Maybe a combination of ignorance, greed and ego
The Science of Cables
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.
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.
802 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
I have made my two emphases clear; 1. Analysis of epistemology of analogue compared to cables, with inquiry of just how do they differ, and if they do not differ substantially, what justification do cable skeptics have to suggest aftermarket cables are not scientific? 2. Invitation to cable skeptics to try Schroeder Method, with thorough discussion and clarification of the method, cost structure and my motivations. Anyway, I do not have a schedule that permits unbridled participation, so I'll pull back for now. If anyone wishes to discuss or offer to try Schroeder Method, I can chime in. :) Jim, I am enjoying getting to know you and value our exchanges. :) |
| Post removed |
Thanks Douglas, same here. I will give it a try. @elizabeth first you have no idea of how much I do or do not have to spend on anything; second my opinions come from 30 plus years in a field of some of the most sophisticated electrical and mechanical, industrial and commercial components produced for every tech industry you can imagine. So get off your horse and grow up yourself lizy.....Jim |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
"@astelmaszek, Let me just mention that majority of the recordings you listen to were done with about 500ft of Canare microphone cable, and that's if the studio was fancy." A timely reminder. If the dubious notion of doubling up cables (bi-wiring revisited 2019 style?) has any discernible effect can we begin to imagine the results of 'fixing' the weakest links of the audio chain? Or does tea really taste better in a China cup? |
Jim, As if 30 years experience in some quasi related field puts you in a better position to judge. Instead of allowing the possibility that there may be things at play that you dont understand or cant hear, you take an aggressive stance that others are wrong (egotistic, ignorant, etc). I would suggest that it may be precisely this work experience that is part of the problem. Personally I have found always being right was just too much of a burden. Like Elizabeth it isnt your stance on these issues that I find objectionable it is your attitude. |
@jsautter Maybe a bit of arrogance, but I can guarantee you, not ignorance, my friend. Again, - show me one other industry, tech or otherwise, that buys into or uses $1,000.00 per foot signal cable. Hint - "They Don’t" It’s amazing that the ones questioned and scoffed, on this forum, are the ones who actually have many years of experience at building or repairing audio components, or those who have many years of professional experience in the music or tech industry, yet the same scoffers are eager to jump on to the wild claims of some of these high priced cable guys - some of which already facing, or have faced, suits and fines for false claims and improper business practices. This thread is about the science of cables, so am just sticking to what is actually the science and truth of cables.......Jim |
Ok, let's give some credit where credit is due; Jim has said here he will try Schroeder Method, and I think that is an impressive gesture of willingness to humble one's self. As a former cable skeptic I know the difficulty in humbling one's self to try something that you think is 1. Ineffective, 2. wasteful, 3. Just plain stupid. It takes a willingness to test one's skepticism, a willingness to humble one's self to try. In other words, one has to be willing to admit their inexperience in a particular matter might not lead to the correct conclusion. So, let's back off of piling on Jim. He has now shown that despite his tremendous lack of confidence in it, he is willing to openly entertain the possibility that he could be wrong. That is far more than most skeptics are willing to do, so I applaud Jim for that. cd318, you are still skeptical. Are you willing to test your skepticism? A person who is unwilling to test their skepticism is trapped in their current experience even though observational evidence exists that much better can be obtained. You do not know if you are right or wrong. You think you are right, which is of marginal significance in the face of people who are trying and finding it efficacious. Are you willing to try Schroeder Method and find out? |
jhills ... show me one other industry, tech or otherwise, that buys into or uses $1,000.00 per foot signal cable ...What’s your point? In any event, very few audiophiles spend $1,000/foot for audio cables. It’s amazing that the ones questioned and scoffed, on this forum, are the ones who actually have many years of experience at building or repairing audio components, or those who have many years of professional experience in the music or tech industry ...You may not have noticed, but everyone gets "questioned and scoffed" at here, so there’s no reason to take it personally. ... the wild claims of some of these high priced cable guys - some of which already facing, or have faced, suits and fines for false claims and improper business practices.To what "wild claims" do you refer? I’m aware of only one, isolated instance regarding a court challenge to cable industry practices. You claim to know about more of them: Will you please share details? This thread is about the science of cables, so am just sticking to what is actually the science and truth of cables ...If that’s true, you’ll be happy to provide some detail to accompany your own claims. |
