity servoloop-controlled subs for the IRS and later the founder of Spectron Audio that designed the refinement of his class D amps, made a set of cables called Remote Sense cable that extend the negative feedback loop of the his amplifier all the way to the speakers to enable better control over the speaker.
A lot of cable designers simply buy bulk spools of wire from a supplier and contract with a conductor weaver vendor and outer jacketing sheath vendor to throw a HEA cable together—whether PC, IC or speaker cable—and call it good.
Other designers buy the conductor materials in bulk and refine them prior to creating their final cable products (either during manufactur like Teo Audio or post manufacture like MG through treatments). Why expend this effort, if not to control, fine tune or otherwise obtain their desired properties—whether measurable by test or by listening?
With regard to the Schroeder Method, those who doubt its efficacy in improving SQ I suspect haven’t tried it with an open mind. The thread discussion on the topic didn’t start with what is labeled as the Schroeder Method thread described here, however. It is discussed in a few threads in the cable forum, most notably in the Teo Audio cable threads, for example.
My view is that we all want an audio reproduction system that permits the most revealing yet relaxed reproduction of music. I’m not sure that we are served by pigeonholing viewpoints to the disservice of that goal.
Some designers have an intended objective about the criteria of the SQ they strive to achieve—and often that is not necessarily driven by monetary considerations. I’m not sure if articulating those objectives makes a difference to consumers.
What matters to most is whether they have a smile on their face when they listen to their audio systems.
OK. Here is your problem, at the most basic level you have confused science with its close relative applied science. The latter, also known as engineering, which generally defines its mandate with the term "good enough" whereas the former runs on the idea "its never good enough". Audio for many of us is hobby that involves pushing the limits ( its never good enough ) whereas for your preference, the pro side mentality, its more about just getting the job done ( like LCR is good enough eh ). So if you are happy with functional mediocrity go ahead and knock yourself out, but please don't try to impose your rather dogmatic beliefs on others. Its not only bad form, especially when you resort to calling the non-believers stupid or idiots or ignorant, but back-slapping self-righteousness is going end up really hurting your shoulder.
Outrageous claims by high end cable makers? Outrageous or simply the usual audiophile technical verbiage? Let’s take a look, shall we? Here’s an excerpt of the Valhalla 2 cable description from Nordost’s web site. Nordost is one of prof’s examples of “outrageous claims.” Now, I ask you, are these claims outrageous?
“Over the years we have been able to develop cutting edge production techniques and technological innovations that both improve the quality and precision of our manufacturing process and propel the capabilities of our products to previously unattainable levels. The Valhalla 2 range benefits from the gains of those years of research and development in every aspect of its construction.
While V2 cables remain true to the Nordost design philosophy, using silver-plated, OFC solid core conductors, extruded FEP insulation, a mechanically tuned construction, and asymmetrical grounding, the advances made from that jumping-point are astounding.
V2 cables use Dual Mono-Filament technology, along with an innovative, proprietary connector called the HOLO:PLUG®, designed to be the best possible interface between the cable and component. The combination of these two ground-breaking technologies allows Nordost products to perfectly match our philosophy of low mass design, optimal signal transfer and perfect impedance matching.”
And speaking of the One and Only True LCR, that trudgeon that the fundamentalists love to use to beat the non-believers about the head and shoulders so they will hopefully see reason, or at the very least just be quiet in the face of overwhelmingly superior knowledge. Well on the plus side of the ledger its really simple, its really easy to understand and thus allow the faithful adherents to appear intelligence when using it in an argument ( read, all the elements required for truthiness ). The problem with this is that LCR is very much more suited to dealing with DC, whereas audio signals are AC, and there is world of difference in terms of complexity between the two, the former is basically simple, the latter not so much.
Find below a fairly good overview that will hopefully give some insight into the problems of applying something simple like LCR onto something like an audio signal which, as mentioned above, is an AC phenomenon. See this as an expansion of a Roger Skoff line from a quote introduced earlier. Though it doesn’t include the more complex and equally important issues mentioned earlier ....a short snippet of which is immediately below....then followed by the overview...
I would argue that on a slightly handwaving way, you can study "electricity" using classical physics. After all, much of it can be understood through Maxwell's equations. However, if you do this, you simply have to consider the charge densities, dielectric constant, magnetic permeabilities, et cetera as black boxes.
