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.
I imagine that if you would dismiss all these persons' conclusions you would say it is due to confirmation bias.
FWIW...I personally don't simply dismiss your findings as confirmation bias.
Not that I know either way how the perceived effect is occurring, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. I'm sure it's fun to play with these things, especially if you get results, obviously.
Though I gave up playing with cables quite a while ago, I still do my own tweaking sometimes(usually with acoustics). Hey..it's a hobby!
Prof In a way, on this thread, you are still playing with cables. And that is okay. 'Hey it is a hobby'. Agreed.
I've also added a black SR outlet and Perfect Path Omega E-Mat on my power panel. The latter really boosted the video color density and brightness. The audio improved as much. The power outlet improvement was significant but nearly the same price I paid for the E-Mat which was 5X the improvement of the outlet.
Please file under the lengths people will go to ram their point across.
Here’s an interesting article that turned up in my inbox a few weeks back. Excerpts follow:
“It was no surprise, then, that in 1983, the magazine jumped at the opportunity to conduct a double-blind listening test, which editor-in-chief Bill Livingston and his colleagues hoped would reveal, scientifically, that high-end cables were indeed a hoax and provided no higher performance than the everyday lamp cord in common use at the time.”
“The resulting article created a firestorm. As you’ll read, the panel identified, to a statistically significant degree, the 24-gauge from the other two contenders with pink noise as the source. More critically, they also identified, again with statistical significance, the Monster Cable from the 16-gauge with pink noise. But the latter results didn’t hold when choral music was used, and none of the Monster versus 16-gauge results passed the higher threshold of a 75 percent or greater detection rate said to be psychoacoustically significant.”
“SR’s editors, however, rewrote the ending to create something akin to a blanket condemnation of the category and pressured Greenhill to accept the changes, a decision he later regretted.”
“Today, 35 years later, the debate over audiophile cables remains as active as ever.".
In other words. Folks have heard a difference between speaker cables. The article way back in 1983 should have settled this there and then. But something got into the way of the truth. You can read the Sound & Vision article in full here, and here is the article “The Horse’s Mouth” mentioned in the S&V article.
Here are some excerpts from Stereophile’s article - “The Horse’s Mouth“:
“The striking outcome is that the panel accurately heard and named speaker cables in 5 out of 6 comparisons. The listeners felt pleased after this listening test battery: they had heard real differences! After the 50 hours of testing, scoring, comparing, and just plain listening, they were exhausted but felt accomplished. Both Monster Cable and 24-gauge wire could be heard reliably under double-blind conditions.”
…
Much can be learned from the coverage afforded the cable article. Stereo Review has used Larry Greenhill’s article by distorting it to represent their well-established editorial positions. International Audio Review has used it to draw attention to its role as savior of the consumer and of the high-end industry. The Absolute Sound has capitalized on the humor possibilities, and taken the opportunity to again attack Julian Hirsch—at whose feet I feel this matter is unjustly laid. Hans Fantel, who must have read only the conclusions and not the data, used the Stereo Review article to justify his hitherto-announced scorn for esoterica. The Wall Street Journal seemingly has no axe to grind, but Gregory Sandow has used their pages to not unfairly promote The Absolute Sound, for whom he also writes.
Significant harm has been done, however.
The underlined paragraph indicates the same article are interpreted differently by subsequent magazines to push their agendas. Herein lies the problem (in bold) - these articles have done more harm than good.
"Drip under pressure’ They are not an 'ex'pert. The are a 'current' spurt under Geoff’s definition. So many threads trying to ’simplify’ the complexities of audio. I agree for a newbie audio is a daunting hobby with way too many choices, and hardly anyone to trust. Every audiophile has a different agenda and equipment brands they like, in fact rave madly about. No consensus, no map. Used to be one went to the dealer, where for good or bad you got your salesman guru fix... and a system. Now, few dealers, no apparent gurus, since everyone is a guru expounding why they are right, and all those other fools are wrong. Several types of amps, big small, Solid State, tubes, SET, OTL, Class A, or D, preamp no preamp, digital must be a certain KIND of chip, this one NO that one, power cords. can’t just use the stock one .. OMG! nooooo. I would hate to be trying to start out in this hobby. No question I would just walk away and start a tropical fish hobby instead....