Well, you know Geoff - coated with Graphene; or filled with incredible, semi-conductor liquid; or made in USA ultra high grade, specially treated, conductors - with multi layers of high-tech shielding (actually come from China bulk conductor wire - the equivalent of 24AWG at about $.25 pr. ft then wrapped and sleeved with a few layers of who knows what) But mostly - just have to claim it to be the best, with impeccable audio qualities, get a few endorsements, and put a $1k or more per ft. price tag on it - knowing that some gullible audiophile is sure to bite and regardless of how it performs, he/she would have to believe it to be the best thing since the Swiss Army Knife. You, being a DC, Ear Phone, Walkman kind of guy and apparently do not and would not use any of these products. - Mes thinks yous just like to stur the pot...........Jim |
jhills coated with Graphene; or filled with incredible, semi-conductor liquid; or made in USA ultra high grade, specially treated, conductors - with multi layers of high-tech shielding (actually come from China bulk conductor wire - the equivalent of 24AWG at about $.25 pr. ft ...Will you please tell us exactly which $1,000-per-foot audio cable you are referring to here? Will you please tells us which specific claims are troubling you? ... the wild claims of some of these high priced cable guys - some of which already facing, or have faced, suits and fines for false claims and improper business practices.Will you please be specific about these "suits and fines for false claims?" Can you cite more than one instance? |
| Post removed |
"Will you please tells us which specific claims are troubling you?" I cannot speak for jhills, but maybe he had something like this on his mind. Just one of many and not specific to a particular manufacturer. "...we acted on the new information and built cable assemblies that incorporated this idea and the results produced spectacular results." Would it qualify as "Such a penchant for hyperbole"? |
I would like to know which industry pros do and do not believe cables to be viable components. Further I am far more likely to seek advice from those who have auditioned a great number of cables than from those who have not. I dont know of any enthusiast that does not believe in the law of diminishing returns as this relates to audio components. |
@glupson
hy·per·bo·le Dictionary result for hyperbole/hīˈpərbəlē/noun exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. spec·tac·u·lar Dictionary result for spectacular/spekˈtakyələr/adjective beautiful in a dramatic and eye-catching way. "spectacular mountain scenery" What I heard was beautiful in a very dramatic and ear catching way and thus my description of the event as spectacular matches up well with the Dictionary result found above. And that description was not an exaggeration or something not meant to be taken literally, it was what it was. As an important aside I should note that I do have the decided advantage of actually being an aural witness to said event, read in the frame when the event occurred, and as a result very much unlike yourself. So, no, not hyperbole, but most certainly spectacular. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@douglas_schroeder "cd318, you are still skeptical. Are you willing to test your skepticism? A person who is unwilling to test their skepticism is trapped in their current experience even though observational evidence exists that much better can be obtained. You do not know if you are right or wrong. You think you are right, which is of marginal significance in the face of people who are trying and finding it efficacious. Are you willing to try Schroeder Method and find out?" Hi Doug, in lieu of any convincing logic (resistance, capacitance and inductance should be well within required limits for audio signals by any decent piece of wire, even a coat hanger) I am not currently willing to try out the so-called Schroeder Method. Or other equally whacky theories such as the Paleo diet, or investigate flat earth theories, the antics of Uri Geller, etc. Sorry, but we've seen all this before courtesy of Peter W Belt amongst others. Having previously tried out bi-wiring, solid core cable, twin and earth electrical, silver plated copper, pure copper, bell wire, etc without hearing much of a difference I hope you can understand my reticence to embark upon another wild goose chase. Brands diverse as Ecosse, Monster, Chord, Linn, Naim, QED have all been tried in various systems over the years and found to be alike. Like jhills, my experience has demonstrated that high purity OFC is more than sufficient for my needs. I don't even bother with using plugs, bare wire gives good contact (with only periodic cleaning for oxidisation required). If you are serious about your method how about suggesting it to hardened industry professionals working in the world of audio recording? It isn't enough to say your method is better, you must be able to offer a rationale as to why you believe it to be so. |
