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.
Fortunately, I have no interest in scoring any points in any kind of debate. I just noticed that your reference was something that clearly had "eye-catching" in the text. I admit I missed your ear catching part. It may be due to its incorrect written presentation.
By the way, my mentioning "spectacular" had nothing to do with the fact that you might have heard some difference in whatever you were listening to. It was about "wild claims" that jhills had mentioned. To many people, putting "spectacular" in such a description makes it seem much less believable than describing it in a little bit less bombastic way. Luckily for you, some people would still find it believable.
I noticed that you repeatedly tend to resort to insulting my English language skills. It is not the greatest way of presenting yourself. It is a spectacular way to show your character, though.
There is no routine. I had no taras22 on my mind when reading jhills’ posts I was focusing on. I did not even have him on my mind when quoting a sentence from his post. It just happens that was the sentence I had read a moment prior to that and used it as an example. Why he seems so offended by it is beyond me.
Uh, manufacturers, oft employ certain words and phrases to catch you eye. They are just words. Words and phrases like awesome, spectacular, incredible, jaw-dropping, ground-breaking, unbelievable, Earth-shattering, mind-blowing, ausguesheitnet, sine qua non, previously unobtainable and super duper. That’s called fluffing. Without promotion something terrible happens. Nothing. Hel-loo!
I am aware of that. It is that I feel that jhills was pointing to such words as "wild claims" which, in the minds of many, they really are. I see no problem in using them, but it should be no surprise when someone doubts them. They may catch the eyes of some in a desired way while jhills and some others will be more realistic.
I am not sure how many people take magazine reviews seriously anymore. They are full of such words and they may cause "alarm fatigue" of some sort.
Do you mean in the old school reading of the term or the more moderne urbane use of the term ?
And your honour, in my defense, this wordsmithing contest as you call it , addresses, though admittedly somewhat indirectly, questions about the state of mind of the other party and his motivations and thus is entirely relevant to the case at hand.
Jim As different cables are used for different applications I think it follows that audio cable is unique. Also please prove to me that cable manufacturers use Chinese made cable. I do believe that most cables consist of conductors made in several factories but the conductor is only part of the story. Also I know of a few manufacturers that use conductors that are manufactured in-house.
glupson, just a mild point to interject. I'm not interested in jousting with you verbally. I find that is not productive for us, nor the community.
There is a range, a spectrum of performance, you might agree. A panoply of words can be used to describe the spectrum, and related comparisons. I attempt to choose well, carefully so as to not be sensationalist or be accused of hyping products. The spectrum of performance is - using nifty, striking adjectives - humongous, nearly galactic (Those skeptics who disagree will, no doubt, think I'm being foolish and sensational). So, the range of descriptors imo has to be broad. Funny how typically when someone describes a sound/product as "poor" they are not ridiculed, for in truth most gear is not poor, but lesser than others. Words like "awful," "cold" etc. are used and they are every bit as extreme. Some even will claim that a relative sound was "broken" in comparison. They don't think twice about the fairly irresponsible way in which they have described the product, but when an exclamation of joy is uttered that suddenly becomes a lie.
Something to think about. :)
Trust is the issue here, as with all claims of nouveau items/methods, etc. I attempt not to damage my reputation, or "trust factor" with the community by making foolish or boated claims. Now, the Schroeder Method is imo, and the opinion of most others who have tried it, an outsized result - the outcome is "shocking", "spectacular", etc.
But it still comes down to one thing; it either works to some degree or not. Perhaps skeptics can get past raging about descriptions of its degree of efficacy as described by others, and focus on the either/or of the science, as is the topic of the thread.
To the community:
Now, as to the sought evidence, I am reminded of a jury trial in which I sat as foreman of the jury. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence imo to convict the defendant. However, some on the jury wanted nothing less than forensic evidence, and they would not accept even a powerful suite of circumstantial evidence. (Really showed me how scary it would be to have a jury deciding my future!).
