Researching the Great Debate

[musicoverall]

Ever been back on the archives on this site? The Great Cable Debate threads go back to 2003, and probably before. Looks like E-Stat has been fighting the good fight for awhile! :)

I've spoken to many audiophiles on both sides of the fence and they tell me it's been a big debate since the early 1980's or so.

Magazine articles from the audio press have it going back to the middle 1980's as far as I've found.

Long standing debate, and the participants must either have the patience of Job, just like to argue, or truly believe they are recruiting and helping out their fellow man. Hard to believe. It seems to me that this debate has run its course in terms of its value. Many of the arguments I've read are the same ones we're arguing today. The best arguments that I have read on this site - on BOTH sides of the fence - have been beaten to death for 2 decades. And the fact is, nobody died.

My stance is simple; a newbie should simply think for themselves. If the naysayer stance seems more believable and they think cables are a farce, I'm ok with that. If they want to try it and find out for themselves, I'm good with that, too. My experience is that cables make a difference - a significant difference. Whether or not my cables are neutral, I neither know nor care. How would I know, anyway? Measurements have failed time and again to explain what people hear. Placebo theory has also failed. The fact is Cardas Neutral Reference cables make my system sound better than zipcord.

I do not intend to participate in a DBT because I don't see the point. I've tested cables sighted and unsighted and I'm convinced what I hear is real. But I'm not interested in convincing anyone else. It's up to them to find their own path, whether that's through theory or direct experience.

Whatever happened to Mtrycraft? Is he still about? Talk about single minded of purpose! That guy must have his own library of audio articles, all collated and filed. Impressive, even though I can't agree with a lot of what he's posted here.

[kexodusc]

Whatever happened to Mtrycraft? Is he still about? Talk about single minded of purpose! That guy must have his own library of audio articles, all collated and filed. Impressive, even though I can't agree with a lot of what he's posted here.

Mtrycraft either got the boot or left on his own after the new management took over a few years back. He was starting to sound like a broken record. A lot of regulars who defended the objectivist position went with him citing censorhips or some nonesense over this stupid debate.


My stance is simple; a newbie should simply think for themselves. If the naysayer stance seems more believable and they think cables are a farce, I'm ok with that. If they want to try it and find out for themselves, I'm good with that, too.

I don't think it's as easy as that. I think a newbies could think for themselves if they weren't already exposed to the power of suggestion and influence from marketing, testimony that could affect their impartiality and expectations, and likewise if they weren't exposed to the studies and arguments from the objectivist camp citing DBT results and other research as definitive, which can also affect their impartiality. The fact a company is even selling cables promising results is accepted as evidence by many people.

We carry our beliefs, attitudes, experience, and expectations into every subjective test (and into scientific research if we aren't careful). Wars have been fought over the power of belief in things that do or don't exist...It's easy to see that exposure to this debate could push a newbie towards one side or another. I think both sides in this debate are doing newbies a favor by stating their positions with reasonable arguments.

But as you said, a newbie should be encouraged to try for themselves...They should, however, do so under reasonably controlled conditions to ensure their results are reliable.


My experience is that cables make a difference - a significant difference. Whether or not my cables are neutral, I neither know nor care. How would I know, anyway?

I know there are cables that affect the sound we hear, sometimes significantly, sometimes not. I would just prefer to own equipment that sounds the best when used with standard quality cable, with any compensation for quality lost (if any) by using standard 16, 14, or 12, gauge already factored in. I've used everything from expensive Belkin, Nordost and even overpriced Monster cables to cheapo zipcord and generic wire...I have my opinions.

I get pissed off at both sides in this silly debate - At the subjectivists who tell me when I don't hear a difference or at least significant and pleasant difference, that it's my gear not being of a certain arbitrary level of performance that reveals the alleged benefits of the cable; at the objectivists who tell me I can't hear a difference because of certain physical laws or properties or measurements or tests which don't support my observations, when in fact they're applying their rules inappropriately.

I often hear objectivists claim "all amps sound the same if operated at a level within their operating limitations" because theory dictates it. BS. We have research supporting the opposite, with proven explanations. All amps don't sound the same.


Measurements have failed time and again to explain what people hear.

I don't agree with this. The measurements don't fail at all...people can misinterpret the results, and people can use the wrong measurements to try to explain what people hear.
But there is measurable physics behind all this. I don't believe in magic fairy dust. I'd like to think cable manufacturers are using physics and science to develop their products, instead of just throwing things together at random and hoping something works.


Placebo theory has also failed.
??? No it hasn't....one of the things Placebo-effect has in its favor is that it only has to be true some of the time, not all of the time, and that subjective results count. There's enough proven, documented cases of placebo-effect to justify the theory is sound. There's question about the power of placebo to be a treatment itself, but not that placebo theory has failed.


I do not intend to participate in a DBT because I don't see the point.
This is odd. Your statement is curiously defiant. I believe cables can sound different and I would like to take part in as many DBT's as I could in hopes I could support my belief statistically. If someone wants to set one up, I'll gladly take part. There's nothing to lose. If I'm wrong, I'll have gained some knowledge, and maybe save some money. If i'm right, I can say "I told you so". Sounds like a win-win situation.