@glupson taras22, Hate to nitpick but I definitely wrote "ear-catching", that being said you can take it any way you feel you need to try to score a point. But here is another point in the bigger picture, I am not the only person to have that experience, in fact if you have the nerve ( and frankly I really don’t think you do) to wander over to the Schroeder Method thread you will find almost all those folks who have tried this idea are describing it as some form of spectacular. So just wander over there and maybe double down and tell all those happy users that they are all either wrong, disingenuous, deaf, sheeple, or whatever. I’m sure given your vast experience with such matters you will quickly win them over and save them from some awful audio misfortune. And be sure to tell them you have personally not experienced the sonic effects of this idea but as glupson the great you just have this gut feeling that this all is just more of that old-fashioned cable poppy-hooey. Believe you me at the end of the day they will love you for it. |
@douglas_schroeder I read your whole post, which seems an extension of your first paragraph: Prof, no, I am saying there appears to be no measurable, objective basis for cultivation of an analogue rig. I see that the same largely subjective assessment is used by analogue lovers in their use and consumerism as cable users. My concern is not at all with the topic of distinction between signals/sound quality of analogue vs digital. But I’d like to untangle what you would actually be asking and of whom. IF you mean to level charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency in the audiophile world, you will certainly find large targets. Especially in the subjective-oriented audiophile world. So if you want to say: "I evaluate whether cables make a difference by putting them in my system and seeing if I hear a difference. How can YOU be critical of me if that’s how YOU evaluate the rest of your analog system!" And if this is your charge....I completely agree with you; there would be a lot of hypocrisy. And I would say both sides (you and the people you are calling hypocritical) are using a suspect methodology for gaining reliable knowledge. But...are you really lobbing your charge of hypocrisy at fellow purely-subjectivist audiophiles? It doesn’t seem to me they are the ones largely responsible for skepticism about cables in the first place. On the other hand: If you are saying that the case for someone having an analog system - and you seem to be targeting vinyl/turntables - is NO BETTER than the case you make for high end cables, then I’d certainly disagree. Take loudspeakers. There are controversies and arguments about loudspeaker design and goals, even among the most hard-nosed skeptical, degreed engineers. But there is no controversy over whether speakers actually can and do sound different from one another. Why? Because the type of sonic results introduced in many choices in speaker design produce differences well in to the known audible range for human beings. (There’s plenty of science on human hearing, and also quite a bit correlating audibility and consequences of a range of audio parameters, distortions, etc). Bias still comes in to play even with speakers - hence you get science by people such as Floyd Toole and Harman Kardon trying to remove bias when correlating speaker design choices with perception. But the fact that speakers sound different from one another has such obvious and uncontroversial plausibility....through the most subjective to the most accredited objectivist...that reporting "i heard a difference between speaker X and Y" is entirely plausible. The cable phenomenon isn’t like that. As you know, it is highly controversial. And the skepticism, tends to come those who: 1. Know what they are talking about in terms of electrical theory - Electrical Engineers tend to be in the skeptics camp. 2. People who pay attentionto the poor quality of arguments given for cable differences, especially AC cables. So given: 1. The claims about cable differences are often disputed among people with the requisite knowledge to vet such claims and... 2. We know how much influence human bias has on our perception. Then skepticism is a reasonable approach when people claim they know cable A sounds better than cable B because "I could hear the difference!" it begs all credulity to accept that the problem of bias, so obvious in our every day dealings with each other, and so well established specifically scientifically, is something that we don’t have to bother with....just when it comes to our own pet