douglas_schroederDid you then swap power cords to amps and repeat?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.
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
rocknss, it's been quite a while since I did that review, and not all the trials made it into the article. I do not recall switching the power cords on the amps. I do recall conducting more than one comparison between power cords on the amps. These were identical amps that I had used ongoing for some time. I believe that if there were an audible issue with inconsistency with the amps it would have been manifested through putting up many systems. My response would be thus; IF a variation in sound between the amps existed, and if it was not audible during normal use, why would it be expected to be audible during ABX? The odds are much more in favor of the power cords themselves being the cause of the sound differences, especially when I consistently had sonic changes due to cables such as IC and SC as well. OTOH, what was surprising and significant was that when power cords to amps were identical I was unable to be successful in more than about 50% identification between amps that were level matched. It even held true with SS vs. tubed amps, as you can read in the article. That was unexpected and to me seems the more noteworthy result. In other words, I succeeded in identification of power cords, but failed at identification of amps. I never would have expected that result. However, as I explain in the article I do not believe the result applies directly to real world system building. Anyway, yours is a good question. To eliminate any possibility of influence of the amp, swapping the power cords would have been a good idea. However, I believe the circumstantial evidence shows that the likelihood of the amp being the cause of the differences in sound is very small. It is obvious that I am not a lab tech, so my procedure was not perfect. However, I do not believe that negates the results. YMMV, and though I am happy to provide an answer, I do not intend on arguing/debating it. :) |
@cd318- "What about tactics such as linguistic obfuscation? It’s common for some to try to derail attempts at clarity........ 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." At what level of atomic particle, does sound begin to be affected? GOT ANSWERS(as in, "science")? It’s the likes of you, that choose to deny the plausible/possible, regarding how this universe operates, when presented with SCIENTIFIC FACT. That you can’t grasp the possible significance of phonons and consciousness, regarding how/what people hear, doesn’t make them irrelevant, or- a related conversation, "obfuscation". Someone once said, "None are so deaf as those that WILL NOT hear." |
I will be interested when jhills reports back on his discovery in trying Schroeder Method ICs. When I spoke with him he indicated that he had the interconnects and would only need connectors. Some are not impressed by the use of connectors such as splitters or Y-cables, as though that would obviate any potential gain. That is not so; all users who have used splitters and Y-cables hear a marked improvement in their system. The skeptics are speculating on that point. I have invited them continuously to put their doubt to the test, but as we can see many of them hold their opinions with absolute certainty. That’s a great way to cement a rig in current performance, eschewing potential wonderful improvements. That kind of attitude gave rise to my byline, "The greatest impediment to developing an audiophile system is the audiophile." The reason I initially (now, I’m experiencing at least one brand of manufactured double IC - anyone else care to make and send to me for trial?) used assembled ones is for convenience, proof of concept vs. making/buying, and to see if the benefit could overcome the inefficiency/deterioration that comes with splitters/Y-cables. Also, assembled Schroeder Method cables are very easy and quick to reduce to a single IC for comparison. That is ideal in such situations. It’s the cheapest, fastest way to get to comparisons. And for that some are dismissing Schroeder Method. I use a sensible approach that doesn’t cost a lot, and it’s written off. That’s typical skeptics for you. Operate as they would and the method gets condemned for it. But, if I were to say it is only efficacious if one buys manufactured models of it, then they would fuss about the cost, I’m in cahoots with the makers, etc. Self-confidence and doubt like to operate from both sides of the coin - that way skepticism seemingly cannot lose. I do not give much credence to arguments that say merely rising from a chair, or replacing a cable nullify a comparison. It is easy for me to hear the differences. Then again, I am doing this in a custom room with about 8dB less noise level than typical quiet room in a home, and the characteristics of a mastering studio. Likely your room is not better. Just another reason why, Imo, skeptics are in no position to declare what I can and cannot hear in that room. :) |
| Post removed |
@elizabeth You go on like you found THE ONE TRUE WHATEVER Well, he is talking about an idea that produces the most dramatic difference I have ever heard in the audio cables category. And which btw is definitely in the running, and may well be the winner, for the most dramatic difference for any audio category ( and frankly, I can't, at the moment, think of another difference making idea that is more dramatic and I have been playing in this sandbox for over 50 years and have seen lots of toys come and go ). So Doug has some very very good reason to sound wildly exuberant and zealous. Will be very interesting to see what your response will be once you have heard the difference this method makes ( and I'm assuming you will give this try at some point in the near future...I mean even with "lowest common denominator cable" in the most basic configuration, which uses splitters, this produces a much more than significant difference ). |