Quantum mechanics kicks in if you want to understand why a material is a conductor or an insulator
What is the difference between resistance and impedance?Asked by: Venudhar
AnswerResistance is a concept used for DC (direct currents) whereas impedance is the AC (alternating current) equivalent.
Resistance is due to electrons in a conductor colliding with the ionic lattice of the conductor meaning that electrical energy is converted into heat. Different materials have different resistivities (a property defining how resistive a material of given dimensions will be).
However, when considering AC you must remember that it oscillates as a sine wave so the sign is always changing. This means that other effects need to be considered - namely inductance and capacitance.
Inductance is most obvious in coiled wire. When a current flows through a wire a circular magnetic field is created around it. If you coil the wire into a solenoid the fields around the wire sum up and you get a magnetic field similar to that of a bar magnet on the outside but you get a uniform magnetic field on the inside. With AC since the sign is always changing the direction of the field in the wires is always changing - so the magnetic field of the solenoid is also changing all the time. Now when field lines cut across a conductor an emf is generated in such a way to reduce the effects that created it (this is a combination of Lenz’s and Faraday’s laws which state mathematically that E=N*d(thi)/dt , where thi is the magnetic flux linkage). This means that when an AC current flows through a conductor a small back emf or back current is induced reducing the overall current.
Capacitance is a property best illustrated by two metal plates separated by an insulator (which we call a capacitor). When current flows electrons build up on the negative plate. An electric field propagates and repels electrons on the opposite plate making it positively charged. Due to the build up of electrons on the negative plate incoming electrons are also repelled so the total current eventually falls to zero in an exponential decay. The capacitance is defined as the charge stored/displaced across a capacitor divided by the potential difference across it and can also be calculated by the size of the plates and the primitivity of the insulator.
So simply resistance and impedance have different fundamental origins even though the calculation for their value is the same:
R=V/I Answered by: Martin Archer, Physics Student, Imperial College London, UK
Impedance is a more general term for resistance that also includes reactance.
In other words, resistance is the opposition to a steady electric current. Pure resistance does not change with frequency, and typically the only time only resistance is considered is with DC (direct current -- not changing) electricity.
Reactance, however, is a measure of the type of opposition to AC electricity due to capacitance or inductance. This opposition varies with frequency. For example, a capacitor only allows DC current to flow for a short while until it is charged; at that point, current will stop flowing and it will look like an open. However, if a very high frequency is put across that capacitor (a signal that has a voltage which is changing very quickly back and forth), the capacitor will look like a short circuit. The capacitor has a reactance which is inversely proportional to frequency. An inductor has a reactance which is directly proportional to frequency -- DC flows through easily while high-frequency AC is stopped.
Impedance is the total contribution of both -- resistance and reactance. This is important for AC analysis and design. At DC, reactive elements can be replaced with their steady-state model (capacitor->open,inductor->short) and resistance can be considered. (this isn’t true for transient analysis)
It is important to mention that while energy goes into both, it is only ’burned off’ through resistance. Power has to be given in terms of resistive power and reactive power. Resistive power actually burns off energy into heat while reactive power simply stores energy in E-fields and B-fields.
Often you’ll hear about the ’impedance’ of transmission lines, like the cables which run between components of your stereo system, and impedance of things like speakers. You’ll also hear that it is important to match these or else you’ll get reflection.
This is a much more complicated subject, which a few answers have commented on in recent questions about light and its speed.
However, what I want to mention is that when you hear about the impedance of a transmission line, like speaker cable or an antenna or coaxial cable or anything else, this does not represent energy which is "burned off" in the cable. This has to do with how energy is stored in the cable as it propagates down it. The cable does not (well, in reality it does, but assume the lossless case for simplicity) get hotter as a signal travels down it. It is not proper to think of a ’75-ohm cable’ as a 75-ohm ’resistor.’ That 75-ohms is purely reactance (ideally, though there really is attenuation in real cables).
Note that impedance and reactance are both given in units of ’ohms’ just like resistance. Capacitance is measured in Farads and inductance in Henries, and these relate to impedance, but they are not measures of impedance. As I said, the impedance of a capacitor is inversely proportional to its capacitance and the impedance of an inductor directly proportional to its inductance.