A person here determines whether circumstantial evidence is acceptable, and how much is necessary. I suggest the descriptors be less important than the question of whether it works. I think the lower potential cost and ease of trying it should outweigh displeasure with perception of too fawning descriptions of its effect. Everyone is after the amazing, super-low cost method, tweak, etc. Here it is, and it is railed against; go figure. Basically, the skepticism also stems from a "too good to be true" perspective. Ones who use it and claim it's wonderful are unhinged, not in touch with reality, etc. That conclusion does protect one's foregone conclusion, however it precludes you ever benefitting, which could happen if you open up the slightest file for "Possible Error Re: Schroeder Method" in your mind. :) For some, on any given topic, their doubt and confidence are absolute. Ok, so be it. I can accept that. What I cannot accept is mockery by those who think they know, who refuse to try, and defensiveness when there is a strong reaction to their put-downs of others. What else would you expect when you verbally bully, make a joke of others? I stopped this cold on this thread by my question of epistemology of analogue; it shut everyone up. Why? Because we all know it's true. The hypocrites had nothing to say, because they saw themselves clearly in the mirror perhaps for the first time.
But, that wasn't wanted. Rather, the fighting, the insulting, etc. That's what some want here. I do not want that. I refuse to participate in that. I want progress on audio systems. The skeptics are encouraged to join me by trying Schroeder Method. But, at least if you aren't going to try, bridle your caustic mockery. And, likewise, perhaps our users will find the confidence to not reply in kind.
Anyway, some are comfortable with circumstantial evidence (i.e. observation by several users), and others demand a hard forensic explanation (measurements). I can respect both positions and I think the community should as well. Name calling resolves nothing in regard to the level of evidence someone considers necessary. That is why I engaged in discussion with Jhills versus derision. Now, we are chatting and becoming friends. He is going to try the Schroeder Method, though he doubts it will work. I applaud his willingness to test his doubt.
I do think Schroeder Method in some ways is an ideal acid test of the convergence of exploration of cables and theory, as the result imo seems to fly in the face of theory. By that I do not mean a change in effect would not be expected, as though I or other users are not scientific, but that the expected theoretical outcome is not the result. At least not in any instance to date that I am aware of.
Distilling this down; I find a chasm that cannot be breached between those comfortable with circumstantial evidence (observational science) and those demanding forensic evidence (hard/measured science). So, imho, the disparity will never be settled. Revisiting my observation that I find all audiophiles to operate with bias, the two together ensure that there will be many such threads in the future.
But, Schroeder Method could change all that! LOL Is that hyperbolic enough for our skeptics? ;)
So, which of our skeptics will try Schroeder Method besides jhills?
Man, here I am again spending too much time. I'm outta here for now.
OK here are two that claim to use Graphene in their cables: Courious Technologies - Graphene Matrix and Graphene Extreme; cerioustechnologies.com Mad Scientist - Flexible Carbon/Graphene madscientist-audio.com Both covered here on AG in previous threads.
Liquid, semi conductor fluid for conductors - already discussed in this thread
Some cables costing near or in excess of $1K per ft: Audio Quest - WEL Signature @ $7,500.00 ea. for IM. (nearly $2,5K per ft); Audio Quest - Wild Blue Yonder @ $4,500 ea. per 1M (nearly 1.5K per ft.; Purist - Dominus Luminest, speaker cable @ $12,480 for 2.5M pr. ($780. per ft. for ea. cable; Purist - Luminus 30th Aniversity, Power Cord @ $15,000 ea. 1M (nearly $5,000 per ft.
@jsautter Still waiting to hear what industry, other than HEA, uses $1K per ft signal transfer cable, much less $5,000. per ft. 120v power cords.
Hey, here’s a news flash! Graphene is used in road bicycle inner tubes now. And graphene has been used in tennis racquets for years. No big deal. Don’t get hung up on new words. And don’t be a neophobia.
Here’s another news flash for you. Graphene doesn’t really have to be the classic one molecule thick two-dimensional Graphene to be effective. That much is clear.
Where .. it is always interesting in how one can usually tell that an entrenched position will not change no matter how good the argument is.
That thing about how 90% what a person interprets in another bit of screed, comes from the reader... as 90% of the live cues used in wording interpretation are missing in ’just screed’. So most pronouncements are generally, a huge reflection of who the person actually is and has little to do with anything else.
There are a few where that will not change, not change at any price, any price that can be delivered by screed on forums. Too much personal investment.