Point taken, though I came through a time when things may have been even more complicated and/or mysterious. Nobody knew anything, rumours were treated like facts because that is really all we had, there were almost no publications, and the best we could do was find liked minded crazies and huddle in dark basements and discuss what amounted to vague images in the tea leaf residue at the bottom of tea cups.
In our neck of the woods it generally only got to DEFCON Complex and Mysterious....though on some Saturday nights, especially when the Laughs were playing the Habs, things would get ugly...ever see a fight where chainsaws were involved ?
The funny part, believe me, is you don’t even know what the ding dong I’m talking about. So you must be just a big scaredy cat. Insert Noah Cross quote here.
I've set up many audio systems for novices who don't know anything about audio (one acquaintance mounted his turntable platter upside down which I determined by his inability to get a record to play correctly and a photo sent by email-fixed the problem over the phone). They are very pleased with the resulting sound despite it not being high resolution, just very pleasant music being reproduced. These cheap systems run from $1000 to $2500. I do it for free just so they can have nice music. Often I suggest they purchase used electronics and speakers. I throw in free Monster cables that have a warm, not highly resolving character, rolled off at the frequency extremes but nice to listen to. They cost me $5 to $10 a cable. Or some Belden cables. Or they decide to buy Blue Jeans cables.
The problem here at the forums and in audiophilia in general is the HEA world. A novice will be made nuts reading and hearing about all the choices. That's where the problem lies, not for the novice low cost audio system, but the HEA arena (that includes mid-fi equipment in the $1000+ area per equipment).
roberjerman, you are quite a vocal skeptic here. Would you like to try Schroeder Method? I am making a presumption that you think it would not work, or that it would have a low chance of bringing about a beneficial change. I'm interested in whether you will try it, given the several instances where it is deemed highly efficacious.
If you reply with ridicule I will discontinue conversation, because I am not interested in arguing with someone who, because of their feeling of pride in being correct, believes they have the right to mock someone else.
So, yes or no, are you going to try Schroeder Method? It's not that expensive; you should be able to do it for under $200. If you have four identical ICs already, you can try it for under $100 perhaps.
Interesting - for the most part, the only ones you hear blowing about the greatness of the Schroeder Method, are those making and selling high dollar cables - go figure.
They boast that their particular $$$ cable is a revolution in cables and the best sounding thing on the planet - But Wait - if you want them to sound really, really good , you should double them. What is better than the best, oh yea - "The Really, Really Best". The next generation of mega dollar cables and wild ideas - The Really, Really, Really Best! Oh where does it end?
jhills, please refrain from characterization of the Schroeder Method as collusion on the part of manufacturers or those associated with the industry. You have not done your homework prior to posting. There has been largely manufacturer participation in this thread. However, you state generally, "Interesting - for the most part, the only ones you hear blowing about the greatness of the Schroeder Method, are those making and selling high dollar cables - go figure." That is incorrect, and an attempt to derisively dismiss it.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you will need to avoid obvious bias aimed at discrediting a method with which you have no experience. You have damaged your reputation here with your post, and would do well to refrain from further faux pas.
Mention has been made repeatedly here and in the thread linked above, the one on this forum entitled "Doug Schroeder Method, Double IC", about audiophiles unassociated with the industry who are rightly amazed, thrilled and thankful for the Schroeder Method. The community can plainly see that this is not the industry, but everyday users who found it efficacious. I invite those who wish to check me on this to visit that thread where it will be obvious that the community is loving the Schroeder Method for its efficacy.
I grant you this; your criticism stems from a valid observation, that every cable maker promotes their wares as the best. Obviously; that's marketing. Then, however, you mistakenly equate that marketing as the bulk of response to the Method. However, the Schroeder Method is not being sold by myself, and cable makers were free to examine the method and if not suitable let it alone. My point is that you have lumped in the Method with bias against cable makers in general, which I understand, but do not find justification. People can use whatever ICs they wish, even low cost ones, in order to do double ICs. So, your skepticism, imo based on promotion of cables is unwarranted, especially in light of the number of persons who elected to share their experiences in order to congratulate it themselves after trying it.
