This is why I rarely mention my PhD - it always seems to provoke 'doctorate envy' and a form of inverted snobbery.
I'm not sure in what sense van den Hull is a professor. I haven't found any mention on his website of published academic research. An interview suggests he may have a physics degree and for while taught in a secondary school and technical college. Then he started rewinding cartridges and eventually invented his ideas about cables - mainly seem to be related to crystal boundary changes. I am not a metallurgist, but I suspect he isn't either. His cable FAQ contains a lot of words but doesn't say very much.
I keep coming back to the same point: if the effects claimed by audio cable fans actually exist then why are they never seen in far more demanding applications such as communications systems, instrumentation and metrology? By comparison with the precision of some of these systems, audio is trivial. Intermodulation is a major concern for communications systems, yet it is never seen in cables (except where there is a faulty termination or water ingress). If a cable works from DC to microwave frequencies why should it suddenly do something strange at a few kHz?
PS another more recent interview found here, by a well-known forum member. It seems vdH worked for a while in particle physics, so we have something in common!
I'm not sure in what sense van den Hull is a professor. I haven't found any mention on his website of published academic research. An interview suggests he may have a physics degree and for while taught in a secondary school and technical college. Then he started rewinding cartridges and eventually invented his ideas about cables - mainly seem to be related to crystal boundary changes. I am not a metallurgist, but I suspect he isn't either. His cable FAQ contains a lot of words but doesn't say very much.
I keep coming back to the same point: if the effects claimed by audio cable fans actually exist then why are they never seen in far more demanding applications such as communications systems, instrumentation and metrology? By comparison with the precision of some of these systems, audio is trivial. Intermodulation is a major concern for communications systems, yet it is never seen in cables (except where there is a faulty termination or water ingress). If a cable works from DC to microwave frequencies why should it suddenly do something strange at a few kHz?
PS another more recent interview found here, by a well-known forum member. It seems vdH worked for a while in particle physics, so we have something in common!
Last edited:
Going a little off-topic, but I'll try and bring it back in the end.
So you have a good practical knowledge of "real world" systems. I know many professors in Electrical Engineering who wouldn't know which end of a hot soldering iron to hold on to.
(Yeah that's hyperbole, but the point is valid.) Letters after the name (or a title in front of the name) is no guaranty of expertise in a specific field (sic).
It had better - a comprehensive understanding of fields and propagation through dissimilar materials would be expected as part of the qualifying exam process for any doctoral program in electrical engineering (at least in the US). It was on mine.
On the flip-side does a degree in metallurgy necessarily teach you about the applications of Maxwell's equations? Does a doctorate in Physics teach you anything about making a good watertight connection on a shielded cable?
Maybe, or maybe not. I know physicists who had to build their own instrumentation and they ended up knowing more about things like differential amplifiers than they ever really wanted to.
The problem in audio (and other areas as well) is that so much of what makes a system good is the application of some fairly well established design and construction methodologies. These are not necessarily taught as part of any graduate program. Your experience in avionics systems is a great example of this.
But just because someone with letters after their name may not have this practical knowledge does not mean they do not know a whole lot about the actual science behind these devices. That knowledge should not be dismissed lightly. When someone makes claims that make no logical sense on a scientific bases, or worse yet are wrong, then the BS must be called out or at least a request for significant clarification is in order. In academic circles this is know as "peer review" and it can get ugly sometimes.
The bottom line is that a) there is a lot of snake oil out there, b) an advanced degree does not make you an expert in everything, c) practical knowledge and experience is critical and should not be undervalued, and finally d) open and honest skepticism by someone who does have an advanced degree in a relevant field should not be casually dismissed.
Sorry about the rant,
-bill "eternal skeptic" rankin
So you have a good practical knowledge of "real world" systems. I know many professors in Electrical Engineering who wouldn't know which end of a hot soldering iron to hold on to.
(Yeah that's hyperbole, but the point is valid.) Letters after the name (or a title in front of the name) is no guaranty of expertise in a specific field (sic).
It had better - a comprehensive understanding of fields and propagation through dissimilar materials would be expected as part of the qualifying exam process for any doctoral program in electrical engineering (at least in the US). It was on mine.
On the flip-side does a degree in metallurgy necessarily teach you about the applications of Maxwell's equations? Does a doctorate in Physics teach you anything about making a good watertight connection on a shielded cable?
Maybe, or maybe not. I know physicists who had to build their own instrumentation and they ended up knowing more about things like differential amplifiers than they ever really wanted to.
The problem in audio (and other areas as well) is that so much of what makes a system good is the application of some fairly well established design and construction methodologies. These are not necessarily taught as part of any graduate program. Your experience in avionics systems is a great example of this.
But just because someone with letters after their name may not have this practical knowledge does not mean they do not know a whole lot about the actual science behind these devices. That knowledge should not be dismissed lightly. When someone makes claims that make no logical sense on a scientific bases, or worse yet are wrong, then the BS must be called out or at least a request for significant clarification is in order. In academic circles this is know as "peer review" and it can get ugly sometimes.
The bottom line is that a) there is a lot of snake oil out there, b) an advanced degree does not make you an expert in everything, c) practical knowledge and experience is critical and should not be undervalued, and finally d) open and honest skepticism by someone who does have an advanced degree in a relevant field should not be casually dismissed.
Sorry about the rant,
-bill "eternal skeptic" rankin
Last edited:
Take a look at Linn Analog cables which were designed for turntable use, and are used on the Sondek. I think you can get a set for $145 per meter terminated on one end with Linn RCA jacks, and prepped for installation with bare wire on the other.
I use them on my Thorens, Rega, and Nottingham tables and they do a great job for small money.
Anyone who thinks that upgrading one end of the signal chain without upgrading every link in the chain is short sighted to say the least.
If you improve your source (cartridge) but don't improve the internal tone arm wiring and interconnects that carry the signal, how will the improved signal reach the phono stage without degradation? When using an analog source, the signal is so diminutive that everything matters...every cable, every interconnect, every solder joint, every strand of copper or silver..they all help to carry the tiny amount of signal current generated by the stylus without adding resistance, or introducing distortion.
That said, if YOU don't hear any improvement with upgraded interconnect cables, RCA jacks, cartridges, and tone arm wiring, then by all means don't spend the $$$.
I use them on my Thorens, Rega, and Nottingham tables and they do a great job for small money.
Anyone who thinks that upgrading one end of the signal chain without upgrading every link in the chain is short sighted to say the least.
If you improve your source (cartridge) but don't improve the internal tone arm wiring and interconnects that carry the signal, how will the improved signal reach the phono stage without degradation? When using an analog source, the signal is so diminutive that everything matters...every cable, every interconnect, every solder joint, every strand of copper or silver..they all help to carry the tiny amount of signal current generated by the stylus without adding resistance, or introducing distortion.
That said, if YOU don't hear any improvement with upgraded interconnect cables, RCA jacks, cartridges, and tone arm wiring, then by all means don't spend the $$$.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.