I’m of a mind that it’s entirely likely there are characteristics of music (or an audio signal) such as ’ambiance’ or ’staging’ or ’presence’ that exist - we can experience it - but which science just hasn’t yet figured out how to measure. Just because you can’t see or quantify a thing, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
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.
476 responses Add your response
@taras22 "Could you please do us all a big favour and take a peak at the following thread.... https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic ....and give us your ideas about what all the hub-bub is about. " The OP spews nonsense. That is all there is to it. A sad waste of time. |
| Post removed |
@ defiantboomerang The OP spews nonsense. That is all there is to it. A sad waste of time. It is odd you say that because as that thread shows the response to using the method has been overwhelmingly positive ( and truth be known we have built cables in that manner and the change from a normal cable assembly is absolutely shocking ).Was hoping you would find this interesting and would comment on what you think is behind the very significant performance increases cited in the thread. |
| Post removed |
These arguments are so exhausting as people seem to have made up their minds already. Some of us actually listened first and then when confronted with the real experience of different sounding cables began to dig into the science in order to better understand the phenomena and possibly to predict performance. Here is one source of information regarding Litz cable; what I find is generally superior sounding. It accounts for the properties of the electromagnetic fields that interact between ac conductors and you can see the calculable factors you never imagined that all matter in ac cable design. https://www.elektrisola.com/hf-litz-wire-litz/products/terminology-basics/technical-basics-and-calcu... |
I have read some articles that said high end speaker cables are like smoke and mirrors. Wouldn't you get much better results by using the extra $5,000 on something like a better amplifier or better pair of speakers. If you were thinking about using $5,000 for speaker wire or using that money for better speakers I wonder what people would do. Unfortunately, I have never heard a retailer demo speaker cable. |
@jhills Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to. Don’t know about youse guys but I’m always been surprised/fascinated at the reactions of dogmatic true believers when they run headlong into some figment of reality that doesn’t strictly conform to their tightly held beliefs. Above is a case in point where we have a self confessed true believer confronted with something that tilts his world. The response is interesting. We see the use of a rather unflattering term, goop, to identify a key component of the profane and sacrilegious object. The fact the descriptor is dead wrong ( semi liquid has as a matter of course very high viscosity, like magma, whereas the "goop" in question is on low end of the scale ) but what are mere factual details when we have witches to burn eh. The second part of the response, about the "goop’s" conductivity, is even more interesting and revealing. And yes it is true that the conductivity of the "goop" is about 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, but that has to be considered across another reality, thousands of cables with the blasphemous "goop" have been sold to very happy customers, who for some reason think those cable sound wonderful despite said conductivity issues. So what in such circumstances is a true believer to do because on the one hand we have the One True Faith and on the other a crowd of happy customers who have strayed off the path of righteousness. Well I know what this particular true believer has done in the past when he comes face-to-face with cable heresy, he invokes the time honored strategy of true believers and banished them into the realm of otherness, wherein those customers are in some form all brain dead idiots and the cable makers just low life thieves that a used car salesman would look down on. Thus a quick and simple manner order is restored in the true believers universe and life is good . There is however another way to possibly look at that, a way that btw has helped the human race evolve from some monkey-like ancestor to our current wonderfulness. This way involves looking at seemingly intractable problems that challenge our preconceived notions of reality and not dismissing them out of hand but instead trying to understand the problem and come up with a solution that expands our universe of understanding. So we have high conductivity yet we have a cable system that for many observers works incredibly well, and yes that doesn’t make sense in our current understanding of things, but you also have to appreciate ( and not denigrate and/or ignore ) that it stands in quite stark opposition to that understanding. My thought is the forward monkey would try to figure out the problem and come up with an answer ( whereas the dogmatic monkey would most likely head back to the safety of his leafy home ). Like maybe consider that conductivity in and of itself maybe does not define whether a cable do its job well or not. And while we are at it figure why the Schroeder Method, despite raising the capacitance of a cable assembly and gravely and obviously sinning against the One and True LCR, produces such stunning results. And just thinking, but maybe our company motto should be "Cables: the final audio frontier. These are the voyages of TEO Audio. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new ideas, to seek out new solutions and new technologies, to boldly go where no cable has gone before. "....full non sequiturs ahead..... but the split infinitives can’nae take any more, captain.... |
