How I would measure cables


Hi everyone,
There’s been a lot of talk about "science" and cables. To me it sounds a lot like free energy, and cold fusion scams. With few exceptions, they invoke a lot of physics, without ever tying it back down to actual results. Fancy words, and lots of them.
In the fusion/energy camps this has become so common that they use a very simple method to find fraud. Like the discovery of the Enron scam, we have learned to compare input to output. Enron was first discovered to be a fraud by simply looking at the income and comparing it to claimed money generated. And oh how they howled that we just didn’t understand the business model.

So, with perpetual motion, fusion, dark matter conversion generators, and what have you, they have a simple test. Compare energy in versus energy out over time. The funny thing is, if any of these things actually worked, you’d think they’d make money by selling energy, but they don’t, they make money by getting you to invest or buy their equipment.

Anyway, point is, we live at a time where 96kHz/32 bit AD converters are common place, and commonly used in signal testing and analysis. If _ANY_ cable actually was worth high prices it would be super simple to test the output. For instance, record the signal at the speaker terminals for an entire performance you believe shows how good cable A vs. cable B is. Then go in and locate the difference. Perhaps it is frequency, perhaps timing, perhaps amplitude. It’s a lot of data for the 1970s, but all this would fit on anyone’s laptop now and be relatively easy to analyze.

I don’t have the time or energy to do this, anymore than I have the time to measure the power of the latest perpetual motion gizmo, however, this is affordable and practical for most manufacturers to accomplish. That none have done this, except a little done by Analysis Plus (with severe constraints) is why I will always remain somewhat with the skeptics and the "that’s way too expensive for a cable" camp.

So my point is, if you make cables you think do something cool, and worthwhile, I encourage you to undertake this type of basic research, maybe even define how testing should be done so others can follow and we can compare. For the rest of the world, I strongly encourage skepticism and to ask yourself repeatedly if what you are hearing really is worth the cost, or whether the same amount of money is better spent on a vacation.

If you want things which are clearly better than cables, room acoustic treatments by far are much easier to hear, prove they work, and end up with reliably great results.

Best,

E
erik_squires
Thanks @gs5556
His thoughts in terms of how simple models can explain cables is aligned with my own.

Notice the date, 1998. Storage, and A/D conversion being cheap and good, I think it may be time for some one else to take this on again. Maybe PS Audio? :)


Best,
E
To be clear: I am on the "cables make a small difference" camp.

I'm also in the "If cables make a difference, we need measurements which help us understand them, compare them, and build them."

That last part is why I am suggesting that with the advent of cheap storage, cheap compute power, and cheap measurement we should push for a new cable enlightenment.

Best,
E
Give me a break. That Nelson Pass article is 40 years old. Hel-loo!
Give me a break. That Nelson Pass article is 40 years old. Hel-loo!

And I'm sure he did the best he could think of with what he had, and this is my point. Here we are many years later, we should re-think our approach to cable measurements.
Maybe what I should do is measure a bunch of cables with brand new metrics and charge cable makers not to publish my reviews. Isn't that how things work in the US??


E