I've tested cables sighted and unsighted and I'm convinced what I hear is real. Again, this is curious behaviour on your part. I'm not criticizing you, I respect your opinions and stance whether I agree with them or not. From my vantage point though I see that you've admitted to spending time researching the debate, you've obviously participated in it at one point or another...you have strong opinions and have clearly staked out your position and beliefs, but you aren't prepared to or willing to take part in a test to support your beliefs and assertions. Why bother posting or even wasting your time considering this debate at all then? If you were a salesman, I would get the impression you don't have much confidence in what you were selling.

I confess to being a subjectivist and an objectivist on this issue - call me a fence sitter, whatever - but definitely I believe cables can affect sound. But I'm willing to take part in any test to support any claims I make. I guess I'm making an appeal here to the subjectivist camp - If the subjectivists are right, and cables do make a difference, but we haven't been able to scientifically demonstrate how or why, then more work has to be done. Not participating in DBT's or tests isn't the way to go. Not"carrying on the good fight" is basically abandonning the pursuit of truth, and that road to audio bliss...I'm sure subjectivists would agree it'd be a shame if objectivists convinced all newbies that zipcord was the way to go and all the cable manufacturers died out.

[E-Stat]

Looks like E-Stat has been fighting the good fight for awhile! :)
Well, what originally drew me into the conversation was observing the amazing amount of ink spilled by those who believe that cables cannot afford any appreciable sonic improvements in the real world of home audio. While I certainly don't advocate folks blindly buy "expensive" cables just because, I do recommend to those interested they audition some models in their own system and draw their own conclusions.


Whatever happened to Mtrycraft? Is he still about? Talk about single minded of purpose! That guy must have his own library of audio articles, all collated and filed. Impressive, even though I can't agree with a lot of what he's posted here.
He is a "Samurai" over at Audioholics. What he had was a library of links, not content. He finally admitted that none of his citations involved any serious cables.

rw

[musicoverall]

Mtrycraft either got the boot or left on his own after the new management took over a few years back. He was starting to sound like a broken record. A lot of regulars who defended the objectivist position went with him citing censorhips or some nonesense over this stupid debate.



I don't think it's as easy as that. I think a newbies could think for themselves if they weren't already exposed to the power of suggestion and influence from marketing, testimony that could affect their impartiality and expectations, and likewise if they weren't exposed to the studies and arguments from the objectivist camp citing DBT results and other research as definitive, which can also affect their impartiality. The fact a company is even selling cables promising results is accepted as evidence by many people.

We carry our beliefs, attitudes, experience, and expectations into every subjective test (and into scientific research if we aren't careful). Wars have been fought over the power of belief in things that do or don't exist...It's easy to see that exposure to this debate could push a newbie towards one side or another. I think both sides in this debate are doing newbies a favor by stating their positions with reasonable arguments.

But as you said, a newbie should be encouraged to try for themselves...They should, however, do so under reasonably controlled conditions to ensure their results are reliable.



I know there are cables that affect the sound we hear, sometimes significantly, sometimes not. I would just prefer to own equipment that sounds the best when used with standard quality cable, with any compensation for quality lost (if any) by using standard 16, 14, or 12, gauge already factored in. I've used everything from expensive Belkin, Nordost and even overpriced Monster cables to cheapo zipcord and generic wire...I have my opinions.

I get pissed off at both sides in this silly debate - At the subjectivists who tell me when I don't hear a difference or at least significant and pleasant difference, that it's my gear not being of a certain arbitrary level of performance that reveals the alleged benefits of the cable; at the objectivists who tell me I can't hear a difference because of certain physical laws or properties or measurements or tests which don't support my observations, when in fact they're applying their rules inappropriately.

I often hear objectivists claim "all amps sound the same if operated at a level within their operating limitations" because theory dictates it. BS. We have research supporting the opposite, with proven explanations. All amps don't sound the same.



I don't agree with this. The measurements don't fail at all...people can misinterpret the results, and people can use the wrong measurements to try to explain what people hear.
But there is measurable physics behind all this. I don't believe in magic fairy dust. I'd like to think cable manufacturers are using physics and science to develop their products, instead of just throwing things together at random and hoping something works.


??? No it hasn't....one of the things Placebo-effect has in its favor is that it only has to be true some of the time, not all of the time, and that subjective results count. There's enough proven, documented cases of placebo-effect to justify the theory is sound. There's question about the power of placebo to be a treatment itself, but not that placebo theory has failed.


This is odd. Your statement is curiously defiant. I believe cables can sound different and I would like to take part in as many DBT's as I could in hopes I could support my belief statistically. If someone wants to set one up, I'll gladly take part. There's nothing to lose. If I'm wrong, I'll have gained some knowledge, and maybe save some money. If i'm right, I can say "I told you so". Sounds like a win-win situation.