hobby of audio. So it’s far from a given that when someone says "I heard a big difference between cable A and B" there are good reasons to not immediately accept this, and retain skepticism, and ask for better than anecdotal evidence. So...back to vinyl. The relationship of vinyl/turntables to cables is similar to that of speakers to cables. It is NOT a controversial claim that "We can hear differences between vinyl sources and a digital counterpart." I’ve never seen even the most diabolically "objectivist" engineer claim that vinyl and digital are by nature indistinguishable. In fact, they will more often tend to point out the MEASURABLE ways in which vinyl departs from accuracy, how distortion is intruded via the various kludge necessary to even get sound on to and off a vinyl disc. Like speakers, the types of distortions and deviations that can occur in the analog/vinyl manufacture-to-playback system are generally well understood and uncontroversial among engineers. And most fall within known audible parameters. Mastering often changes the bass signal, changes the high balance (de-essing etc), can produce additional cross-talk, puts limits on dynamic range, introduces a range of other audible distortions, and there is nothing controversial or implausible in the way cartridges, for instance, can be set up in ways that alter the signal. Then there are all the ways vinyl mastered in the old analog way would differ from digital sources mastered today. Add to that all the mechanical/electrical ways in which turntables can deviate from accuracy, rumble, wow/flutter, how cartridges measure differently, etc The list of plausible ways a vinyl playback can sound different from a digital source is quite long. So the phenomenon of vinyl playback sounding different is very much UNLIKE the cable controversy in all those important respects. And, like the case with loudspeakers, if you report "I heard a difference between the sound of my vinyl record and the CD" you generally won’t get audio engineers, or even the most objectivist and experienced people in the field - e.g. Floyd Toole and others - decrying this as implausible. You are almost certain to be told "Yes...and if you prefer it, it’s because you prefer a form of distortion you think to be pleasant." Now....as it happens, I’ve long been almost entirely digital for my source and have NEVER had the issues with digital that vinyl proselytizers have claimed ("can’t sound natural, musical" and all that b.s.). Digital is flat out capable of superior fidelity in terms of measurable deviations vs vinyl. BUT...I’ve gotten in to vinyl big time in the last year and LOVE it. I often *prefer* the sound of many vinyl records to my digital source. Not always, but I’ve been surprised how often. Could some bias be infecting my perception? Absolutely! But...and this is the important part...like speakers, there are well acknowledged technical reasons why it is entirely plausible...and even expected....that I would hear some level of sonic deviations between vinyl and digital playback. In fact, given the analog/vinyl system tends to result in certain deviations/colorations in the output, you can RECORD the output from a vinyl vs CD, and SEE OBJECTIVELY the differences. Example of many: http://themultiformous.blogspot.com/2017/01/vinyl-is-bullshit-or-how-i-learned-to.html That puts the claims that vinyl/analog alters the signal on much firmer ground than claims often made by cable proselytizers or cable companies. Note, for instance in the case of AC cables, that you pretty much never get similar objective evidence in terms of demonstrating that musical output signal has been altered in any way (and in any audible way!) via the use of high end audio AC cables in a system. It’s likely not for nothing that John Atkinson, for instance, will run detailed tests on speakers, amps, dacs etc, but doesn’t bother doing them for audio cables. I think he knows something ;-) |
| Post removed |
Prof, thank you for your response. I used a thorough, but simple comparison, so your first conclusion was correct when you said: "IF you mean to level charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency in the audiophile world, you will certainly find large targets. Especially in the subjective-oriented audiophile world. So if you want to say: "I evaluate whether cables make a difference by putting them in my system and seeing if I hear a difference. How can YOU be critical of me if that’s how YOU evaluate the rest of your analog system!" And if this is your charge....I completely agree with you; there would be a lot of hypocrisy. And I would say both sides (you and the people you are calling hypocritical) are using a suspect methodology for gaining reliable knowledge." I think there are a lot of hypocritical analogue users out there, who condemn aftermarket cables while employ�ing similar principles and methods to affirm their analogue. I am not interested at all here, as I believe I said previously, in the digital/analogue debate. It seems to me that there does not exist an environment where the home audiophile can overcome the inability to operate from a purely scientific, objective basis. I would peg all audiophiles as being suspect of some form of bias, subjectivity, etc. myself included. I have a bias against cable skeptics. ;) Wait! I was a cable skeptic at one time! LOL :) |