This may sound a little abstract. Impedance really is an abstraction of things that are far more complicated (things like time constants and rise times) that electrical engineers have to constantly consider. The idea of ’impedance’ allows for many of these things to be wrapped up into one subject so that they are easier to communicate.
The short answer is -- impedance includes reactance, and reactance includes effects which vary with frequency due to inductance and capacitance. Answered by: Ted Pavlic, Electrical Engineering Undergrad Student, Ohio St.
In many ways our wee hobby is a "its just not good enough" thang. We have over the years been told, either individually, or as a group that our hobby and/or our particular way of undertaking it is foolish , silly, stupid, idiotic, don’t know the science, can’t understand the engineering etc etc but we have persevered and despite all the negative vibes we have, often inch by inch, moved the pile forward. In fact it could be that we have become so inured to this that it may well be now part of our culture’s DNA, or at least the minimum requirement for inclusion.
So where was I going with this ?....oh yeah.
OK, was once having lunch with one of the top noise/vibration control guys in North America who worked for the the largest noise/vibration control company in the world ( at the time ). He was still basking in the afterglow of just having received an Technical Achievement Oscar for an rather innovative use of one of their products ( it made film cameras much quieter and allowed for better recording ). So during the lunch I brought up the possibility of using said technique to modify stereo components. Well the rest of the lunch was dedicated to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt how that idea made absolutely no scientific sense. Formulas were throw out, scientific fact was cited etc etc. For some reason I didn’t back off and continued to pursue that avenue and eventually moved the pile forward enough that the gentlemen saw/heard my point of view and apologized for his earlier lambasting and then we laughed and had another beer. Read, stereo component noise/vibration control is now an accepted part of our hobby, despite all that day’s respectable evidence to the contrary.
So here we are again, different song but the tune is very very familiar.
And btw that product that won the Oscar, in base function it is not much unlike our very own GeoffKait’s Brilliant Pebbles concept....but that is another story for another time in a thread far far away.
And here is the mornings entertainment.....and prof et al is the guy on the throne....and Mr Columbus is the everyman stereo dude...hope you like it, I do and it pops into my head every-time I come across a "cable" food fight, errr, discussion or something similar.
I would personally differentiate those cable companies from "High End" cable companies
"High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan's pipe concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the YFJ [You're Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought, "How bad would my system have to be for these to make it 'better'?" First time I heard them, I was nonplussed. The $100k system was 'nice' but did not engage me playing Miles, Queen or SFO. Yawn...
@taras22
Funny you mention that capacitance thingee
Keep digging. C is but one parameter. As in most things, there is no free lunch. Electronic design is about optimizing. The Schroeder method Increases C but decreases L & R. In some systems this could be an improvement, not so much in others. Then there are the 'Y' parameters and the routing/interweaving of multiple connectors. It all depends on the SUT [System Under Test].
Maybe I'll start the 'IEales Method' wherein I use 200' interconnects in counter wound ellipses around my listening position to better envelope me in the aura. Shheeeesh!
"High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan’s pipe concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the YFJ [You’re Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought ...
So you judged them unheard based on " visual/cosmic appeal?" That doesn’t sound like a high-end approach to me.
@cleeds Confirmation bias? Not bleeding likely. Please don’t read into what I didn’t write. I did not say I compared them.
I hadn’t been into a Hi Fi store in about 15 years. Treated room. Magico S7s, McIntosh monoblocks, McIntosh pre, interconnects unknown. Nordost something speaker leads. Played "So What?" from LP "Kind of Blue". "We are the Champions" and some SFO suggested by salesperson, streamed.
2nd time, another store, Focal Sopra 1 & 2. Moon something electronics. My 3 tracks, all streamed.
Both times, yawn. NOT what I expected.
I recorded for a living. The sound in a good control room is as close to live as one will ever hear. I still get goosebumps after more than 30 years thinking about some sessions. Today I’m retired, but volunteer as production chair and put on 7 live shows a year. I took over sound check last year. Thus far, nothing but compliments on how much better the sound is this year.I strive for the live sound in the seats. When I hear a HiFi, that’s what I want, Row G, Center 21 & 22. I wanna be grabbed and made to pay attention. When cats hear my system, they say things like "Man, I can hear everything. It’s so precise. And I don’t hear anything. It’s just all there!"