And, taking what I feel is a fully correct swipe at some of the pseudonym hiders, usually they hide behind pseudonyms so they can dish out the kind of projected junk they would never utter in person to anyone or any group.
Note to projectors. Thanks for showing us who and what you really are.
I have been trying to avoid a name game here ... OK
here are two that claim to use Graphene in their cables: Courious
Technologies - Graphene Matrix and Graphene Extreme;
cerioustechnologies.comMad Scientist - Flexible Carbon/Graphene madscientist-audio.com ...
So you're just going to name the cables, and not tell us the claims made for them to which you object?
... the wild claims of some of these high priced cable guys - some of
which already facing, or have faced, suits and fines for false claims
and improper business practices
Similarly, you're going to reference these mythical "suits and fines," but not identify them? Is your dissatisfaction solely that some of these cables are expensive?
"glupson, just a mild point to interject. I’m not interested in jousting with you verbally. I find that is not productive for us, nor the community."
I agree. This is my first post/reply directed at you as I have no opinion about your method. It may be great, it may not be. My only attempt at contribution has been to explain that some of the messages about perceived benefits of cables may get disregarded because of excessive and hard-to-believe praise. That was all.
I did not even have him on my mind when quoting a sentence from his post.
How is this even remotely possible?.
I did not pay attention about the poster's name (you in this case), but noticed the words used. I focused on content, rather than a person writing it. Later, I did go back to see whose post that was.
It is possible, it is very possible. It is so possible that it truly happened.
It's weird to me that one can own "too much personal investment" in a post one makes largely anonymously. But welcome to the virtual world of communications in social media!
I hope you notice that I haven’t cast aspersions at your new "Schroeder Method." Frankly I haven’t investigated it to a degree I’d feel comfortable having offering any opinion. So I was speaking to the general idea of the types of claims made by audiophiles for boutique cables, vs the justifications for a turntable/vinyl set up.
I agree and have said often: we audiophiles aren’t operating in a scientific lab. We all do the best we can with what we have.
For myself, I have tweaked here and there like other audiophiles, either having bought various items or having been given items to try at home - everything from high end speaker/interconnects, boutique AC cables, mpingo discs, isolation tweaks of various kinds...you name it.
Having done my time in tweakville, and having assessed my own experience along with looking at the case for and against many such items, I believe I’ve come to well justified skepticism in some areas. I don’t, btw, use "Skeptic" or "Skepticism" in the sense of "close minded" "Mind Already Made Up And Won’t Change it" kind of thing.Rather, I see Skepticism as simply good ol’ critical thinking, asking for appropriate evidence for a claim before jumping in to whole hearted belief.
A couple of points: it seems something of a shibboleth among audiophiles, particularly those most invested in a purely subjective version of the hobby, to say "If you haven’t tried it for yourself: SHUT UP.You have no grounds for critiquing or saying it doesn’t work."
This is of course a fallacy. One can have well-grounded skepticism about a claimed phenomenon without having tested it oneself.If I claim the moon is made of cheese, or that I have a perpetual motion machine doing work in my backyard, you can be rightly skeptical. The reply "but have YOU been to the moon to test it? Have YOU tested my perpetual motion machine?" are red herrings because it’s reasonable to point out other qualified people have done the work to establish the improbability of such claims.
The high end cable controversy is not as cut-and-dried as those examples, but nonetheless one doesn’t have an EE degree, or have examined specific cables, to comprehend that people with suitable qualifications (and who don’t have a business interest in selling boutique cables) decry lots of audiophile cable claims as B.S. And you don’t have to be an EE, or test a cable yourself, to note the rather dubious nature of the claims made by many high end cable companies. (As I often point out: they tend to point to problems of a measurable, technical nature that their technology has ’solved,’ but instead of providing objectively verifiable measurements showing they have indeed solved the problem, marketing takes over and we get appeals to subjective, anecdotal evidence). There’s also the problem of the methodology. When an audiophile says "Try it for yourself and see the results" the problem is the method itself.If the method on offer is unreliable, my using that same method will amount to unreliable results as well. So it wouldn’t be unexpected I would "experience a difference" as well, but that still doesn’t tell us that the phenomenon is due to the cable, or due to me.