Again, this is curious behaviour on your part. I'm not criticizing you, I respect your opinions and stance whether I agree with them or not. From my vantage point though I see that you've admitted to spending time researching the debate, you've obviously participated in it at one point or another...you have strong opinions and have clearly staked out your position and beliefs, but you aren't prepared to or willing to take part in a test to support your beliefs and assertions. Why bother posting or even wasting your time considering this debate at all then? If you were a salesman, I would get the impression you don't have much confidence in what you were selling.

I confess to being a subjectivist and an objectivist on this issue - call me a fence sitter, whatever - but definitely I believe cables can affect sound. But I'm willing to take part in any test to support any claims I make. I guess I'm making an appeal here to the subjectivist camp - If the subjectivists are right, and cables do make a difference, but we haven't been able to scientifically demonstrate how or why, then more work has to be done. Not participating in DBT's or tests isn't the way to go. Not"carrying on the good fight" is basically abandonning the pursuit of truth, and that road to audio bliss...I'm sure subjectivists would agree it'd be a shame if objectivists convinced all newbies that zipcord was the way to go and all the cable manufacturers died out.

But wouldn't you be curious if DBT's mask the subtle differences they are trying to uncover? That debate as well has gone on for years with no resolution.

I've done blind tests already, as I stated above. The results are on the Audio Lab board. I simply said no DBT's. The tests I took were basically single blind but could be construed as double blind since there was zero possibility of the tester/swapper giving subtle clues. I've tested myself. For anyone to take that info and attempt to have science explain the differences, I'd need to take part in numerous trials of DBT, a methodology with some similarities to what I did but also one with many differences. It would be quite the cumbersome experiment... and, again, DBT's as a valid methodology is a separate subject of debate.

As for measurements and placebos failing, I disagree with your contention. LCR parameters are not sufficient to explain cables. Objectivists claim they are. Therefore, they have failed because I've listened to cables with essentially the same LCR that sounded decidedly different. As for placebo, it does not hold for me with reference to cables. My tests/auditions have proven that to me. Cable differences are real.

You said: "Why bother posting or even wasting your time considering this debate at all then? "

That's my point. :D

[musicoverall]

Well, what originally drew me into the conversation was observing the amazing amount of ink spilled by those who believe that cables cannot afford any appreciable sonic improvements in the real world of home audio. While I certainly don't advocate folks blindly buy "expensive" cables just because, I do recommend to those interested they audition some models in their own system and draw their own conclusions.


He is a "Samurai" over at Audioholics. What he had was a library of links, not content. He finally admitted that none of his citations involved any serious cables.

rw

The tests I've seen usually have one of three flaws (sometimes more than one): Either they 1) test two pairs of zip cord i.e 12 guage vs 18 guage, 2) test aftermarket cable and zipcord using a mid-fi or worse system or 3) the DUT's are fine but the system is one the participants are not intimately familiar with. The notorious power cable test that surfaced recently is a prime example of #3. As I've said before, no one could pass a simple eye test that I put together. You would not be able to tell the colors red from blue... because I'd have you wear MY eyeglasses. Trying to hear a cable swap on a system you've never listened to before is similarly ridiculous. Yet the naysayers make so much of this test. Hmmm....

[E-Stat]

The tests I've seen usually have one of three flaws (sometimes more than one): Either they 1) test two pairs of zip cord i.e 12 guage vs 18 guage, 2) test aftermarket cable and zipcord using a mid-fi or worse system or 3) the DUT's are fine but the system is one the participants are not intimately familiar with. The notorious power cable test that surfaced recently is a prime example of #3.
Indeed. The "Russell Links" are prime examples. Tests prove what they prove. What they do not prove is grossly extrapolated conclusions on that which was not tested. With Gordon Gow's 80s test on unstated gear playing unstated content through a switch box, there was no audible difference detected by someone between 12 gauge zip (basic Monster cable) and "plain line cord" therefore, there is likewise no difference between either of those and anything else including cables that did not exist a quarter century ago. Scientific conclusion?

The Samurai status appears to be based upon a threshold of posts something over one thousand. His 4500 odd total exceeds by nearly a thousand the next most prolific poster. I miss him at times as we had some, er interesting correspondences. :)

rw

[Pat D]

Ever been back on the archives on this site? The Great Cable Debate threads go back to 2003, and probably before. Looks like E-Stat has been fighting the good fight for awhile! :)

I've spoken to many audiophiles on both sides of the fence and they tell me it's been a big debate since the early 1980's or so.

Magazine articles from the audio press have it going back to the middle 1980's as far as I've found.

Long standing debate, and the participants must either have the patience of Job, just like to argue, or truly believe they are recruiting and helping out their fellow man. Hard to believe. It seems to me that this debate has run its course in terms of its value. Many of the arguments I've read are the same ones we're arguing today. The best arguments that I have read on this site - on BOTH sides of the fence - have been beaten to death for 2 decades. And the fact is, nobody died.