You attempted your usual: "don’t be so dogmatic about science because science doesn’t know everything, scientific knowledge isn’t absolute, and even the greatest scientists got some things ridiculously wrong."
I explained as I have to you over and over before, how utterly that misses the point. That’s all a given - it’s THE POINT behind being skepticism. Science is built on skepticism. As I’ve said so many times, people aren’t perfect therefore science isn’t perfect, but it is the most rigorous and intellectually honest method we’ve created for getting at reliable knowledge about the empirical world. That’s why, as I often point out to your diatribes trying to undermine science: the only reason we ’know’ previous science to be wrong was...doing better science. If you think you have something better than the scientific method to vet empirical claims, it’s up to you to make the case for this alternative method. Otherwise...enough with these red herrings about the obvious fact scientists can get things wrong.
You retreat from that fact every time, only to show up and cast aspersions at anyone who adduces science in a way that challenges your cherished beliefs about cables.
And you’ve ignored that I showed why the examples you gave of Newton and Kepler illustrated what happens when even great scientists go off the path of good empirical methods.
Being in favor of a method of inquiry that asks for evidence for claims and bu it’s very nature, has skepticism about one’s own beliefs and and tentatively held knowledge is literally the opposite of dogmatism.
But since this challenges your cherished notions about your subjective impression of cables, and you can’t actually rebut that fact, instead of admitting it you just move to repeating "you are dogmatic" over and over, in the vain hope it sticks.
Oh...and the old standby: "You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity."
How novel.
Its not only bad form, especially when you resort to calling the non-believers stupid or idiots or ignorant, but back-slapping self-righteousness is going end up really hurting your shoulder.
Of course, I did none of that. Every single person, no matter how smart, can be fooled. That’s why the great scientist Richard Feynman cautioned scientists about empirical investigation: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
What’s wrong with being intellectually honest, consider the points someone is ACTUALLY making, instead of making stuff up to disparage?
You are clearly referring to your post in which you wrote:
taras:
So if you are happy with functional mediocrity go ahead and knock yourself out, but please don’t try to impose your rather dogmatic beliefs on others.
And I paraphrased your implication as:
Prof:
"You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity."
Now you try to wiggle out of your own insult, as if my paraphrasing was inaccurate. As if your insult was merely "conditional" and not a direct implication. And yet you know very well I’ve mentioned many times I use Belden cables, and in this very thread I had just repeated that fact. And obviously I’m happy with them...or I’d change them. That I use and am happy with Belden cable is not an unknown, therefore your clumsy insult CLEARLY entailed that I am happy with mediocrity. And obviously declared me to be dogmatic.
Your attempt to paint my paraphrasing as a dishonest characterization of your implication is just...shameless on your part.
Ok, I’m done with responding to lame red herrings at this point.
Carry on revolutionizing electronics! Looks like you’ve got some people who think you are a source of reliable information on that subject ;-)
Here is a thought....if you had actually thought that there was a reasonable equivalence between my original statement and your "paraphrase" why make something up and then dress it up with quotes....why not, you know, just use the original quote, that would have been simple, and dare I say, intellectually honest and defensible. But no, that original quote was not good enough to express what YOU wanted to say, so you went that extra mile or two and made up your own quote and unwittingly and absolutely showed the true depths of your honestly, and this just after a mini-lecture on intellectual honesty ( and btw that depth of honesty that you displayed is one of the hallmarks of the mindset of dogmatic fundamentalists....as in, the reality doesn’t quite jive with my preconceived notions of what should be, so we’ll just cobble together something that does.....read, the big problem with dogmatic fundamentalism is that it is intellectually dishonest, and apparently not much unlike you...so I guess we can now safely say the conditional has now morphed into an affirmative eh...soooo.....nice shooting sparky, that was your foot you just hit ).
And then to lecture on the theme of shameless....wow, coming from you after that display of intellectual "honesty", that is really the epitome of rich.
And speaking of roughly paraphrasing, here is something from my past that fits nicely....
Son, I would stop whining about that F you just got on your paper. You have a much bigger problem. You just failed the course.
Confirmation bias? Not bleeding likely. Please don’t read into what I didn’t write. I did not say I compared them.
You first judged the cables based on appearance alone:
"High End" means engineered for a purpose, not some charlatan's pipe
concoction for visual/cosmic appeal. Nordost speaker cables are in the
YFJ [You're Freaking Joking] category. First time I saw them I thought,
"How bad would my system have to be for these to make it 'better'?