Would you like to try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? You likely would not have confirmation bias in trying it! :)
If you respond with belittling comments, mockery, etc. then I will discontinue conversation, as I have no desire to discuss this with persons whose goal is to wrangle in a contest of whits. If you respond with further objections theoretically, I will presume you are not interested, and I will move on. So, yes or no, will you try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement?
Nope! Plenty much happy with the cables I have and have no desire to double the capacitance on my system......Jim
Not picking on you in general, just stating that cable makers, who would have us believe that their incredible $k per ft cable is the ultimate, now concede they sound even better if you double them.
I have no bias against cable makers, in general, but I do, at times, have a problem with their greed and looseness with the truth.......Jim
One real positive of the doubling up of cables is.. the person suggesting it is NOT making money off it, Usually the folks who are trying to get rich off anyone, make money. Clearly this guy is just writing he found it to be of value to himself, and others have tried it and also found it to be of value. Beyond that, there is no marketing of anything. No sales. One could double up old spare cables one already owned. So to me, the only sort of attack is the general attack of the claim that some cables sound better. And thus this idea must also be a rip off (somehow? to the guy complaining) since it too is claiming the cables sound better doing this doubling up. For me to try it would cost me $51.80 to buy 4 'F ' AQ dual RCA Since I have piles of spare cables. I could try it with one of my spare preamps.. And actually the whining against it has made me think to try it..So thanks to jhills, one more potential user of the method may exist.
Jim, Thank you for your thoughtful, cordial reply.
Elizabeth, yeah, the cost to play is pretty prohibitive. Kills. You would think I was asking people too try a $5K cartridge.
Which brings up this question: What is the substantive difference scientifically/analytically between analogue, in the industry and among users, and cables? I see vanishingly little difference. Which would make analogue lovers who mock cables huge hypocrites. It would also open up all the same sweeping criticisms of the industry and users that are applied to cables. I am very close to making that a proclamation, but I leave it open at this point for input.
Call me a very serious analogue skeptic, but not absolutist yet. If anyone can demonstrate objectively how analogue is applied and assessed in systems differently (I mean differences with significance, not passing differences) then I will be open to reconsideration. :)
I have a digital source; I do not use analogue. However, be careful how you reply, for if you as a cable skeptic would condemn my habitus, then you condemn yourself if you eschew aftermarket cables.
Perhaps this has all been hashed out for aeons over in the analogue forum. I don't know, I have plenty to do elsewhere. If this is a perennial debate in the vinyl world feel free to enlighten me.
And a pair of SM dual Canare StarQuad assemblies at ~$150 breaks so many banks for audiophiles, too! Too much to risk, eh? You. Have. No. Idea. What. You’re. Missing.
People with less system building experience simply don't have a frame of reference that allows envisioning better, and are suspicious of claims to that effect. One has to be willing to test their suspicions. Those who do, discover.
I understand skepticism. Many years ago I was a cable skeptic. It's one reason why I am willing to try what no one else will.
Do we have any skeptics willing to try Schroeder Method, given due diligence re: compatibility?
@celander And a pair of SM dual Canare StarQuad assemblies at ~$150 breaks so many banks for audiophiles, too!
If, in Mr. Schroeder’s proclamation, he would have used SM dual Canare StarQuad cables @ $150.00, or Elizabeth’s $51.80 4 F AQs, as the test example for his Schroeder Method, rather than the TEO Audio Liquid Audio Cables and the Clarity Cable (both over $2K per 1M set and both he had previously, lustrously reviewed as being among the most open, detailed, quick and revealing, of cables) it would have made a bit of sense. My thought is - If it takes doubling up a set of $2K+ IC cables, or a pr. of $13,000 speaker cables, to really make them sound great, maybe they weren’t that great in the first place...Jim
@elizabeth You’re Welcome! Best of luck - let us know.
Here is the thing....understanding of stuff moves on....it does not stand still as it does in the minds of the fundamentalists such as the adherents of the LCR-or-the-highway Creed....bashing the Wright Bros because we have modern aircraft is just as wrong headed as bashing anyone for making a cable as well as they did given the most current state of cable building techniques available at the time.