You mentioned that people often aren’t sufficiently skeptical of their own assumptions, and it takes humility to put those to test by trying something we may be skeptical about.
There is certainly some truth to that. But there are issues mixed in that have to be untangled. As above, there can be good reasons to be very skeptical about X without having tried X. And for those reasons, it can be reasonable to think trying X isn’t worth one’s time. In those cases, it isn’t some lack of humility in action; it’s just good sense about how to devote one’s limited time on earth ;-)
But back to testing one’s beliefs and skepticism: I wonder how far you have gone in that direction? Myself: Over many years I’ve tried tweaks before, during, and after being skeptical about them. But I’ve also learned to question my deepest assumptions, and experiences that just "seemed obviously true." I have sometimes taken an experience of "hearing a difference" that seemed very solid, but realized I’m prone to bias like anyone else, and have gone further to try to get behind that bias. For me, blind testing, which I’ve occasionally employed, has been very eye-opening.
It’s really something to feel "I absolutely heard a difference" and then, when you no longer know which you are listening to, experiencing that ’obvious difference’ fade away.
I wonder: Have you tested your own assumptions/conclusions/experiences in a way that tries to account for the type of cognitive/perceptual biases we all share? Have you ever tested, say, AC cables, or even your Schroeder Method, via a method (blind testing) where you actually trust your ears, and not your "eyes" too?
Keep in mind, I’m not "demanding" you do so. I wouldn’t bother doing it on the demands of anyone else (unless I wanted to). I’m just curious.
Let's face it some of us are here to share our experiences in the wish of it being helpful to those new to audio, some of us wish to perhaps learn something new - perhaps a different angle and some amongst us may wish to promote some products they may be associated with.
Some form of declaration of interest is always helpful, but I think most of us can usually deduce where the poster is coming from.
Hopefully, all of us share an interest in high quality audio playback regardless of whatever our intentions may be.
Of course we are always faced with the problems of semantics. Sensations are not the easiest to distill into words and this is compounded by the problems of memory as this Bruno Bettelheim quote illustrates,
"Instead of reflecting the impact of a symphony of feelings, interactions and experiences, played, so speak, by full orchestra, a stale report recalls to mind only selected motifs played by but a few instruments."
Ah! The problems of memory! Audio memory is often notoriously short for most of us, with only vague sensations remaining mere days later the event.
Then there's the question of shared meaning. The challenge of remaining within the current linguistic zeitgeist is one faced by anyone posting here or anywhere else. One persons 'warm' can equal another's 'muddy' in the same way slim / skinny and devious/ intelligent can all too easily.
One way around this may be to employ comparisons when comparing products. You may well love the Wilson Sasha speakers, but do you love them more or less than the Wilson Sabrina? And why? Ditto for cables. We may not always agree, but at least we can see where you are coming from.
What about tactics such as linguistic obfuscation? It's common for some to try to derail attempts at clarity as proposed by the lucid and detailed posts from the likes of prof among others here.
A recent case in point was a post about the uncertainty regarding quantum behaviour which neglected to mention that this phenomena is strictly confined to sub atomic particle behaviour.
In our world the sun always shines and will do for a good while yet - the same sun the dinosaurs once basked under.
Thank you for posting those links....and for those genuinely interested you may want to follow up on the phonon reference ( its role in electrical conductivity is pretty fascinating stuff....).
Prof has expounded at length about blind testing methodology. Search for those posts. If I recall the gist of one thread, my take away from those discussions is that blind testing is nearly impossible to do effectively. And I offer this by way of discussion, rather than going down another rabbit hole.
Prof, yes; I voluntarily reviewed AVA's ABX Comparator (review is found at dagogo.com) with the express intent of 1. Seeing what an unusual device it is and how I would appreciate it, and 2. ABXing my ability to discern various products. I was aware that I was putting my "reviewer's credentials" on the line with one form of assessment.
I did the testing with it and passed solidly (i.e. 8 or 9 of ten in most trials) on every genre of gear tested except power amps. (The article discusses the results, and reveals that post-mortem I learned that I had similar results to AVA.
