There, fixed that for you. 🙂
Secondly, the 'too many people...' form of argument is a fallacy - appeal to popularity. Any time you catch yourself making this argument, stop yourself.
Thirdly - delusion is *exactly* what this is all about. Either there are audible characteristics to cables beyond simple DC-resistive attenuation or possible extreme first-order reactivity - or there aren't. It's well understood that DC resistance can be an audible factor, but the audible result is limited to attenuation of volume. Cables do have measurable (physics requires it) capacitative and inductive impedances but unless the cable is very badly made or incredibly long the results will result in microscopic gain or attenuation at 20kHz - certainly inaudible ones.
As for the far more complex audible characteristics attributed to these simple RLC components we call cables, the warm and fuzzy prose of the hifi reviewer and cable fanatic, these have no rational explanation nor is there any objective evidence to support the claim they happen. What we have instead is a press - and a frankly too-trusting following - reporting results of subjective listening tests that are explicable not with electrical engineering theory but only by the science of psychology. The issue is delusion and psychology is what we turn to to understand that. Of course it's not nice being labeled as deluded, it's a popular ad hominem of course and rightly rejected when it's said as such, but when people think they've obtained objective results without proper testing protocols, they've deluded themselves.
To get back to my point though - either these complex differences in cable audio character are both real AND audible (at least to some) or they aren't. If they are, it's straight-forward to *scientifically* show this, and thenceforth to investigate how and why it is so. Or, they are real (measurable in the lab) but NOT audible, or simply they are not real at all - in either of which case that matter is at rest and we can stop buying cables that cost more than a few bucks a meter.
The problem we have in this issue is that the average human is not scientifically literate, does not understand how human psychology works and often invests so much personal 'stake' in an essentially personal and arbitrary position that they cannot later change that position. When the high priests of the hifi press tell us deadpan that thousand dollar cables make important audible differences to the 'sound' of our equipment (they mean the sound of the recording, but anyway...) we believe them. I'm not sure why; I can't think of any other industry that still sees multi-thousand pound purchasing decisions made based purely on third-party, unverified hearsay. It's extraordinary. But it happens, and we are left with a hifi press that will not retract its position, an industry that is reaping vast profits from the gullible and the simply misled and a growing number of purchasers trying not to lose face when confronted with the fact that they should not have trusted the press and should have verified the claims before spending large amounts of money. It's a horrible mess we've got ourselves into, but there you are.
Anyway, if the claims were true in any degree, simple testing protocols would repeatedly support those claims, just as simple testing protocols repeatedly support every other fact about physical reality. Mysteriously, the cable fans tell us that DBT methodologies don't work, aren't statistically reliable, etc... whilst ignoring that these methodologies work just fine in other areas of scientific investigation. And these DBT tests all show the same thing (where they can be and are verified) - cables do not have complex audible characteristics.
The biggest problem for those looking for a hard answer to this, who don't trust EE theory or common sense, is that a lot of the DBT results are essentially in the same form as the claims that cables make a difference are in - unrepeatable, uncheckable reports. When joe bloggs says he did a DBT and his friend bob still heard differences, what are we to make of it? THe answer is nothing other than that Joe Bloggs wants us to know his story. Joe Bloggs (as I hope the name implies) is someone without accreditied authority on the subject. Now, if researchers at the Frauenhofer Institute or scientists at MIT claimed they had demonstrated that there are no audible characteristics to cable designs, that's much stronger stuff. One can readily verify the identities and qualifications etc of the published researchers, one can repeat their experiments oneself (hopefully, if you have the equipment anyway) and you can take into consideration the intellectual standing of the institutions that lend their names to the published research.
What about the middle ground? I'm not sure there is one. One hifi reveiwer I used to trust and look up to was Martin Colloms. He reviewed uber-expensive cables and always he wrote that he heard those key complex audible characteristics that we are told justify the purchase costs, although always with the caveat 'in the right system' - meaning essentially the report only made sense as a guide to purchasing said cables if you had the same system Martin Colloms had. Which is unlikely even if you could afford it... But note - MC rarely reported any objective data on the cables he 'reviewed' (he did for the Kimber Black Pearl). No-one else on the staff verified his claims on the same system - there's no objectivity here of any kind. So really, even someone as 'respected' as Martin Colloms is no more useful to us than Joe Bloggs is. Especially when you realise he is paid by someone who depends on cable industry ad revenue.
The bottom line is that there is NO solid scientific proof at all that cables can even theoretically produce complex audio filter characteristics. The cable-making industry does not publish any research results or meaningful theory on how their cables work. The hifi press, entrenched in a 25-year run of slovenly reporting standards, appears to have retreated from actively reviewing cables any more, but still carries cable advertising and still refuses to acknowledge even the need for discussion on the issue. With their credibility on the line and massive lawsuits to follow if they are ever discredited, they stick to their line. Meanwhile, cable enthusiasts continue to offer up nothing better than anecdote to justify their beliefs (and purchases).
So hear we are, perpetuating an old old argument, each convinced we can convince everyone else, if only they listened and weren't trying so hard to advance their own agendas...
Me, I say that cables make no difference to sound quality, unless exceptionally badly made and/or faulty. There is no credible scientific theory that could explain the claimed complex filter characteristics attributed to cables and plenty that explains the absence of such. The pro-difference lobby, if I may term it that, consists of an entrenched and ad-subsidised and therefore biased hifi press and an army of wishful thinkers and purchase justifiers, all offering little more than subjective anecdotal evidence and lackadaisacal reasoning. The biggest smoking gun is in the hands of the cable industry itself, which has never demonstrated any proof of its own necessity, but is happy to feed off the ignorance and gullibility of its customers with the full connivance of the hifi press, often making an obscene profit along the way. That's where we are today.