My stance is simple; a newbie should simply think for themselves. If the naysayer stance seems more believable and they think cables are a farce, I'm ok with that. If they want to try it and find out for themselves, I'm good with that, too. My experience is that cables make a difference - a significant difference. Whether or not my cables are neutral, I neither know nor care. How would I know, anyway? Measurements have failed time and again to explain what people hear. Placebo theory has also failed. The fact is Cardas Neutral Reference cables make my system sound better than zipcord.

I do not intend to participate in a DBT because I don't see the point. I've tested cables sighted and unsighted and I'm convinced what I hear is real. But I'm not interested in convincing anyone else. It's up to them to find their own path, whether that's through theory or direct experience.

Whatever happened to Mtrycraft? Is he still about? Talk about single minded of purpose! That guy must have his own library of audio articles, all collated and filed. Impressive, even though I can't agree with a lot of what he's posted here.

The question is not merely whether some cables sound different but under what conditions do they sound different and do any of those conditions apply to your system. With reasonable cables which meet or exceed the requirements on Roger Russell's site, probably not. Interconnects: even less likely, except for phono cables, since many cartridges are sensitive to capacitance.

A someone said, mtrycrafts frequents the Audioholics site, where his knowledge and wisdom are appreciated.

As for thinking for themselves, yeah, this has a nice, indepedent ring to it, but trying to judge the alleged "sound" of cables without following a good methodology is likely to result in false positives. Human beings tend to overdetect differences.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=16777&highlight=wetware&r=&session=

But if anyone feels that they are rugged individualist, independent thinkers, etc., sure, they should go and try out all the cables they want. Just don't expect us to believe the results if no good methodology is used.

You should check out the speaker cable face-offs and other articles on Audioholics.

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/index.php

[kexodusc]

But wouldn't you be curious if DBT's mask the subtle differences they are trying to uncover? That debate as well has gone on for years with no resolution.

Absolutely. I'm not an idiot, I know that no conclusive DBT tests validate my beliefs that cables can sound different. I know what I perceive, and I also know what these tests tell me. We have contradictory evidence, (observation is evidence). I just get worried when other hobbyists get frustrated to the point they claim they won't take part any any DBT (or any other tests) because there's nothing left to prove. I wish they'd take the other approach, and at least offer some constructive ideas for producing evidence that could withstand scientific scrutiny. The objectivists need to help out here though and come up with some other methodologies to prove/disprove audible differences.


I've tested myself. For anyone to take that info and attempt to have science explain the differences, I'd need to take part in numerous trials of DBT, a methodology with some similarities to what I did but also one with many differences. It would be quite the cumbersome experiment... and, again, DBT's as a valid methodology is a separate subject of debate.

I agree there are some flaws with DBT testing, especially for audio, but I'm not aware of any "better" tests that strive to remove bias. The practical side of me finds it odd that we can use DBT's to identify difference in sonic behaviour for most all other components of the audio chain, but not cables.


As for measurements and placebos failing, I disagree with your contention. LCR parameters are not sufficient to explain cables. Objectivists claim they are. Therefore, they have failed because I've listened to cables with essentially the same LCR that sounded decidedly different.
Well I'm not opposed to the idea that LCR is not sufficient to describe or explain everything. I also don't believe we understand absolutely everything about LCR, so maybe it is sufficient, and we just don't know how to use it. All I'm getting at is that there are cables that you've heard that sound different. The manufacturer can replicate those cables. They must have had some idea(s) for their construction that contributed to what you hear...there must be a scientific explanation somewhere for why it sounds the way it does, whether we know what it is today or not is besides the point. We couldn't explain a lot of physical properties we observed until brilliant minds finally figured it out. Or we leave it to chance, but I don't buy that.


As for placebo, it does not hold for me with reference to cables. My tests/auditions have proven that to me. Cable differences are real.
I'm not suggesting what you heard was placebo, but your earlies statement suggested placebo theory had failed somehow. The theory is sound, and placebo does exist. The problem is when scientists use"placebo" as a cop out for everything they can't yet explain



You said: "Why bother posting or even wasting your time considering this debate at all then? "

That's my point. :D

Okay...in that case, I won't bother posting this reply :D

[musicoverall]

The question is not merely whether some cables sound different but under what conditions do they sound different and do any of those conditions apply to your system. With reasonable cables which meet or exceed the requirements on Roger Russell's site, probably not. Interconnects: even less likely, except for phono cables, since many cartridges are sensitive to capacitance.

A someone said, mtrycrafts frequents the Audioholics site, where his knowledge and wisdom are appreciated.

As for thinking for themselves, yeah, this has a nice, indepedent ring to it, but trying to judge the alleged "sound" of cables without following a good methodology is likely to result in false positives. Human beings tend to overdetect differences.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=16777&highlight=wetware&r=&session=

But if anyone feels that they are rugged individualist, independent thinkers, etc., sure, they should go and try out all the cables they want. Just don't expect us to believe the results if no good methodology is used.

You should check out the speaker cable face-offs and other articles on Audioholics.