Then you listened:
First time I heard them, I was nonplussed. The $100k system was 'nice' but did not engage me playing Miles, Queen or SFO. Yawn.
Now you say you didn't compare them to anything else. It sure sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias to me. What makes you think that it wasn't? Are you immune to the effect?
@cleeds Confirmation bias is 'experiencing' a change where there is none.
Having messed with the math, manufacture and sonics of multi conductor cables in decades past, an interleaved/interwoven construction clearly has electrical and sonic benefits.
When I first saw them, I thought "Why would anyone build a cable like that and not interleave + and -?"
Listening confirmed exactly what I experienced from previous exposure to the class.
Confirmation bias is ’experiencing’ a change where there is none.
That is mistaken. Confirmation bias is allowing your conclusion to be influenced by your predisposed belief. That’s independent of the nature of any change.
Confirmation bias appears to be what happened here. You first judged the cables based on appearance alone. Then you listened and concluded the same. You also stated:
I did not say I compared them.
So after your initial listen, you then did nothing to confirm whether your listening impression could be validated by anything other than your initial visual assessment. That’s classic confirmation bias.
Having messed with the math, manufacture and sonics of multi conductor cables in decades past, an interleaved/interwoven construction clearly has electrical and sonic benefits.
Again, an indicator of confirmation bias in this instance.
"If someone is advancing/producing something for sale, is that really called a "hobby"?"
Hobby, lifestyle, profession it doesn't really matter. What does matter is listeners are exploring their passion differently as these communities move away from the magazine reviews and on to their own discoveries, and are willing to share those explorations.
I hope you guys can see this huge change taking place in the listening community, that you are a part of. Once you guys get past the ego bending I hope you realize how much expertise is here and how that experience builds (documents) many paths to both successfully and not so successful listening. There are not two people here who have the same sound in their home as the next. Do you guys realize that? Some of you here in all honesty are not pleased with what your system is doing. Others can't be more happy with the sound their getting. But one thing you all have in common is some music sounds good on your system and some doesn't.
The more you look into the variables, and not plug & play, the wiser you are becoming about the audio signal and the audio chain. Your moving toward your system becoming a variable tool. Plug & play is the long way around, and some of you are getting that big time. Others not so much.
but let me paint this
What if you had lets say 5 different cables that you like, and if you could take the best of each one and combined them you would be happy. What's stopping you? While these guys have their technical go arounds, you could be using cable that is variable, and with a little work you could make it match your system perfectly. Not only that but as your cable continues to burn in you can tweak the cable to a new setting.
This science is a variable one folks and everyday someone is finding that out. What about you? Do you really want to stay on spin cycle talking instead of doing?
not I, been tuning a long time and have enjoyed watching people convert for over 30 years now
If I hear an amplifier clipping, I don't need to compare to know it.
We're talking about cables here, and you mentioned your experience with Nordost speaker cables. Are you now saying that the Nordost cables caused amplifier clipping?
If things are too bright or too dull, you need a whole new speaker and amp combination. That’s how you do it. << giggle >>
She’s right. This is why I push people to
Invest in good room acoustics
Use tone controls,
DIY your own speakers so you can get a feel for how you can alter the sound directly,
The use of cables to make basic changes in frequency response is the most expensive and least effective method we use. Even though not all tone controls are created equal, the audiophile purists is really a financial masochist.
I sometimes use my old Eico HF-81 integrated tube amp and I quite enjoy using the tone controls. I don't go adjusting them for every recording of course as that level of fiddling would for me suck the joy out of music listening. But it's nice to have them to tweak the sound a bit.
Of course, agreed about your thoughts on cables.
As I've mentioned often on the subject: I have auditioned many of the latest, greatest speakers in the under 20K range, all of them hooked up via highly lauded audiophile interconnects, speaker cables, attached to sources with high end AC cabling...all of that. And yet I find I get essentially just as stellar sound quality at home, with all the detail and naturalness, and a "shock guests" quality of realism. How in the world could this be possible using bog-standard cables so dismissed by the cable-elitists?
As you say: paying attention to the things that matter most; good speakers, careful speaker positioning, good room acoustics, etc.I find it much more rewarding, not to mention financially satisfying, than spending thousands of dollars trying to find wires to act as tone controls.