It's bingo day at the seniors center.Sadly, there's more intelligence there than here or the freshman class at almost any college in America. The 'spiritualists' here remind of the BBE Sonic Maximizer from the early 80's. On poorly engineered program, it could be 'interesting'. On well recorded and mixed material with good sound stage presentation, it was a nauseating buck of mush. Too often I have endured demos of 'discoveries' which do 'enhance' the sound, but only if one re-defines enhance: v. - intensify, increase, or further change the quality, value, or extent of a reproduction in a manner inconsistent with an original. 'Bandaids' to cover defects only ensure the production of more defects. |
I cannot see the tweeks of AC, and cables as being band-aids. They rather clean up the basic electrical so the equipment can shine as it really can do the best. Some folks say "if they made the equipment right in the first place".. True but then that $5000 box of electronic parts would cost $10,000. !! |
@taras22 To be sure, I have nothing against science and development - I’m all for it. The fact is - nearly every facet of the music industry, from the performance, to the studio and into home, is going wireless. Nearly all new forms of communication and dash control, is going wireless. Even in the redundant safeguard, back up control systems (where wire and cables are used) in every industry, from the military, to the aviation industry, to the air-space industry - relies on wires and cables, for controls and communication, meeting long used and proven standards - none of which cost $1000.00 pr. foot. Only in the audio industry, is anyone gullible enough to fall for the wild claims and ridiculous prices of wires and cables selling upward and over $1000.00 per foot. For many years I worked for one worlds largest manufacture of everything from wires and cables, to industrial switch gear, to the worlds most sophisticated control systems, so I have a pretty good idea of what’s out there, how it works and what it should cost...Jim |
Only in the audio industry, is anyone gullible enough to fall for the wild claims and ridiculous prices of wires and cables selling upward and over $1000.00 per foot. It's not all audiophiles. It's mainly the category of audiophiles who fully trust their subjective experience as the primary source of truth. When you live in that paradigm, "anything is possible" which is why such an extraordinary range of phenomena come to be believed in that paradigm (It's the same paradigm that ratifies every religion, cult, pseudo-science, etc - note how Flat Earthers constantly talk about "believing what your senses tell you about the world even if some stuffy scientist disagrees!" Sound a bit familiar?). |
@prof Sound a bit familiar? Yeah in fact something about the thrust of that post does sound familiar, it sounds like a fundamentalist who is backstopping his dogmatic beliefs with a scientific version of truthiness. And speaking of the absolute awesomeness of science here is something about one of the greatest scientists of all time.... I was reading many articles about estimates of the age of the Earth throughout the ages. I was dumbfounded when I read that Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientists ever to have ‘calculated’ the age of the earth, estimated that the Earth was created in 4000 BCE. Johannes Kepler arrived at a similar result. And then there was the comment from a physicist just before "Newtonian" physics got smashed by the quantum tsunami ( the following roughly paraphrased)... ....all we need is just a few more decimal places of precision and we'll have the whole thing figured out.... Yup, yup yup science is a real bedrock eh....actually it isn't, its just a tool to explore with, and fairly imprecise at that ( and some playing with the idea of chaos theory may help understand why that matters ) ....to believe otherwise displays a misunderstanding of science. |
ieales287 posts02-18-2019 11:13am It's bingo day at the seniors center.Sadly, there's more intelligence there than here or the freshman class at almost any college in America. The 'spiritualists' here remind of the BBE Sonic Maximizer from the early 80's. On poorly engineered program, it could be 'interesting'. On well recorded and mixed material with good sound stage presentation, it was a nauseating buck of mush. >>>>>Oh, sure, anyone can look around and find some absurd example like yours. Doesn’t mean anything. |
I cannot see the tweeks of AC, and cables as being band-aids.That's all they are. ALL interact with source and destination. NONE are 100% neutral. chaos theoryDon't make me laugh. The initial condition is OFF. The next condition is IDLE. IDLE changes with age, voltage, temperature, pressure and humidity for some transducers. There is no way some high resistance, poor charge density goop is going to ameliorate anything. More than likely, it is undergoing constant change ala the BBE Sonic Maximizer. |
@taras22 Say what you want - I’ll stick with real science, engineering and craftsmanship and the next flight I take, I’ll feel secure knowing that the airliner I’m on was designed and built by real scientists, engineers and trained and skilled craftsmen, using proven science and engineering. In fact, it was sound science that proved the world was not flat, not the true believers who condemned anyone who challenged their misguided beliefs....Jim @geoffkait Gee Thanks - good having you on my side ;-) ;-) ;-) ............Jim |
