These latest responses confirm one thing clearly: people who believe in cables, believe in cables. Full stop. And honestly, that belief is self-reinforcing — it manifests as a genuinely heightened listening experience and real enjoyment. I’m not here to take that away from anyone. Enjoy every minute of it.
But please don’t conflate a subjective experience with scientific objectivity. They are not the same thing, and insisting otherwise doesn’t make it so. And while we’re at it — let’s drop the “my system is so revealing I can hear everything” angle. That’s not an argument, it’s a credential flex. For what it’s worth, I’m not listening on a clock radio either.
A fresh approach to cable analysis
Here’s an interesting idea that I wish someone would do. Start a YouTube channel in which you take full range of power cords, interconnects, and speaker wire ranging from cheap to top-of-the-line and carefully dissect them and expose how they are constructed and with what. In the past, we have been through all the arguments about measurements and subjective evaluation, and that gets us nowhere. I think, looking at the physical construction of these chords, which I assume almost no one ever does, especially on the more expensive ones, would produce some surprising results and really be hard to argue with. I’m sure manufacturers would hate this idea, but I don’t think there’s any way legally that they could challenge it.
- ...
- 99 posts total
Impressive! but seriously, it appears that for some people at least they can switch a component or even a whole loom of cables and immediately know exactly how the system has changed upon listening. I for one have no criticism of you at all. You are set. You know what you want and you’ve got it. I, on the other hand, am one of the thousands out there find that of all the changes you can make to an audio system changing cables produces some of the smallest and most hard to define changes. I would like to have the best cables, and I would also like to be able to shop intelligently for them. I find that my mind can play tricks on me in this area. For example, a friend of mine once lent me a pair of old MIT cables, which I put in the system and loved immediately. Love them so much I went on eBay and bought my own set. Yet with the passage of time and the tweaking of equipment, I pulled out the old MIT‘s and put some canare star quad cable in, these were speaker cables I’m talking about. to my surprise and dismay I couldn’t hear a difference anymore. That was pretty typical of much of my experience with cables, so maybe I am cable deaf. However, fortunately, I can hear the difference between all six of my amplifiers, and all six of my pairs of speakers. so does that make me some kind of oddball audiophile? I plead innocent and in my defense I would like to call to the stand William Low, the founder of audioquest to give testimony in the form of his recent interview on “the occasional podcast“, which you can find a link to on this thread https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/william-low-interview |
Actually, your experience is common. Cables are a poor substitute for other components, but as part of the audio chain they usually matter depending on:
Differences usually might be none-slight, and more rarely significantly positive. So spend very judiciously on cables and ignore the marketing hype. I generally believe the minimum is to upgrade stock cabling to at least a reputable audio cable. Beyond that spend carefully. Measurement note- I guessing most of us do not know how to measure the effects of dielectric coverings. Air-only(no-dielectric) is latest cable wisdom for the idea insulator, as such many modern designs try to minimize contact (increase air gaps). It’s not just the dielectric itself, but how to measure the effectiveness including engineered air gaps. |
What exactly is scientific objectivity? ..... taking measurements and looking for repeatability? If I go into a music store and hit a key on upright pianos, Kimball, Kawaii, Yamaha, and then proceed to the back room with a Steinway concert grand, do I need a rack of electrical test equipment driven by a room of specifically placed microphones, to prove to me that there is a significant audible difference? Of course not - the dynamics, the strong fundamental, the follow-on harmonic structures and decays make it very clear as to why the Steinway is deep into 6 figures. The above is an extreme example but the same is applicable to very very few cables products vs. ALL the rest out there. It is very easy to put together a system of high performing sources and electronics and botch it all up by using cables that severely or completely destroy the 3D presentation within the music. And sadly this is all too often the case at audio shows. But some exhibitors just get it right in tiny rooms, even with horrible accoustics.
I assume that this was directed at me. Actually, I have heard a few such systems out there and they have been my target for decades. So I am not "dropping" anything. My comments above were to simply share what a couple cable products can do to bring out the 3D that can be breathtaking once you hear it. And again, sadly, a small fraction of systems out there can pull it off. A big reason for this is that few cable products can pull it off. For all the other cable products out there, it’s mostly about trading one set of tonal incoherency issues for another set to compensate and attempt to achieve system tonal coherency. This is the dreaded, "synergy". |
Long read, due to @total111’s repeated attempts at deception.
I respectfully am not buying that line. Your efforts have been 100% focused on attempting to claim that cables are cables. You are a cable denier. For example (and the examples just keep coming):
You opened up a cable? Apparently, a mystery cable. Perhaps from Home Depot? Or Target? That $25 cable (or perhaps $50 cable) will not have anything exotic (as you put it: "Nothing exotic").
The adjective "mystery" is missing from your writing, as in: "This isn’t unique to this one mystery manufacturer."
Expensive does not equal quality. But quality does equal expensive. Your alleged dissection of a $25 cable from Home Depot(?) hardly qualifies as expensive nor quality.