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/index.php

Proving cable sonics (with the usual disclaimers about guage, neutrality, etc) appears to be one of the greatest Zen riddles ever. It can only be proven by a test that has no proven value under the circumstances. It's like the story:

Mechanic: Your car seems to be broken down, would you like me to fix it?
Owner: No, I'm going to sell it
Mechanic: Why?
Owner: Dang thing's broken down!

And before you lambast my comment about a DBT's "proven value", remember that there is a strong faction of audio folks that feel that quick switching masks the very differences its trying to uncover. I know from your posts that you don't believe that and I respect that. My point is that audiophiles who hear differences are very unlikely to try DBT's and if they do and get a null result, they will blame the test - the same as the DBT'ers blame a simple A/B audition. Nothing will ever be solved or proven. I also respect Kexodusc's desire to have science prove cable sonics via DBT - I just think it's naive. It will never happen. Indeed, it's never happened over two decades. Both sides appear to be beating their heads against a wall and arguing for the sake of arguing. What's the point? Whatever anyone believes, it's THEIR reality. I would suggest your POV is mistaken the same as you would suggest for me. Neither of us would be convinced. If I took a DBT on cables and passed, would you be convinced despite what you said above? Doubtful. It would take a bevy of trials, an independant tester that was someone you respected and a peer review. Do you see an audiophile going through all that simply to prove to others what he already knows?

I guess we'll see what jneutron comes up with.

So Mtrycraft has found some kindred spirits at Audioholics, huh? That's good. So his "wisdom and knowledge" weren't appreciated here? This is probably an old story for you but I haven't been around that long. But from what is in the archives, he seemed to have his cohorts.

[musicoverall]

Absolutely. I'm not an idiot, I know that no conclusive DBT tests validate my beliefs that cables can sound different. I know what I perceive, and I also know what these tests tell me. We have contradictory evidence, (observation is evidence). I just get worried when other hobbyists get frustrated to the point they claim they won't take part any any DBT (or any other tests) because there's nothing left to prove. I wish they'd take the other approach, and at least offer some constructive ideas for producing evidence that could withstand scientific scrutiny. The objectivists need to help out here though and come up with some other methodologies to prove/disprove audible differences.



I agree there are some flaws with DBT testing, especially for audio, but I'm not aware of any "better" tests that strive to remove bias. The practical side of me finds it odd that we can use DBT's to identify difference in sonic behaviour for most all other components of the audio chain, but not cables.


Well I'm not opposed to the idea that LCR is not sufficient to describe or explain everything. I also don't believe we understand absolutely everything about LCR, so maybe it is sufficient, and we just don't know how to use it. All I'm getting at is that there are cables that you've heard that sound different. The manufacturer can replicate those cables. They must have had some idea(s) for their construction that contributed to what you hear...there must be a scientific explanation somewhere for why it sounds the way it does, whether we know what it is today or not is besides the point. We couldn't explain a lot of physical properties we observed until brilliant minds finally figured it out. Or we leave it to chance, but I don't buy that.


I'm not suggesting what you heard was placebo, but your earlies statement suggested placebo theory had failed somehow. The theory is sound, and placebo does exist. The problem is when scientists use"placebo" as a cop out for everything they can't yet explain



Okay...in that case, I won't bother posting this reply :D

Totally agree. You're right - I meant that LCR parameters, while valid in what they do determine, are not sufficient to explain sonic differences. Have you seen jneutron's post on IID and ITD? Quite interesting.

The issue with DBT's not showing up in cables may have been addressed already. They are very subtle and they won't come out in someone else's system or in a system that isn't up to the task. I understand your annoyance when someone questions the resolution of your system and I'm not doing so here but trying to determine the diffs between Nordost Valhalla and zipcord on a Pioneer receiver just won't work. Further, not all cables sound different in my experience.

Observation is evidence??? Hmmm... I tried getting that by the folks in the Audio Lab and they laughed at me. :) Well, they did allow it to be "anecdotal evidence" but I could tell by their posts that they considered it a half step above the "snakes belly of evidence". LOL!

[ECMJazz]

Cables are a lucritive marketing tool for the manufacturers and re-sellers of exotic cables. Exotic cabels have HUGE margins for the re-sellers and manufacturers alike. There are no valid electrical theories that support the claims of exotic cables. Skin effect? If you do some research you'd find that it's all nonesense.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SkinEffect_Cables.htm

Cables conduct electricity. They need to be adequately sized to handle the current put out by the amp. If you want to spend big bucks on cables though, I say go for it.

[jneutron]

Cables are a lucritive marketing tool for the manufacturers and re-sellers of exotic cables. Exotic cabels have HUGE margins for the re-sellers and manufacturers alike..
Yes, they are. And, they can be very expensive. Huge manu margin is likely not correct. Some of the more exotic insulations can be very process intensive, and the small batch jobs the small companies can do raise the actual cost of the product significantly.

There are no valid electrical theories that support the claims of exotic cables. Skin effect? If you do some research you'd find that it's all nonesense.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SkinEffect_Cables.htm
.
First, that article uses the planar wave TEM model, which is not consistent with what happens in conductors at the frequencies we are talking of.