Except for the fact that you contradict yourself by consciously choosing specific cables for the given system in hand ---to act as tone controls. You made a conscious sonic choice.
Those cables in that given simple system. that was a conscious sound aspect choice.
You made a choice of order of operations. Although it is one I would use first.... and those that chose more expensive cables.... have also made choices in the same order of operations. (what is important to pursue first)
Except being that they are now at the point where they look at various cables to deal with even more nuances within the issues -- than you are.
You go on ad nauseam on the same line like a big armed crab with exactly one hammer with one blow available. Repetition of your take and line, in no way makes you correct in the face of the overall minimum of many hundreds of thousands who disagree with you..
(Eg, that audioquest cables sales alone over the past 30 years exceeds that number by far, never mind the rest over the past 30 years)
@cleeds No, I'm not saying that Nordost cause clipping.
Clipping has a distinct sonic signature and one does not need to compare amps to determine it is happening.
Interwoven vs parallel cables also have distinct sonic signatures. I would have been shocked if the Nordost had sounded like interwoven, with which I am well familiar and prefer.
Except for the fact that you contradict yourself by consciously choosing
specific cables for the given system in hand ---to act as tone
controls.
Try looking up the fallacy "Begging The Question."
Then get back to me.
(Hint, you are asserting that Belden cables do not pass a signal faithfully, when properly employed, and act as a "tone control' that audibly alters frequency response. That type of claim is the very one under dispute. You haven't remotely established that case that Belden cables as a matter of course alter frequency response...let alone in MY specific use case. So, no, you don't just get a pass on such assertions. Again...keep swinging at the air if that's what turns you on....)
2C½(LR) - yup, that's a new filter. Add in more LCR for Y - yup another new filter. Change loop area - yup, that changes LC - yup, another new filter Only a magician would expect no change
I will summarize the results seen so far; the Schroeder Method has been used now in dozens of systems and has resulted in 2 instances, both with headphone setups, where the outcome was considered marginal, but users still chose to use it over single IC, and the rest deemed clearly beneficial and very happy they tried it. The observations are piling up that it is not system dependent, or not nearly as system dependent as you think. i.e. It is considered to cause improvement in some rigs and degradation in others. If dozens of rigs show marked improvement, and two showed marginal improvement, and there has not been an incident of clear degradation, then the dismissal that, "In some systems this could be an improvement, not so much in others," is starting to face statistical probability of being an incorrect conclusion. Also, the guess that it all depends on the SUT [system under test] would not be correct.
There are now four makers of cables (TEO Audio, Audio Sensibility, and now ANTICABLES, as well as a smaller outfit on Agon; sorry, can't recall your moniker) that are making Schroeder Method ICs. I do not believe these people are opportunists, but are responding to customer request/feedback.
I have no interest in a lengthy argument about it. You will either accept the informal comparisons and observations of those who are trying, or you will stick with your impression of it. I imagine that if you would dismiss all these persons' conclusions you would say it is due to confirmation bias. If that is your position, given the additional information I shared above, then you likely will not try it. If you do not wish to try, we can simply be in disagreement, and I will move on to others who have expressed doubt, but are willing to try.
Are you going to try it or not? If you respond with ridicule or an attempted explanation of why it won't/can't work I will consider that a "no" and will move on. :)
@douglas_schroeder, I think you might be thinking of Grannyring and his Acoustic BBQ brand here on A’Gon.
@elizabeth, yes. That is correct. Canare StarQuad brand cables, for example, have 2 conductors per leg (2 signal carrying conductors and 2 returns). A SM dual Canare StarQuad assembly would have 4 conductors per leg tied in parallel. When I asked HAVE, Inc. to make the SM dual Canare StarQuad IC assembies, they simply used 2 separate Canare StarQuad single runs tied in parallel at the RCA or XLR plugs with an outer jacket sheath put around the assembly to keep things tidy.
Some cables are made which incur significant time, material and labor costs. They should sell for more than HEA cable prices in the $1000s and $10000s. They include GroverHuffman cables which one can read about on his site. Just drawing the wire into an embossed ribbon is a time consuming, laborious task. Constructing the 3 powdered metal melded shielding is another messy and laborious task. All together, it takes 2 man hours to construct one cable A/C, IC and more for speaker cables. His prices are $300 to $1000 for his two lines. I am the 20 year beta tester for his designs. I have compared them to many of the best. No contest.
