Some Thought on Cables and Tweaks

Ivan wrote,

"But, in regards to your op, Sabai, maybe my main point here is simply the model that wiring, when using an oscilloscope anyway, is not so much ‘doing something magical’ as all the makers would plainly have us all believe, but rather that the best wires can, and should, be thought of as simply satisfying Ohm’s Law the best and otherwise simply managing to do the least harm in the system. The rest may amount to little more than descriptive language…not that that’s all useless – I’m no objectivist. It’s just that I think that descriptive language should never be substituted for a more proper understanding that can be had through the basic physics involved – even if the reality is that we’re left by the makers to try to uncover all that for ourselves. Cheers."

Not sure I go along with your generalization that cable makers use language that suggests they believe, or wish us to believe, cables are "doing something magical." On the contrary, reading what most of the major cable makers, including high end cable makers, say on their web sites, it's clear they wish to present their products in the best possible scientific light, including research, theory, and manufacturing techniques. Most cable makers also take pains to characterize their products in terms of purity of metals, special geometries, special dielectric materials, special connectors, special treatments they might employ such as cryogenics, etc. The cable makers I am referring to include Kimber, Cardas, Shunyata, Nordost, Audioquest, Purist Audio, and many others.

Nonoise,
Your comments ring very true. If we look critically at reviews instead of accepting what is said at face value we can find all sorts of contradictions -- and ample evidence of outright manipulation. It has been mentioned many times that it is rare to find a negative review of any audio product. I believe this is a true statement. This begs many questions. It calls into question, ipso facto, the veracity of many comments in audio reviews.

Geoffkait,
Better does not mean neutral to me because I have no idea what neutral means when referring to audio cables. I don't think anyone has ever elucidated this term in such as way as to elicit agreement on its meaning -- and agreement on what cables reach this standard. Since all cables are altered or colored by their make-up I think it is obvious that no cable can call itself neutral.

Your list is a very comprehensive compendium of the various factors that affect the quality of cables. But I don't believe all of these factors will always make for better cables. For instance. I have an active cable that sounds awful in my system when the MPC is connected. The MPC must be disconnected for the best sound to emerge. I think a number of your other points could be the subject of lively debate, as well. Nonetheless I do agree that the total absence of any of these factors will make for a poor sounding cable.

Geoffkait, didn't mean to imply that makers were totally untrustworthy, but was responding in part to Sabai's comments:

"Some cable makers and tweak makers produce more verbiage than you can shake a stick at to describe what their products do. How many cable makers or tweak makers really understand the physics of their products well enough to describe accurately what is going on with their products? I believe they have mostly arrived where they are at not through understanding the physics of cables and tweaks but by experimenting -- with metals -- with "geometries" (whatever that word means)-- with dialectrics -- with shielding. I believe most of the theories being promulgated for most of the cables and tweaks are an afterthought. The best makers come up with products that create great sound. The rest -- well, let's be kind and say run-of-the-mill.

There are a whole lot of audiophiles chasing a whole lot of cables and tweaks based on manufacturers’ claims. But how reliable are those claims that have high end audiophiles chasing one product after another? If even a fraction of those claims were true then there would be a lot less chasing going on. I mean, how many truly great cables and tweaks are there out there? A lot less than are advertised as being great. IMO."

But, reading my post cold, Geoffkait, I think I understand how you could reach that conclusion. I didn't really make myself all that clear on it. BTW, I pretty much agree with what Sabai is saying, there is a lot of hype, although I do think that nobody understands everything there is to possibly know about wire design and that arriving at a given design through experimenting rather than simply by (esoteric) physics can end up being a good thing, if they are thorough enough. Then again, one of my sources for background on this kind of topic, Alan Maher (of Alan Maher designs) has put forward a theory that, while I'm unable to prove, seems pretty intriguing. According to him, the best way to lower resistance in a system is to manipulate things by raising inductance, which he has been able to do very effectively using his crystal-based technology, which certainly extends the audio bandwidth and hugely lowers noise (I say this I've seen it work extremely well in my own system as I'm a satisfied customer). But, the theory of his is this: that once you've done this to your system to a sufficient degree, this in effect levels the playing field for all the wiring in the system and that ultra esoteric cables, which are manipulating ohm's law in their own right, are in effect masking a problem, but that, once your whole system is taken care of with Alan's approach, then the expensive wires are simply still masking the sound in an attempt to mask the original problem, even though that problem has been fixed. That means that, if you go his route, then more coneventional (much less expensive) wiring is all that is needed to get top flight sound, according to Alan, anyway. Someone's snakeoil alarm may be going off right now, but I've heard enough in my own system to suspect he is on to something. The implications for the audiophile community are huge (no more dependence on $$$$ cables), but this is a new idea that may take a while to catch on. I DON'T want to hijack the thread here, but what would it be like if no one truly had to bother with expensive wiring? Just possible food for thought is all. Regards to all.

Ivan wrote,

"Alan Maher (of Alan Maher designs) has put forward a theory that, while I'm unable to prove, seems pretty intriguing. According to him, the best way to lower resistance in a system is to manipulate things by raising inductance, which he has been able to do very effectively using his crystal-based technology, which certainly extends the audio bandwidth and hugely lowers noise (I say this I've seen it work extremely well in my own system as I'm a satisfied customer)."

It's much more likely, rather than lowering resistance, crystals simply reduce vibration and/or reduce RFI in the system. I.e., wider audio bandwidth and lower noise result from better signal to noise ratio.

Nice to see crystals are going mainstream. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Ivan_nosnibor,
This is an intriguing thought. All I can do is speculate.