To quote John Maynard Keynes
When my information changes I alter my conclusions What do you do sir?
Well what we did was not sit around and mope and bury our heads in the sand as a fundamentalist would do we acted on the new information and built cable assemblies that incorporated this idea and the results produced spectacular results. But what was especially interesting was the assembly did not produce a result consistent with the standard LCR understanding of what a global doubling of assembly capacitance would produce ( there was no high frequency roll-off, in fact the high end was significantly more delineated, and without any etching, and the sound stage got noticeably larger in every dimension ). Which is why I threw that weird result out to the folks here who claim to intimately know the workings of cable through the strict application of known and accepted laws that generally explain cable behaviour.
And btw we have tried several different cables assemblies using this idea and everytime we used assemblies that had proved superior in the past we got better results in what we call a Double Double configuration. So old methods still have validity in this paradigm, they just seem , uhhh, supercharged, in some way we really can’t explain. But the bottom line is they do, they really really do.
But hey you can stick to your I can’t be bothered what I have is good enough, even though the effort to do so is so relatively minimal if that is what you have to do, but a word of caution when you bury your head in the sand be sure to close your eyes cause you may scratch a cornea or something.
My goodness. If every invention got hammered for the materials used rather than the outcome, then how could we have ever ventured out of the cave to create fire and the wheel?
The fact that such superb cables were easily improved upon by a simple modification that does not affect the integrity of their construction should be celebrated rather than condemned.
Ok, we have some meaningful discussion; let's dial back the rhetoric and keep the open, non-competitive discussion going.
Jhills, good point; I can see where you might have been influenced to think it had to be a big $ interconnect. No, it does not. I believe it would work even with throw away ICs. My understanding is Schroeder Method is completely independent of sales/marketing/perceived valuation of cables.
However, let's be clear; from my and others' comparisons the quality of the IC is carried through in the "magnifying" - that's fairly accurate catch word for the global effect - of the single ICs sonic characteristics in the system. It becomes very easy to hear differences between cables, much easier than with single IC. The effect on the system is pervasive and powerful, really Unbelievably powerful. I have said it is on the order of a $10K component upgrade. Pick your component. It's like a leap in speaker production. etc. I know that sounds absurd, but to describe it as lesser would not convey reality.
In fact, I have never discussed using the TEO Double Double, because I have never used it! I believe I will at some point, but it has been others who have been discussing that particular Schroeder Method cable. I have discussed publicly the Audio Sensibility manufactured double IC in my Audio Blast article at dagogo.com about that company, which is far less expensive, likely in the realm of sensibility in the mind of many for an experimental cable. The presumption that I am somehow tied in with TEO's sale of their Double Double is incorrect. I did not ask them to make it, I have not tried it (though I hope to), and as not yet being a user I am not yet endorsing it. Hopefully that clears up some confusion in the community. I am, however, happy that they trusted my discussion enough to be the first to make a double IC, and that they seem interested in my impression of trying it.
As to the Clarity Cables, I have on loan generously from Chris and Melissa Owen some cables including Organic ICs, and I have found them to best many a competitor. I consider them among the most favored of all cables I have ever used (dozens) in 30 years. So, yes, I used them and continue to do so in Schroeder Method, and they are favorites. (BTW, I think I could have gotten cables with MSRP in the tens of thousands on loan similarly indefinitely, but they were not as good imo. If my priority was image I would use them to bolster my reviewership. I'm not about B.S.) The encouragement to use better ICs is not fluff. I have compared them against inexpensive ICs and they are vastly superior to cheap ICs, and preferable to the Audio Sensibility double ICs. However, one must consider the cost differential.
Celander has been using the HAVE Inc. dual Canaire StarQuad manufactured ICs, and I discussed this aspect of inexpensive cables in my article. I think the skeptics should read my article at dagogo.com if they have not, because some of these potential misperceptions will be addressed.
Now, to the community:
Hopefully our skeptics will begin to see that I have no agenda to fool you. I have no agenda to be in cahoots with someone to get them sales. I am fleshing out something I discovered and others are along for the ride. This is a seminal event that many are finding incredible - in a good way!