Elizabeth, I invite you to try it; then we may not be able to get you to shut up about it. :) If you have a better cable method or technology that pertains to the question of this thread, "The Science of Cables," feel free to promote/discuss it at length. Schroeder Method pertains directly to this conversation because 1. it involves cables, 2. It is nouveau, 3. It is imo testable informally, and I presume at this point formally, 4. It is not understood theoretically, and 5. It was in existence prior to this thread and was already amassing instances of success - in fact, to this point only success, i.e. no negative outcomes. Aside from the arguing on this thread, I see little other objective ways to DO something to propel understanding and discussion productively forward. Perhaps some would rather rant and moan about others, but I am proposing a simple and imo quite effective means of opening up discussion not excluding or damning skeptics, but welcoming them to the party. How’s that for a different approach? Instead of vilifying them I am inviting them. Note the thin response to those invitations so far. That, sadly, is to be expected when working with people who absolutely trust their intuition, whether it’s right or wrong. The multiple targeted invitations met with silence mostly are evidence imo that skeptics are not as interested in doing anything to challenge their own beliefs, but are more interested in attempting to overwhelm cable users with theory. That’s not going to work too well when the results are so easily heard. Whatever. I know, I used to be a hard core cable skeptic. Something tells me that if you had developed Schroeder Method you would be talking about it every bit as much as I do. Like when you got your system instead of buying a car - you couldn’t be shut up, endless chatter about it. It was nauseatingly monotonous, and imo you made some claims that I didn’t think were supportable, but I didn’t blame you for it, because it is wonderful when you discover something new. (Perhaps most of that was on Audioasylum, but I quit going there years ago.) So, forgive me if I enthuse quite a bit, because the double IC is something important, and germane to the thread. An interesting piece of history, Elizabeth - I remember years ago on this site that you were quite lukewarm yourself about aftermarket cables. Finally, you tried and what do you think happened? Your attitude changed with experience. You are quite a different audiophile now than even five years ago. Do you think I am unaware of how frequently I have invited people to try it? I have been building a case that shows right here the M.O. of skeptics. Slash and burn tactics with cables, but wait! An inexpensive, easy to do, purportedly quite significant means, an opportunity to either falsify or support their contentions - and only 1 is willing to try. THAT is the point of my multiple invitations to particular skeptics. They are proving right here how closed-minded they can be. Yet, it’s not too late if they want to show they are not entrenched. I used to think I was so sharp, laughing at aftermarket cable fans for their stupidity at spending ridiculous amounts on cables... I have quite a story to tell about prejudging situations. The incident that opened up reviewing to me happened precisely because I chose not to arrogantly prejudge a speaker. That’s a story for another time... Congratulations again to jhills, the only one who was willing to be open to questioning his interpretation of the situation and try Schroeder Method. Elizabeth, thank you for sharing your opinion, and now that it has been voiced, I trust you won’t need to state it again. Please know that I have no desire whatsoever to enter into lengthy discussion about this post. :) |
Does anyone else see this thread as religious? One side is sure, the other one is sure it is not. Both sides are sure that others would be righteous only if they converted. Beliefs, personalities, preaching, witnesses of miraculous changes... If I remember correctly, elizabeth does have a car now. Ford Focus ST, manual transmission. |
@glupson So far, jhills is in the lead. Wow, being in the lead in what is this thread’s equivalent of a Miss Congeniality contest is really not such a big whoop eh. But then I suppose given the way your team has been trashed wholesale here any win no matter how insignificant is good. There, I sincerely hope that after my terrible transgression above that this post gets this thread back on the rails again. |
glupson Does anyone else see this thread as religious? One side is sure, the other one is sure it is not. Well, bit of a broad brush there glupson. At least some of us (e.g. myself) do not take a stance of ’religious’ character in terms of dogmatically accepting things without critical inquiry. Or dogmatically claiming others "must be wrong." I have often written, including in this thread, that I’m open to the claims about cables, but look towards better evidence than is usually supplied. And as I said also, I made no judgement either way on Douglas’ new cable method. But, yes, in the audiophile world, especially when it comes to cables and other more tweaky areas, there is quite an analogy to religious thinking - a particularly confident belief in one’s own subjective experience as an arbiter of reality, vs trying to get beneath or around our biases. |
I would dd the type of thinking each contributor does is how some posts have that religious fervor,and some are dry as dust. Some ramble on repeating the same drivel. Some folks rely on the physical senses to make meaning of the World. Some think logical thinking is the only way to make sense of the World. Some believe whatever emotionally strikes them as 'meaningful' (with no hard thinking or checking reality is how to see the truth of the World.Good luck. |