Second, it delves only into the frequency response characteristics, but not the inductance variation with frequency.

Third, there is no allowance for group delay based ITD changes.

Fourth, there is no allotment for inductive energy shedding during current jerks.

Cables conduct electricity. .
Ah, I do recall reading that somewhere..:)

They need to be adequately sized to handle the current put out by the amp..
Yes, they do. One can either select the guage based on simple powerloss, or one can select by calculating the "2AB" powerloss component which occurs when a single cable feeds a branch circuit, and dropping that loss component down below audibility.

Cheers, John

[kexodusc]

Cables are a lucritive marketing tool for the manufacturers and re-sellers of exotic cables. Exotic cabels have HUGE margins for the re-sellers and manufacturers alike. There are no valid electrical theories that support the claims of exotic cables. Skin effect? If you do some research you'd find that it's all nonesense.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SkinEffect_Cables.htm

Cables conduct electricity. They need to be adequately sized to handle the current put out by the amp. If you want to spend big bucks on cables though, I say go for it.

I won't argue with you on this. I think cables can make a difference, but like anything in audio the returns diminish. Some of these exotic cable sellers are border-line criminal. But I don't blame them for trying to make a buck.

The optimist in me says we'll get to the bottom of this someday, and on that day all cables manufacturers will follow better construction techniques, or we'll at least be able to quantify reliably with points of reference what exactly we're paying for. Either way we'll be better off for it - better cables from better understood theory, or cheaper cables for all, and we can get on with our lives. I just hope both sides of the "debate" don't give up the search for the truth.

[ECMJazz]

QUESTION: Is there any harm in oversizing your cables? Using a much larger gauge wire than theoretically required?

[E-Stat]

The measurements don't fail at all...people can misinterpret the results, and people can use the wrong measurements to try to explain what people hear.
But there is measurable physics behind all this.
What it is the metric that quantifies RFI rejection - a factor found in abundance with today's modern homes? Our Motorola engineer here wasn't able to provide an answer when I posed that question to him. Perhaps my situation is in the extreme, but I have the following in my household:

Three computers
An 802.11g wireless router
Three digital cable boxes
Four CD / DVD players
Four wireless phones
Two cellular phones
A digital burglar alarm
A digitally controlled stove
A digitally controlled microwave
A digitally controlled washer
A digitally controlled dryer cabinet

I find that unchecked RFI manifests itself as a bright, tizzy glare added to the music. Removing it with shielded cables of all sorts restores low level resolution.

rw

[Pat D]

Proving cable sonics (with the usual disclaimers about guage, neutrality, etc) appears to be one of the greatest Zen riddles ever. It can only be proven by a test that has no proven value under the circumstances. It's like the story:

Mechanic: Your car seems to be broken down, would you like me to fix it?
Owner: No, I'm going to sell it
Mechanic: Why?
Owner: Dang thing's broken down!

And before you lambast my comment about a DBT's "proven value", remember that there is a strong faction of audio folks that feel that quick switching masks the very differences its trying to uncover. I know from your posts that you don't believe that and I respect that. My point is that audiophiles who hear differences are very unlikely to try DBT's and if they do and get a null result, they will blame the test - the same as the DBT'ers blame a simple A/B audition. Nothing will ever be solved or proven. I also respect Kexodusc's desire to have science prove cable sonics via DBT - I just think it's naive. It will never happen. Indeed, it's never happened over two decades. Both sides appear to be beating their heads against a wall and arguing for the sake of arguing. What's the point? Whatever anyone believes, it's THEIR reality. I would suggest your POV is mistaken the same as you would suggest for me. Neither of us would be convinced. If I took a DBT on cables and passed, would you be convinced despite what you said above? Doubtful. It would take a bevy of trials, an independant tester that was someone you respected and a peer review. Do you see an audiophile going through all that simply to prove to others what he already knows?

I guess we'll see what jneutron comes up with.

So Mtrycraft has found some kindred spirits at Audioholics, huh? That's good. So his "wisdom and knowledge" weren't appreciated here? This is probably an old story for you but I haven't been around that long. But from what is in the archives, he seemed to have his cohorts.
I wonder what you mean by "quick switching." When I adjust the bias on my tape recorder by ear, I can use FM hiss and match the levels as closely as I can with the meters. I can switch from one to the other with little delay to see if there is any difference in the quantity of the highs. Are you proposing that I would achieve greater accuracy if I listen to the source and then listen to the taped section several seconds or minutes later? That's just one example. The accuracy of acoustic memory falls off rather quickly with time.

I don't seen any particular Zen puzzle. The explanation is that human beings are built to perceive differences, even when there is no difference in the choices. Many simply refuse to attribute the differences perceived to anything besides the performance of the equipment. That's too bad but it hardly calls the science into question.

You forget that under some conditions, differences in cables are audible and that this was established with DBTs.