Hifi is a great hobby, music is a wonderful art form. I think when we tie ourselves up in cables and interconnects - and a hundred other tweaks we're told 'make a difference' - we're wasting our time, even for the perfectionists amongst us, living in the past, a time when tweaking made a difference. Modern electronics performs reliably to such a high standard that the hairshirt audiophile practises of the past are redundant. Yet for some reason, we let ourselves become convinced by a dinosaur tweaking industry and grey-haired hifi journalists that we can't enjoy our hobby or our music without obscene and pointless fripperies.
Human civilisation has advanced incredibly since the stone age, yet we still fall prey to fear and superstition and live our lives accordingly. Why is that? I think it's time that we advanced ourselves as people, in line with the advances that have come to civilisation. It's time to learn the virtue of objective reasoning and to learn not to make decisions based on fear or superstition. People buy thousand-dollar cables because they can, but also because they fear they are losing something if they don't. A fear predicated on the superstition that cables make a difference. In an objective scientific world, the one we actually live in, they don't.
Let's spend our money where it will make a real difference, and not on making infinitesimal tweaks to electronic systems so reliable and so capable that their performance envelopes already exceed our own. Which is something really incredible if you think about it. So we should enjoy that, enjoy our music and enjoy our lives. Modern hifi lets us do that right out of the box, so we should let it help us do that, and put our preciousl, limited resources somewhere else. That is the true gift of modern civilisation - the freedom to choose where we focus our energies. So make that choice wisely and don't pass it up due to ancient fear and supersitition. Leave your out-of-the-box cables in place, turn on, tune in and space out 🙂
Please do not take this the wrong way but "Thank-you for your kind remarks it seems to be totally out of character for this thread!"
Different Cables are here
http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/simon3126_fig4.jpg
Different Solders are here
http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/simon3126_fig6.jpg
The observant will be able to pick out which of the different cables I used for the forward reverse measurement. The solder test was on 110 joints on a pc card for different types of solder. My theory is the commonality's due to the connector interface and the differences the solders. As all of this is close to the noise level, there are two reasonable conclusions. Solder really does not make much a difference. The second I leave to the reader.
Luckily I'm not a fearful person, perhaps because I don't read too much advertisements. 😀
That depends on the equipment you are talking about, with SOTA eqiupment, you may just waste your money if you don't use good cables. Note I've said good cables, not necesarilly "thousand-dollar cables".
Advertisements are for people that do not listen to what they purchase. I never buy anything without listening first. Advertising simply makes me aware that something new is out on the market. Never lestened to any ads that made music for me 😀
Yes indeed. Spent $5K on an amp and/or preamp, another $5K on a DAC/transport and then use cheap cables. You are certainly in heaven 😀
Ah, so he demonstrates the tester can influence the results. Something to keep in mind next time I read one of Meyer's test. 😀
Very interesting results.
I really have to get a hold of this article. Anybody know a source for AudioXpress individual or back issues? I don't have a subscription and none of the bookstores around me carry it. 🙁
I do think that this is one of the straw men being drug around the playing field. I think it pretty unlikely that two cables made the same would sound different. I cannot imagine a reason why they would.
However, the subjectivists are not pointing to two cables that are made the same. Instead they are pointing to two cables that are made with different dielectric materials, different gauge wire, possibly different metals in the wire and different connectors on the ends. Even the amount of dielectric to wire surface area can have an audible effect on the character of the sound. Woven braid returns that provide a consistent mirror of the signal side, through a dielectric, for the E Field moments, of which there are "jillions" per second in any complex musical recording, will have a sonic effect.
For any of these the effect is either loss of low level information or subtle, low level resonance. I cannot imagine any other form of disturbance occurring, between different cables, constructed of different materials in different fashion. I cannot find any reason to assume that two identical cables will exhibit these losses in a different manner.
Bud
PM me with your email address and I will scan the article for you if Ed doesn't have a transferable electronic document.
Bud
Experimentation is not a bad thing Terry.Especially if you can borrow many cables to try.I believe it is productive.I am experimenting with cables too whenever I have the chance.I must have heard thousands of cables.I have bought 2-3 in the last 25 years.Reason is that I prefer the ones I have,eventhough I have tried cables costing up to 20-30 times the price of my own.See the comments about connectors during the last days.Those who have spent some more money on connectors that are say, mirror machined and rhodium over silver plating,I think they seem to be justified now🙂 A month ago they were simply called "audiophools",and the serious manufacturers of such connectors,crooks.
not quite
that's a bit of a stretch... "justified" because they're pretty, the individual involved has bragging rights. Not because the application requires such demanding performance, though..
John L.
that's a bit of a stretch... "justified" because they're pretty, the individual involved has bragging rights. Not because the application requires such demanding performance, though..
John L.
If as most here say,a $100 or $200 cable is not "necessary" then I would say that you will be surprised that the comment "too many people" is to say the least very conservative.In your country,I believe that QED and others must have at least 2-3 cables in every system in UK🙂
Maybe you need to "FIX" things again?
The thought interests me. Care to expand on how 'connector bragging rights' work? Nothing extravagant, just a prosaic high level overview.
"Such demanding performance" has only to do with how demanding you are.
As for "bragging rights" because they are pretty,no comment.I though that we had overcome the syndrom to think of others as idiots.I was wrong.
Shiny connectors are "pretty".Shiny connectors that are shiny because of a mirror finish because of fine machining or,because of nickel plating are not the same.Nickel costs nothing,machining costs much more.There are many details that make a connector expensive and good value at the same time.I still have the WBT-0101 I bought nearly 20 years ago,and I'm sure I will use my present connectors for many more years without loosing of their finish,performance and why not,looks🙂
Besides I don't think good looks is a drawback.Is it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.