The reason I'm discussing it in the cables/science forum is that it seems to defy conventional theory. Why? How? I have no idea, and neither do the users and manufacturers. So, does that mean it's hokum? TRY it. The track record is that you also will accept it, despite not knowing how it works.
I am pursuing a patent after a user of Schroeder Method suggested that I should benefit from it. I think I have commented on that publicly previously. At this point the only benefit I have had are four pair of loaned manufactured double ICs (2 RCA and 2 XLR) and some Y-cables from Audio Sensibility for the article. That's it. I'm spending more in terms of my time cost than "it's worth" trying to get through to people, because I have a zeal for audio and this IS worth discovering. Do I someday want to benefit financially from this? Yes, but a potential patent is years away, is by no means a sure thing, and any financial gain is even less assured and even further off, and it seems I will have to put in a fair bit of my own time and potentially capital, too, before ever seeing a dime. So, at this time I have just about zero for all my efforts and potentially great expenditure of time with no guarantee of benefit financially. Just how is that bilking people?
So, why would I even do this? You should hear it.
BTW, I'm not paid to review at dagogo.com either. That's another major misnomer. My hourly "wage" when I get a discount on a component is such that most of you would never work for that kind of rate. I did the numbers and it's wretched. I basically have given away thousands of dollars of my time to aid the community. The reason I keep doing it is that I'm very into variety of gear and systems, and love exploration of them. Why not write at the same time?
Now, skeptics, you can scour this post and seek to discredit me for minutia or perceived inconsistencies, or you can take what I have shared at face value for your benefit and run with it. At this point no skeptics have volunteered to try Schroeder Method. I'll bet several others are behind the scenes, and I hope they will come forward.
So, skeptics, are you going to try?
Frankly, Imo this is the best potentially lower cost improvement to a stereo rig you will ever be handed. So, I think you should stop being pissed off/disgusted with me and try it.
So, what about my question in regard to analogue? How does it materially/methodologically differentiate itself from cables? how does the overwhelmingly subjective field of Vinyl related audiophilia escape the same condemnation as cables? TURNTABLES ARE TONE CONTROLS! LOL
When I see all the other tech and music industries jumping on to the $1,000. per ft. cable band wagon, rather than the current trend of going wireless, maybe I'll become a believer.
Only in the home audio - audiophile - crowd (@prof... thanks for the previous correction - "not all") are there those gullible enough to believe that their $20,000 Audio system needs another $20,000 worth of cables and cords to sound good and then need to double all those expensive cables to make it sound really, really good. WOW, no wonder HEA is going under.....Jim
@douglas_schroeder So, what about my question in regard to analogue?
Now don't be blasphemes...LOL Even though I do like both digital and analogue, I can kind of see your point. I am, myself, starting to question the sensibility of replacing expensive cartridges once every year or so (I'm retired and listen to music allot) and don't even want to think about the cost of replacing my TT and tone arm. Also getting a bit lazy and a bit less into getting up to flip LPs over every 15 min. But I do still have allot of LPs I really like, so my analogue will stick around for a while, just now spending more time with the digital......Jim
Jim I won't hold your being an analogue lover against you. ;)
So, you trust what the sellers say about the cartridges, but don't trust me with a free method? Seriously, how is the improvement of a platter , tone arm, mat, phono cable or phono pre, or isolated motor measured aside from subjectively? How is that not parallel to cables?
Anyone care to explain? I am open to input on this.
Which of our skeptics wish to try Schroeder Method?
Precisely what science is applied in turntable evaluation? What distinguishes it from cable evaluation? What cost structure is defensible for analogue, and why are manufacturer claims accepted uncritically? What is the markup on analogue products relative to cables? Should expensive isolation products be accepted?
I wonder such things as an analogue skeptic. Are there sound (Pun!) Answers?
To me many of the assumptions and methods of analogue, specifically Vinyl, are more tenuous than Schroeder Method.
I'm starting to think all the analogue believers owe Schroeder Method a try.
Analogue-believing cable skeptics, where are you?
Don't we see more attempted explanation and measurement for cables than analogue rigs. I've not seen typically any measurements in relation to constituent components of turntables. Perhaps the entirety of home analogue is non-scientific.
Do we have stringent evidence to the contrary?