taras22, I have no team, but I also have not seen participants in disagreement with you being trashed wholesale at all. My remark about jhills being in the lead was about his statement that no other industry uses $1000/foot cables. NASA was implied at some point and it turns out that even those are cheaper. |
douglas_schroeder, I do not really consider myself anything when it comes to cables. I am not an agnostic, I am aware they exist and they need to exist. I do not belong to either side in this thread and leave it open that there may be something to it, but am not religiously accepting it without suspicion. That position makes me a bit more credible than anyone who has any investment in cables. No conflict of interest, minimal bias. I read this thread as something informational, a window to others' views and emotions about cables. I stay away from commenting about actual differences between cables here, or theories about them. I have not tried many and am not planning to. It would take a lots of time and effort and it is not my thing. As this thread is not only about cable technicalities, but touched marketing, pricing, etc., I mentioned a few things that I noticed. Price of NASA cables and praises that make claims less believable than they may deserve to be. Once changes are "spectacular" and "dramatic", not many will convert or seriously consider it. They will think it is a joke. Less dramatic descriptions or agitated responses may yield better responses and more fruitful discussion. |
@glupson So let me get this straight, cables are generally dismissed because they are perceived to produce only incremental differences across brands, and any differences are written off as just more marketing hyperbole that can’t be believed. But when some real performance differences are produced by innovative cable designs those claims are also dismissed as just more marketing hyperbole that can’t be believed. So the takeaway from this its all just more marketing hyperbole that can’t be believed all the time. And the funny thing this belief is maintained with a concurrent effort to actively ignore any possible evidence to the contrary even though such evidence is dead simple to access and really inexpensive to apply, Audio used to be exciting....with designers/builders producing innovative equipment that created the audio market and innovative buyers who explored any and all avenues to get better performance out of their systems. Now its reduced to a crowd of fundamentalist naysayers who just sit on their hands and decry any perceived threat to their entrenched beliefs. Whats that line about only dead fish go with the flow and don’t cause any waves, or is it boats or something...but youse get the idea ? OK, the conservative element in audio is doing what conservatives all think they are doing, and if the strict definition is applied they think they are preserving or conserving something ( like say the rule of some law ). Well, unfortunately in this case they are suffocating the spark that led to the creation of high end in the first place, and that spark is innovation which by its very nature breaks rules and preconceptions, or at least interpret in a wholly different manner ( just remember theory has two ways of being understood...its either something seemingly solid....or its just a theory, read a wild guess....and don't look now but the history of science is littered with the remains of solid theories that over time morphed into wild guesses...) |
Good point...but caveatically only if the cable strictly conforms to the established LCR standards ?....cause all that other weird stuff is not theoretically robust enough ?....which hopefully means we, as purveyors of really weird cable, will not be included in any upcoming class-action suit ( and you know it will happen because sooner or later some crazy guy will snap and grab a cable and perpetrate some crimes or something...)... Wondering, Geoff, is this part of that Brer Rabbit and Tar Baby prophecy ?.....sorta the end of times-ish like, which is weird cause I always thought that was a kid’s story and this is pretty dark....?.... Methinks maybe we should all go wireless like right now to prevent this eh ? ....and look Geoff is already there, wow more sheer Brilliance !... |
| Post removed |
taras22228 posts03-02-2019 8:23amWhat can I say, you’re Brilliant.....I’ve always said that....and incidentally just like your rocks, whose operating principle btw was used in a product that actually won an Oscar for technical achievement way back when... >>>>Really? |
I think it is very helpful to the community to see further into the thinking processes of skeptics such as glupson and aftermarket cable proponents such as myself. :) Please refrain from continued comments about weapons. I find it offensive. My brother in law was murdered 30+ years ago and the case never solved. No justice was brought by man, but I trust it will by God in due time. I saw what the havoc did to my sister, so I don't think it' so funny to joke about weapons with subtext. |
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: this "debate" about cables is not about cables. There’s some underlying tenet of a conservative nature that predisposes some to belly-up-to-the-bar. The joking mention of religious fervor reminded me of it. Factor in the tribal nature that dominates all manner of discussion nowadays and one need not look any further than it being the impetus, the driving factor, behind a lot of these discussions we’re having and the elevated level of emotion that accompanies. This is not as serious as some make it out to be. All the best, Nonoise |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
And I am here to provide another outlet for this thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-posters-intend-to-hurt-the-feelings-of-other-members |