[Resident Loser]

What it is the metric that quantifies RFI rejection - a factor found in abundance with today's modern homes? Our Motorola engineer here wasn't able to provide an answer when I posed that question to him. Perhaps my situation is in the extreme, but I have the following in my household:

Three computers
An 802.11g wireless router
Three digital cable boxes
Four CD / DVD players
Four wireless phones
Two cellular phones
A digital burglar alarm
A digitally controlled stove
A digitally controlled microwave
A digitally controlled washer
A digitally controlled dryer cabinet

I find that unchecked RFI manifests itself as a bright, tizzy glare added to the music. Removing it with shielded cables of all sorts restores low level resolution.

rw

...and I'll say it again...wires aren't the problem...perhaps a part of it, in certain circumstances, however every component in your system is a potential access point for RFI...in fact those components that contain processors come complete with their own internal sources for digital hash, etc. To lower that spillage requires correct engineering of the unit to begin with...Consider the requency range of control processors for your appliances, the transmission frequencies for your wireless gear, the fact that your nuke-cooker heats things up with radio-waves...Can you say mega-Hertz?...well above the 20-to20kHz that concerns audio...ever try heating up a cup'O'soup during a particularly hot drum solo? Even gear that claims wide-band response usually limits those claims to only 100kHz, beyond that, it tends to drop like a stone...Do the sub-harmonics of digital cr@p ever actually meet to comingle with the 20th overtone of a cymbal's bell in order to blur your image? As previously suggested, turn your listening room into a Faraday Cage...

So when there are complaints about the Great Debate being a re-hash of the same ol' same ol'...one might want to consider the fact that some of us feel compelled to address the SOS with more of the same...

jimHJJ(...but then again, that's just me...)

[E-Stat]

...and I'll say it again...wires aren't the problem...
Exactly. There are a solution.


however every component in your system is a potential access point for RFI...in fact those components that contain processors come complete with their own internal sources for digital hash, etc.
In my best Paul Reiser voice, "This is what I'm saying".


Do the sub-harmonics of digital cr@p ever actually meet to comingle with the 20th overtone of a cymbal's bell in order to blur your image?
Yes. Lower still.


As previously suggested, turn your listening room into a Faraday Cage...
That would be cheaper than buying some nice cables? Not sure copper everywhere would match the room decor, either. :)

Edit:

So when there are complaints about the Great Debate being a re-hash of the same ol' same ol'...one might want to consider the fact that some of us feel compelled to address the SOS with more of the same...
If you recall, I responded to Kex' assertion that there's "measurable physics" behind all of this. Fine. What's the metric for this?

rw

[Pat D]

QUESTION: Is there any harm in oversizing your cables? Using a much larger gauge wire than theoretically required?

Well, large cables can be a PITA to work with and attach to binding posts on amps and speakers. Other than that, no. Roger Russell deals with the question in his article on Speaker Wire:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

[Resident Loser]

Exactly. There are a solution.
In my best Paul Reiser voice, "This is what I'm saying".
Yes. Lower still.
That would be cheaper than buying some nice cables? Not sure copper everywhere would match the room decor, either. :)
Edit:
If you recall, I responded to Kex' assertion that there's "measurable physics" behind all of this. Fine. What's the metric for this?
rw

...eh?

Let's see if I can clarify...Given the fact that more and more audio gear is processor controlled and the garbage is from within (or at least within proximity), how would interconnecting wiring reduce or eliminate it?

Coax (and even twisted pair) by it's very nature has noise rejection/signal coherence as it's purpose...granted, some are better than others in this regard...combo foil and braid sheilding>simple foils, etc...Balanced connections...The path of least resistance for RFI/EMI isn't the wiring.

If you want to protect the upper, upper-harmonics of the music from the trickle-down sub-harmonics of noise, what do you do? Truncating the FR of the signal is self-defeating...particularly if your gear is of ultra-wideband design...How do you propose to have a passive device (namely: wire) pick and choose what musical harmonics it will allow and what noise mixed into that particular affected bandwidth it will discard...it's like EQing an old noisy 78...you can eliminate most of the snap, crackle and pop...unfortunately some of the top-end of the performance will be going along for the ride...better methods via a digitzed slice-and-dice have produced remarkable results, but the process is hardly passive by anyone's measure. Wire can do that? Sorry, I can't see that as a reasonable expectation.

Re: "...lower still..." I'll assume there is legitimate documentation available...If I missed it would you be so kind to enlighten me as to it's whereabouts.

Re: Faraday room or simply a cage for the gear...aluminum foil, wire cloth, screenining...just about any conductive material installed within the walls during the construction of a HT room should suffice in this regard...just be sure it's well-grounded...even so there's still that nasty commercial AC to contend with.

Re: "...metrics..." LCRs seem a good place to start...after all it's only wire and in just about any concieveable configuration, any wire-simple, conductive material has limits as to what it can and can't do. I would imagine the wire wizards start with them...what all-encompassing magic metric have they devised, discovered or blundered upon in their never ending research? Do they have charts and graphs? Why don't they then reveal their numbers/parameters and put the debate to rest...I mean it would be in their own best interests, wouldn't it?

jimHJJ(...then again, perhaps not...)