Is this a speck and log situation? Perhaps. What arguments of the objective analysis of analogue home process can be martialed?
Well, perhaps I have a point worth discussing. I am open to enlightenment.
Pleased to see that cable science remains as contentious as ever with arguments having run now for many years... most of my life in fact! IMHO it probably comes down to what should be measured especially as frequency response and THD/IM distortion seem not too helpful other than maybe minor changes resulting in part from interface issues. The conundrum centres on what factor(s) can be measured where classical measurements (or more critically the way in which they are performed) normally offer poor sensitivity. last year i was invited to give the AES Heyser Lecture in Milano. I touched on a range of topics but decided to take the controversial step to include a section on cables... always dangerous! I reported on a recent experiment performed in consultation with Armour Home (QED) UK where they claimed surprisingly good correlation between measurement and (blind) subjective ranking of 4 cables types. I am not suggesting this is definitive or comprehensive but it is interesting nonetheless in giving some mechanistic insights. The lecture (hopefully) can be downloaded from:
Please note you need initially to download the files and store them locally, not try to play them directly from the web. In addition there is a demo of a spectral-domain method of DSD-to-LPCM conversion which you are free to try. BTW I apologise in advance for the poor audio quality of the lecture... there was a network interface issue in the lecture theatre beyond my control (how unusual is that...). Anyway, hope its of interest.
Prof, no, I am saying there appears to be no measurable, objective basis for cultivation of an analogue rig. I see that the same largely subjective assessment is used by analogue lovers in their use and consumerism as cable users. My concern is not at all with the topic of distinction between signals/sound quality of analogue vs digital.
To the community; I come to you as the Analogue Skeptic. I have a few doubts about Vinyl. Please entertain my questions. BTW, realize that I have nothing against vinyl at all. I just have something against stilted logic and bullying using "science" as a bludgeon.
My agenda in the past few posts is to defend the epistemology of aftermarket cable use by comparison to the epistemology of analogue, which I find rests upon the same assumptions and methods as cables, but is deemed legit and never questioned as being unscientific. I am exposing what I see as widespread hypocrisy in the audiophile community among those who use highly subjective assessment to "know" that their selections of equipment for analogue is legit, but mock the selections of cable fans, manufacturers, dealers, etc. as pseudo-scientific, a sham, foolish, etc. I think the white hot spotlight of assessment can be turned upon analogue.
The implications of this comparison are profound, and I have drawn up some questions that I never see (I admit I don't watch the analogue forum, so I might be blind to a raging debate existing in the community, but I suspect not. Again, if I am wrong, I am open to being educated about that.) discussed around here, namely just how do analogue fans know that they are correct in their assessment of all things Vinyl? (I am at this time taking a focused approach; I suspect that I would find a similar basis for critique among analogue tape fans.) Do these kind of questions ever appear in the Digital forum? Perhaps so. If so, I would appreciate being told, "That's been discussed forever..."
But, if so, why is there not a more tempered criticism of aftermarket cables?
This topic is no mere diversion, but a serious question that begs to be weighed. Why is it, at least from my perspective, that Analogue as a sector of this hobby is given a pass, never critically assessed in terms of cost, motivation of the manufacturers, senility of the hobbyists who seem to be rabid about its use, etc. Cables are raked over the coals mercilessly, but I find pretty much the same assumptions and habits of the analogue fan as compared to cable fans.
So, what gives? Do we have a pervasive double standard at work here? Are analogue fans hypocritical in their assault on aftermarket cables, while a casual assessment of the situation would yield a conclusion that they are twice as much a son of hell as cable believers? Have the analogue fans condemned aftermarket cable users as "unscientific" and a laughingstock while they do the same multiple times over with plinth, footers or isolation devices, tone arms, cartridges, motors and drive belts, phono cables, phono preamps, etc. - all adjudged by opinion!
The only measurement I see discussed is related to table rpms. I think I also see measurements occasionally regarding table stability, elimination of vibration. I see a Grand Canyon sized hole in regard to meaningful data pertaining to analogue and comparison of one product to another. I see claims, I don't see measurements, you know, the science stuff. Frankly, I think there is more substantiation offered for cables by manufacturers than analogue products mentioned above. Shall we start questioning the motives of the manufacturers? Perhaps we should begin ridiculing analogue lovers as pursuing their own fantasies. Why not? The activity seems precisely the same as what cable users do.