@cleeds Will you please tell us exactly which $1,000-per-foot audio cable you are referring to here? Will you please tells us which specific claims are troubling you? Wow really cleeds? I’m not going to start dropping names here. Do a google search for high end audio cables. You might be shocked to find that $1K per ft. is on the bottom side of some. ... the wild claims of some of these high priced cable guys - some of which already facing, or have faced, suits and fines for false claims and improper business practices.Will you please be specific about these "suits and fines for false claims?" Can you cite more than one instance? Again, do a little digging. Is pretty easy to find, either on google searches or several previous threads, brought up here on AG.......Jim |
glupson, thank you for your reasonable discussion. I have tried most of the attempts that you have, and imo the Schroeder Method is more profound in effect than any of them. You have chosen a zero sum position, and I can respect that, as you seem to realize that an absolutist position will cut you out of any potential benefit. Others see the low cost/effort to trial as worth a try. |
jhills I’m not going to start dropping names here. Do a google search for high end audio cables. You might be shocked to find that $1K per ft. is on the bottom side of some.I’m not interested in any random cable, but the specific cable(s) you refer to here that lead you to question the claims made for them: ... coated with Graphene; or filled with incredible, semi-conductor liquid; or made in USA ultra high grade, specially treated, conductors - with multi layers of high-tech shielding (actually come from China bulk conductor wire - the equivalent of 24AWG at about $.25 pr. ft ...If you’re not willing to name the subject of your complaint, then there’s no way we can have a discussion about that. Perhaps that was your intent. You also stated: ... the wild claims of some of these high priced cable guys - some of which already facing, or have faced, suits and fines for false claims and improper business practices ...But again, you won’t be specific: Again, do a little digging. Is pretty easy to find ...Specifics, please. I’m aware of one case that involved a retailer, iirc, in the UK. I’m not aware of any other such instance and, I suspect, neither are you. I’m with this guy:thecarpathian jhills, you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing the cable companies of doing. Making an awful lot of claims without backing them up... |
taras22, Hate to nitpick but this is definitely what you wrote (copied and pasted from your post)... spec·tac·u·lar Dictionary result for spectacular/spekˈtakyələr/adjective beautiful in a dramatic and eye-catching way. "spectacular mountain scenery"Or, better to say, someone else wrote it for you. No "ear-catching" in sight. You surely have not changed over the last 6 months. |
@glupson Hate to nitpick but this is definitely what you wrote (copied and pasted from your post)....spec·tac·u·lar Dictionary result for spectacular/spekˈtakyələr/adjective beautiful in a dramatic and eye-catching way. "spectacular mountain scenery"Or, better to say, someone else wrote it for you. No "ear-catching" in sight Here is what I, as in me writing something ( and not quoting something ), wrote ...please refer to the quote below. What I heard was beautiful in a very dramatic and ear catching way and thus my description of the event as spectacular matches up well with the Dictionary result found above. And that description was not an exaggeration or something not meant to be taken literally, it was what it was. As an important aside I should note that I do have the decided advantage of actually being an aural witness to said event, read in the frame when the event occurred, and as a result very much unlike yourself. Please note the 11th and 12th words. Now if I’m not mistaken they are ear and catching and together they say ear catching and I definitely wrote those words and to folks with their eyes open they are most definitely in plain sight. They were part of a paraphrase of a definition that was just above it. And btw that definition in actuality was written by someone else and is demarcated as a quote to indicate same ( this is how quotes work and why they are used...to properly attribute words to those who wrote them ). Here is a thought, and don’t mean to nitpick, mainly because this is way beyond nitpicking, maybe you should invest in some basic reading comprehension or reading glasses, or both, because your latest attempt at scoring a cheap debating point has only yielded a classic face plant, and dare I say a spectacular one, as in dramatic and eye-catching ( though unfortunately for you in watching a train wreck kind of way ). |