You are not objective. And all you do is insist that there is nothing there. And writing that we are bound by our current understanding of physics is deceptive -- as if our current understanding of physics precludes that better sounding cables exist. There are brilliant engineers that understand the physics of cables, and produce much better sounding cables. And the rest of us, that are not expert cable engineers, need not be so, because our ears can her the results.
Deceptively written, to imply that we are hearing thngs. There is nothing subjective about hearing the difference between a Home Depot cable and a Shunyata Research Omega-X cable, any more than comparing my 1972, rabbit ear’s TV to my 4K TV. You, @total111 can claim that the difference that I see is subjective. I say that it is objective, because the difference is like holding two apples (one red, and one green), and you telling us that the color difference that we see is subjective (show the science to prove that one is red and one is green). Such demands for proof on the obvious is absurd.
Another deceptively worded sentence. @total111 anointed himself as the arbiter of what it ultimately comes down to. No one need believe anyone else. Believe your own ears. But you have to actually use high-end cables, on a revealing stereo, to be convinced by your own ears. @total111 makes pronouncements without ever listening to what he claims is not real. "...nobody else can verify"? Again, with the deception. Person after person has chimed in, telling us how their cable upgrades improved their stereo’s sound quality. Also, again, no one has to verify anything. Listen for yourself. Do not take @total111’s word for it. Do not take my word for it. Do not take an audio store owner’s word for it. Take your own word for it, by listening with your own ears.
More deceptive language. It is not a physical phenomenon. @total111 Perhaps you should ask Pete Hegseth to release the classified documents on the wiring used in our military’s subs? Stealth bombers, too. And medical operations do use such cables: https://www.theaudiobeat.com/blog/shunyata_research_medical.htm Did they buy into what you wrote is "magic"?
Provide a link to a well-controlled double blind test for cables.
More deceptive language. Who is @total111 to pronounce "Full stop."? @total111 decreed that people "believe" in cables, implying that those people wear tinfoil hats, or hear the results of expectation bias, etc. I believe that my 4K TV looks better than my 1972 rabbit ears TV. Full stop. Rather, I know that my 4K TV looks better than my 1972 rabbit ears TV. And I know that my Audioquest cables sound better than the mass produced cables that the store originally wired up my stereo with. It is not a belief. It is not a religion. It is plain to hear.
Please don’t tell us that when a train horn is blowing, that what we hear is subjective, because maybe we are imagining that the train’s horn is blowing. Please don’t tell us that the red apple we are holding is not red, because our eyes are being subjective. Insisting on having scientific objectivity for what can plainly be seen, or plainly be heard, is absurd. And it is a deceptive attempt to dismiss what we can plainly see, and plainly hear. @total111 All stereos throw a soundstage, which can vary from nearly nothing, to several feet beyond the outer edges of the speakers, and behind the speakers, and in front of the speakers, and between the speakers, and above the speakers. Show us a scientific study that explains why we hear such soundstages. What scientific measurements should a shopping customer look for to know, in advance, which stereo components will throw a wide soundstage? If you cannot provide such scientific data that measures soundstages, then are millions of people imagining their stereo’s soundstage? I want you to prove that wide soundstages exist. Show us the measuring equipment. Show us your "objective" data. I know that wide soundstages exist. But according to your mantra, absent an objective study, wide soundstages do not exist, until proven with double-blind, double-secret-probation, NASA verified test results.
Like a criminal defense attorney telling the jury to disregard the evidence. Apparently, @total111’s stereo is not revealing. So everyone that has a revealing stereo should just ignore what they hear (just drop it).
More deception. It is not about what you are not using. Rather, it is about what you are using. Circling back:
And yet quote after quote after quote is @total111 trying to take that away, claiming that we are one song away from joining H.M. Murdock at a mental institution. Some cable deniers are obsessed with trying to convince people not to believe their own ears. It is their religion. And they sometimes try to make themselves seem reasonable, and measured, while their comments are deceptively written to take low-blow shots (which I documented, above). Look at the lengths of what @total111 went to, trying to get people to ignore reality. And remember: @total111 was never in the same room with a revealing stereo and high-end cables. And he goes on and on as if he is the oracle of reality.
These words are not on your screen. You are experiencing expectation bias. And if you insist that these words really are on your screen, then "the more susceptible you likely are".
In which circles of modern psychology do you participate? From where did you receive your education in modern psychology? Regardless, psychology has nothing to do with hearing what you hear. Your repeated attempts to ignore reality evidences that you have never listened to a revealing stereo with high-end cables. You repeatedly tried to make cables into a "hearing voices" delusion. You keep throwing nonsense and more nonsense at what you never demoed for yourself. Nonsense on top of nonsense does not get you anywhere (other than a deeper hole). Do you grasp that you never listened for yourself? And yet you are preaching one thing after another for what you never heard for yourself. What does your psychology background say about your obsession with things you never heard? |
- 99 posts total