What defense would be offered by analogue fans? "Open your ears and listen! What, are you DEAF?" Subjective. If they go that direction with a defense, then they affirm that they have no scientific basis in assessment, but largely subjective, non-scientific. Aftermarket cable users are mercilessly ridiculed for such answers. What other answer can analogue fans give to such criticism when it is turned on them? So, as to the motivation and cost structure of analogue, the questions would be endless, as I have outlined a few above. When assessed epistemologically, is there any basis for condemning cables as contributing to the demise of the high end, while praising analogue for its contribution to revival of the high end? What if the relentless harangue of turntable users is unwittingly driving away people while they employ� identical methods as cable fans? What precisely is so scientific about analogue? I find there is more unscientific about it than what I do in comparison of cables. I can compare sets of cables. Who compares entire analogue setups? A cartridge is changed, a tone arm is changed, exactly like a cable is changed. A subjective assessment happens, exactly as with cables. AND CABLE USERS ARE MOCKED FOR THEIR METHODS WHILE ANALOGUE USERS DO THE MOCKING? Shouldn't the hubris of the one who does this be pegged at 10+?
Where's the science in analogue? What measurements accompany their assessment? Is it all subjective? Why, then, mock a cable user for their subjective assessment? How is the assessment of the tone arm or cartridge not as ludicrous, devoid of "science"?
How can a person be an analogue fan and not see how hypocritical they are when they mock cable fans? I believe many cable skeptics are analogue fans because they believe they can set up a superior sounding rig for less money. Is that borne out by measurements? Is that not a purely subjective assessment? Can a $1K analogue rig outdo a $30K analogue rig? Why is this seemingly not a raging debate in audio? Have our analogue lovers done ABX between a cheap analogue setup and an expensive one in their room? Have they subjected their hobby to the same searing criticism they level at cables?
Who is going to say THE ANALOGUE KING HAS NO CLOTHES? WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ANALOGUE? Anyone?
(Sincerely, I do not wish to be blind in condemnation of the epistemology of the hobby of analogue. If my assessment is erroneous, and the comparisons forced, then please discuss and enlighten me. I think it is a discussion worth having among us.)
Which of our analogue loving cable skeptics is going to try Schroeder Method?
It is inexpensive enough to have HAVE, Inc. assemble a set of SM IC assemblies having a set of parallel IC’s tied together with single sets of connectors in a single sheath.
Yet, a set of 4 Y-splitters can be had for even less $$. Thus, testing the efficacy of the SM has a fairly low cost barrier of entry, provided one has the 2 sets of IC’s and set of 4 external splitters on hand.
@douglas_schroeder Jim I won’t hold your being an analogue lover against you. ;) Thanks!
So, you trust what the sellers say about the cartridges, but don’t trust me with a free method? Seriously, how is the improvement of a platter , tone arm, mat, phono cable or phono pre, or isolated motor measured aside from subjectively? How is that not parallel to cables?
No, I do not trust their claims, or see justification for some of the ridiculously high prices attached to HEA analogue - whether it be cartridges, tone arms or TTs.
For many years I worked for a large international corp. that manufactured, sold and serviced all manor of industrial and commercial electronics and apparatus. One of my jobs was to do field analysis and service on industrial rotating machinery - everything from high speed turbines to giant scrubber fans. I dealt first hand with the woes of harmonic resonance and vibration. I, one time saw the aftermath of a 12’, 15,000 lb scrubber fan that blew apart at 500 RPM, from a critical resonance. The company operating it thought it was OK, because everything had been previously balanced, to change out drive motors to boost its speed, without doing an analysis for potential other problems. It turned out that the upped 500 RPM excited the fan’s resonate frequency and it was curtains from there. In home audio, controlling resonance and vibration is very important, but, if you know what you’re doing, it is relatively straight forward and doesn’t have to cost a fortune. When I see the outlandish designs and $$$ attached to some of the HEA turntables and after market resonate control devices - gotta shake my head and again I think "Only in the world of HEA".......Jim
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