I figure that if I can pass ABX, which was not easy, I can tell if there is a much more obvious difference with Schroeder Method. So, yes, I think I have a good basis to discern a difference with Schroeder Method when I passed challenging ABX with power cords, ICs and SCs.
Jim Your point means nothing as the applications are different. Are you trying to tell me that NASA uses .26/ft Chinese made cable in the shuttle? Further, does NASA use the same cable throughout the shuttle regardless of application? I am sure in some industry a machine exists that uses uber expensive cable but I am not willing to do the research as I dont think your point is particularly germane. The possibility exists that extremely expensive cable only exists in audio because this is the only application in which the additional cost can be justified. My mind is open to the possibility while yours is shut.
WOW! jsauter - Get with it! Read the post - I said that $.26 per ft. is what some cable manufactures pay for their bulk 24AWG bulk ins. copper lead wire from China. Not NASA, or anyone else, except HEA, uses $1K per ft. signal or data transfer cable. On average, though, considering that most everything has gone, or, is going wireless, it would be somewhere closer to $2.00 - $3.00 per ft. (NOT $1,000.00 per foot). Do your own research and get back to me>>>Jim
Masterbuilt Cables originated in the U.S. aerospace program. Engineers developed wiring systems with low-reactance cable for use in the Apollo lunar missions and other mission-critical NASA projects, such as the International Space Station. Say, aren’t they the same cables Von Schweikert uses for his ULTRA internal speaker wire upgrade? 😳
"Engineers developed wiring systems with low-reactance cable for use in the Apollo lunar missions and other mission-critical NASA projects, such as the International Space Station."
prof, yes, I was able to discern power cables as well. I will not pretend I have super hearing. The cables were not easy at all to discern at matched level. They seemed much closer in sound characteristics when ABX and matched level than when in normal use. But, the ABX was testing one leg of cabling, not the entire set. I was successful at identifying power cords with high percentage of accuracy, whereas amplifiers I could not. Frank Van Alstine and I had a wonderful conversation about that only after the review, so as to not introduce any bias. That's when I learned that at AVA the amps were the only parts of the system they could not ABX well, i.e. get significantly greater than 50% identification, either. Our results, though unknown to us at the time of the review, were parallel.
That puts an exclamation point on the results, I'd say!
Will that change many skeptics' minds? Probably not. Some people have incredible faith in their doubt. :(
Now to go listen to this new preamp under review; it's INCREDIBLE! It blows the doors off all the others! The sound is AMAZING. It is 50% BETTER than anything out there...
Congrats. Never heard of anyone passing a blind test for AC cables. Only failures.
But, the ABX was testing one leg of cabling, not the entire set.
I'm not quite grokking that. Could you be a bit more detailed about how you blind/ABX-tested the AC cables? I would love to see results between a regular, competently built AC cable and whatever high end cable you would have chosen.
I blind tested some Shunyata cables against a $15 off-the-shelf cable and could not detect differences in blind tests. I wouldn't think this would, or should, change anyone's mind about cables any more than your results would.
However, if after looking over your methodology, it looks sound, I would take your results as a data point in favor of some cables being audibly different. But, just as no one should take my blind tests as definitive, I wouldn't take yours - either of us could have made some unknown error. Which is why repeatability of the same results by other parties is a feature in science.
Still, for us measly audiophiles, we do our best and make our own conclusions from our experience.
And the results of your blind tests would also support the usefulness of blind testing. Lots of blind-test nay-sayers claim blind tests aren't, or can't be, conducted in a way to detect differences. So they think blind testing itself somehow erases the ability to hear real differences. Which is untrue as lots of blind test show positive results for identification. Some of mine were positive too.
Prof, testing for power cord was with system identical throughout, using two identical stereo amps, and different power cords on amps. Only variable is power cord on amp.
blupson, I like that! Good joke! What was the phrase years ago, "Four door, on the floor..."
What’s the rumpus? Everyone in the high end knew all about power cords 25 years ago. All without benefit of blind tests, if I can be so bold. This is all so anticlimactic. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! 🐥
It probably does not matter, but your dealer Audio Two from Windsor, Ontario is listed with USA dealers and not Canadian. Someone looking for Canadian dealers may miss it.
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.