Congratulations taras22. Your post exemplified the kind of cluelessness about the nature of science that can lead one to pseudo-scientific beliefs. You’ve completely misunderstood the lessons of science in general, Newton in particular. Apparently you wish to use Newton’s incorrect calculation about the age of the earth to draw the lesson "See? Even great scientists can be wrong...so we can’t just go trusting science!" But anyone who knows a thing about the scientific method already knows you don’t use "Faith In Something Some Genius Revealed To Us." The whole point of science derives from the very fallibility of ANYONE. It’s the Method, not The Man. Just because a man was wrong...as every person who ever lived has been wrong about one thing or another....doesn’t give warrant for undermining the scientific method. Newton is actually the perfect example. Many acknowledge him as perhaps the greatest mind to have ever lived. And the lesson of Newton is this: When he applied his great intellect to phenomena that could be seen and tested by all, and created testable theories which could be reliably replicated by anyone, despite their religion or lack of religion, he revolutionized useful knowledge for humankind with his theories of gravity (and others). His theories were, and continue to be, used to successfully predict endless phenomena which work under those theories. Kepler’s laws were useful within their domain of accuracy as well. But what happened when each of those men turned their formidable intellects to the untestable realms of "Faith" "revelation" "religious belief?" Both men were fervent Christians who took ancient scripture as utterly authoritative. You got Newton working for 30 years on a religious treatise that languishes in obscurity and has helped no one, and produced no reliable knowledge. And in combination with ignorance of modern dating methods that they didn’t have back then, with taking the scriptures as historically accurate....you get total miscalculations of the type you reference, from both men. This shows how much it is The Method that is more important than The Man, and when you appeal to "people...magic or otherwise" for your authority you will fall in to all sorts of pot holes. Recognizing the fallibility of human beings within your method, writing skepticism and doubt in to the method, acknowledging that anything you think you’ve demonstrated could be in error and that others should seek to replicate or show where you are wrong, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "fundamentalim" and "dogmatism." Understanding that human’s are error prone and taking that seriously in your method - e.g. controlling for sighted bias - is the EXACT OPPOSITE of faith or fundamentalism. That you mix these up is why you believe some of the things you apparently believe. And you also imply an incorrect lesson about Newtonian theories of gravity and Eisenstein. Newtonian theory was not removed by developments from Einstein and others...it was *improved upon.* It was accurate within it’s domain for the most part, but was incomplete as a description and a new theory was required to explain things Newtonian physics could not. It’s still a usefully accurate account at a certain scale which is why it’s still used for that scale. If Newton’s theory were simply ’wrong’ you wouldn’t be able to explain why it works so reliably as it does . In many if not most day to day level applications, employing the more elaborate general relativity theory won’t yield you usefully more accurate results, so Newtonian physics is a perfectly useful model for most day to day calculations. Whenever anyone appeals to science, you like to bring up bogus examples and ideas to sow a sort of mistrust in the appeal to science. It just shows a dedication to psuedo-science. And it’s particularly ironic because you are left to answer this question: In every case were ’the science’ has been shown to be ’wrong,’ incomplete or inaccurate....what method was it that uncovered those problems? You guessed it: science. It’s got a self-correcting mechanism built in that tends to weed out error over time. No one should get to have his own pet theory made safe - one that is not vetted scientifically - by trying the old "but they called Galileo Crazy" or"But Science Has Been Wrong Before!" trope, as if errors in previous science make unvetted pseudo-scientific claims less dubious Claims about cables, especially extraordinary claims, ought to be able to pass the same vetting method as any other science. That’s not a fact favorable to purveyors of expensive high end cables based on dubious theories, or to those who believe their subjective impressions can not be in error, which is no doubt why it receives some pushback |
prof
Claims about cables, especially extraordinary claims, ought to be able to pass the same vetting method as any other science.Agreed. But why is it that those who call for this vetting seem to always require that others do the work? Erik even has a thread called, "How I would measure audio cables" and he says it would be "super easy" to do. But: He can't be bothered. |
cleeds, You keep raising that question, even though it's been answered a number of times. Here we go again.... You assume people skeptical about boutique cable claims haven't 'done the work.' But note that most of the skepticism comes from the engineering world in which people work with the electrical theories in question. It is from an understanding - theoretical and practical - of how electrical components work that many EEs and other technically qualified skeptics conclude many audiophile claims are bogus. The "work" on electrical theory and cables has essentially "been done."At least, this is a common position of most EE skeptics I've read. Further, there have been plenty of technically knowledgeable skeptics who HAVE done technical and blind testing of cable claims. Someone has posted quite a few here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ Science oriented web sites like Hydrogen Audio contain plenty of technical tests on audio components, including cables, and blind test results of all sorts of audio components. You can find more technical tests on Audio Science Review, and on Archimego's blog. More recently, skeptic Ethan Winer has proposed a null test for cable claims...and you can see videos of him showing the results. I myself have, as I've explained before, blind-tested cables and other devices. So this objection you continually raise...as if it had any force...just seems ignorant of all the reasons skeptics give for rejecting many of the claims from high end cable companies, and the knowledge, and work, those objections are based upon. |