I have heard musically involving systems, even a few at audio shows and salons. The best I ever heard replicates the sound of the recording in its venue but the system costs $1.5 million. My system only does half that sound, lacking mostly the open and ambient sound retrieval of that system (of the deep bass which is also room dependant).
There is too much discussion of cables overall. HEA prices of cables are comparable to pharmaceuticals whereby the cost of innovation results in products that cost an arm and a leg (high priced) for profit to result and additional innovation to be funded (at least privately by HEA rather than govt and university funded for many pharmaceuticals).
There should be greater emphasis placed on the room acoustics as it is for music venues and sound studios. Note how long it takes to design and build as well as important for music venues to have proper acoustics for classical music. Other venues concentrate on sound dispersion, use tone controls for obtaining desired frequency balances and balance controls for performers. What is it that audiophiles seek? Is it even frequency reproduction or just dynamic reproduction or resolution of details, ambiance retrieval or a combination? I suggest room acoustics can address many of these HEA requirements.
Elizabeth, while celander provided the answer, I thought I would respond as well. While a particular IC may may have multiple conductors, Schroeder Method specifically pairs full cables, which means paired ground wires as well.
celander likes the HAVE Inc. product, and I enjoy the Audio Sensibility products (reviewed in a short Audio Blast article at dagogo.com).
My understanding is that theoretically Schroeder Method should sound like a double length IC (Over the years I have found 1m to sound slightly better than 2m), but the outcome that is happening with Schroeder Method is a vastly superior performance to even the shorter single IC. It seems logically to be completely wasteful, redundant, potentially causing problems, etc. In other words, it seems a stupid idea.
However, the sound is fundamentally improved over single IC, on the level of a big dollar component change, not a tweak. Ergo, not wasteful, redundant, causing problems, etc. Smart. :)
I must add that some very musically involving systems used $300 to $700 cables (Tiode Labs, Wireworld and others not as well known) while the best one used $400,000 of cabling (an extensive amount in a $1.5 million system).
We seem to be struggling to make progress beyond the comments earlier from @jhills who wrote , "Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to.
While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation."
Oh well at least the expensive HDMI cable scam has been widely exposed.
That is one cable that I have found no difference with. HDMI cable for video purposes produce all the same video quality on a high end 4K 75" top of the line Sony LCD TV. Someone lent me a $170 cable to compare to my $15 or $20 Fry's HDMI cable (6' length). Many video enthusiasts told me the same thing. No difference.
USB cables differ in audio quality, but not HDMI high speed cable for 4K. Maybe they will need a higher speed transfer rate for 8K or the future, but not now.
I went for the Audioquest Carbon HDMI Cable that’s controlled for directionality. Fabulous, film quality video. Forget about it. Having said that, there’s no such thing as a silver bullet. Sometimes there’s not much that can be done. That goes for video or audio.
From my perspective we have made great progress; we are at the point of asking skeptics to try something. Previously it was all theoretical discussion. Now, there can actually be something done to perhaps change some minds. Because we all know how effective decades of arguing on the topic has been. :(
cd318, would you like to try Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement?
I am looking for a simple "yes" or "no". Let’s stick to ICs, and if you become abusive or ridicule I am finished discussing it with you. If you say yes, and would like to cordially discuss it, I am open to it.
BTW, for those just joining us... Schroeder Method is at this time still experimental; I advise that it is a "do at your own risk" activity. Thus far there have been no negative outcomes re: equipment reported, but there is concern by some regarding class D amps. I encourage anyone who is not sure to consult with their equipment manufacturer as to suitability of it. (P.S. Ignore laughter and ridicule; push on for an answer to suitability. I have received everything from mockery to congratulations by designers and manufacturers). Curious parties should read the original Audio Blast article on Schroeder Method at dagogo.com
I imagine that if you would dismiss all these persons' conclusions you would say it is due to confirmation bias.
FWIW...I personally don't simply dismiss your findings as confirmation bias.
Not that I know either way how the perceived effect is occurring, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. I'm sure it's fun to play with these things, especially if you get results, obviously.
Though I gave up playing with cables quite a while ago, I still do my own tweaking sometimes(usually with acoustics). Hey..it's a hobby!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