iasi, Many skeptics would not say that cables have an impact on sound quality...but not necessarily in the ways many audiophiles believe. That is: a basic, well designed cable, properly chosen for the job at hand (e.g. capacitance etc for a given length/job)...is essentially transparent. That is, it's not the case that any time you change a cable the sound ought to change because "all cables 'sound' different." But, yes, choose the wrong cable for the job and you can get something like a tone control (e.g. rolling off the high end), so in that sense cables can sound different. That caveat out of the way. I have often pointed out that audiophiles swooning over the 'sound' of their latest expensive cable purchase are simultaneously swooning over the sound of the relatively basic, cheap, industry-grade cables used to create most of the recordings we listen to. |
So we all (kinda) agree that cables have an impact on sound quality...we all want to hear the ‘pure, unaltered sound’ coming out of our speakers... how about the cables that were used during the recording session? I doubt all those record studios use ‘high end’ cables...Many studios do use 'high-end' cables. I wired many with Mogami, Canare, Belden, Monster, etc. Some spent as much on cable as the mixing desk. However, those same studios all have a different sound due to room, electronics and microphones. We often drove across town to record in a specific space for its sonics. The Complex, Sunset, Record Plant, Oceanway, Capital 'A', Village, or cross country to Hit Factory, Sony, or offshore to Monserrat, Abbey Road, etc. So when you get a piece recorded in multiple rooms, whose cable would you use? Change cable per disc? Track? Chorus? Add in EQ & compression by the earless A&R department in yet another facility. Add in sonic changes from watermarking, disc stamping, etc. Add in sonic thumbprints for player, pre, amplifier. Add in sonic bootprint for speakers. It's a wonder it's listenable at all. I just roll my eyes when I read equipment reviews where the kazoo on this or the conga on that or the calliope on the next had some particular authority. All that has happened is the endless series of colorations has aligned to what the reviewer thinks something sounds like. BUNK! >>> NO PLAYBACK SYSTEM ANYWHERE EVER SOUNDED LIVE <<< @prof +1 - keep on firing. |
ieales Many studios do use 'high-end' cables. I wired many with Mogami, Canare, Belden, Monster, etc. Agreed. Most of the studios whose cabling I know of, tended to use Canare or Belden or a combination for much of the equipment. (I had a bunch of custom-length cables for my own systems made by a supplier to local professional studios). But I would personally differentiate those cable companies from "High End" cable companies, which to me denote those in the audiophile-sales industry - the Nordost, Audioquest, Shunyatta's of the world - who charge far more, and make more extravagant and dubious claims, than the industry average prices for Canare or Belden. |
@prof e.g. capacitance Funny you mention that capacitance thingee. Maybe you should wander over and see how cable assemblies made according to the Schroeder Method are being reviewed. The users found the results fantastic, and this with a cable design that has double the capacitance of an ordinary "by the books" design ( read, none of the rolled off high end as predicted by the One True LCR deity). Its a mystery, or maybe its a miracle, or maybe alien technology direct from Zar-Dot. Bottom line extra-ordinary results are the result. |
@ieales @prof +1 - keep on firing. Yup, yup, great spot on advice there eh....like don’t give up, just keeping blasting away, and who knows, eventually you might actually hit something. I mean, with infinite monkeys, and infinite typewriters, eventually a bible appears, right. I guess that is just part and parcel of that hopey thang one has when one is a true believer. And here is a word of caution from someone living in the real world, this here reality is finite, read it does not have an infinite number of the bullets, or arrows or stones or whatever you are using in that firing process. Just saying that so youse guys don’t get all disappointed and mopey when you run out of ammo or the target turns into something totally unexpected, which you know happens, and with amazing regularity if you look at the historical record. |
All of this back and forth reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is2V3jm_Dxc&frags=pl%2Cwn . |
@ nonoise That was very nice but I was expecting a earth shattering kaboom or something like this.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@ geoffkait Methinks more like a retreat way way way back to the safety of the trees, errrr, telegraph wires...when life was simple and all you had to consider was which berry, errrr, L and C and R....and you could still buy something with a buck....and men were men....and so on and so forth! Gosh, the simple life is so, uhhhh, simple. Reality on the other hand is all fiddly bits, and not at all simple no matter how hard and long you hold breath. or how blue your face turns. Much sorries, but that is, uhhh, reality. |
taras22 I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed by a number of others that, yet again, you posted some more nonsense about science and, when that nonsense was taken apart, you ignore the points (because you have no plausible replies) and retreat back to childish sniping. Well...whatever suits you I guess. Have at it. |