[E-Stat]

Given the fact that more and more audio gear is processor controlled and the garbage is from within (or at least within proximity), how would interconnecting wiring reduce or eliminate it?
Better shielding (or shielding and / or passive filter networks incorporated into the design) Two different models of aftermarket power cords I use employ both strategies.


Coax (and even twisted pair) by it's very nature has noise rejection/signal coherence as it's purpose...granted, some are better than others in this regard...combo foil and braid sheilding>simple foils, etc.
So what's the metric to quantify these properties? Is that such a difficult question?

rw

[kexodusc]

What it is the metric that quantifies RFI rejection - a factor found in abundance with today's modern homes? Our Motorola engineer here wasn't able to provide an answer when I posed that question to him. Perhaps my situation is in the extreme, but I have the following in my household:

Three computers
An 802.11g wireless router
Three digital cable boxes
Four CD / DVD players
Four wireless phones
Two cellular phones
A digital burglar alarm
A digitally controlled stove
A digitally controlled microwave
A digitally controlled washer
A digitally controlled dryer cabinet

I find that unchecked RFI manifests itself as a bright, tizzy glare added to the music. Removing it with shielded cables of all sorts restores low level resolution.

rw

Interesting, I have at least the same number of devices you have, though I think at peak time, only 3 or 4 of them are simultaneously activated. I've never noticed any "tizzy glare" in my system, though I have shielded cables right now so I'll have to swap in some other ones to perform that basic listening test...

I don't have any idea what the metric is. Nor do I need to know. The fact that you are able to "shield" against it justifies that there is in fact a property you are guarding against. It must have diferent levels of intensities, as you've related it to the presence of your devices. The specific metric, I don't know, maybe it's LCR maybe not. I think you've missed my earlier point though. If your measurements aren't explaining your observations, you're using the wrong measurements.

Mathematics and science didn't start with all the answers. Conside our simple numbers system. We started with integers, moved to rational, to real, to complex or imaginary numbers etc...there's an obvious progression. It usually starts with a question such as yours, followed by pursuit of the answer...sometimes getting that answer takes longer than we'd like.

[E-Stat]

I think you've missed my earlier point though. If your measurements aren't explaining your observations, you're using the wrong measurements.
Or, there is a lack of measurement(s) to fully quantify that which we hear. This is a perfect example.

rw

[kexodusc]

Or, there is a lack of measurement(s) to fully quantify that which we hear. This is a perfect example.

rw

I'm not aware of anyone who's ever claimed we have measurements for all phenomena...And as I mentioned earlier, I also don't believe we've learned all there is to know about the physical properties which we do have measurements for. Maybe LCR is sufficient for cables, maybe it isn't.

Nonetheless, I do agree with the objectivist camp in that anyone making a claim about a certain cables virtues and benefits should be able to support their claims with something tangible and measurable. It would seem to me if they can't measure the uniqueness of their cable that provides its competitive edge, they can't guarantee faithfully replicating that uniqueness or that the uniqueness itself is responsible for any benefits heard.

All this to say, alot more work needs to be done before either side can in this debate should feel comfortable with their positions.

[Resident Loser]

Better shielding (or shielding and / or passive filter networks incorporated into the design) Two different models of aftermarket power cords I use employ both strategies.


So what's the metric to quantify these properties? Is that such a difficult question?

rw

...perennial 64cent question: are they UL approved? JPS says "...most of our AC products..." but not all? HT doesn't even seem to go that far...

I don't mean to be a royal PITA, but both websites leave me laughing...there isn't one cold hard fact to be found, just ad copy-grade rhetoric...from Optimized Field Matrix (O.F.M.) design...24k gold-plated, hospital-grade connectors...OFC silver (???)...single-crystal copper..."...inter-note silence..." wire that carries "...the instantaneous current demanded by any size amp or load in response to the music..." What else do you expect wire to do but work as a wire does...it has no speed control, it doesn't go faster or slower...it just is...

Re: the metrics? Common-mode noise rejection? Differential mode? Signal coherence? Phase coherence?...I haven't a clue, I'm not a wire engineer...

jimHJJ(...add to that, I don't much care...it's only wire...)

[jneutron]

What else do you expect wire to do but work as a wire does...it has no speed control...)
That can be arranged, if you wish..:)


jimHJJ(...add to that, I don't much care...it's only wire...)

I HEARD that..

hehe..sup, dude?

Looky looky over at props...veeeeddddy eeeenterrestink.

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

That can be arranged, if you wish..:)

I HEARD that..

hehe..sup, dude?

Looky looky over at props...veeeeddddy eeeenterrestink.

Cheers, John

...it's safe to blissfully malign wire...zambonie...caught like a rat...

What's up over there...sorta reminds me of what this place usta' be like...Have you been stealin' apples from the king of the forest or somethin'? He seems less than gruntled with you for some reason...an ongoing campaign it would appear.

While I get the overall gist of the thing, at least in my gut, the most I really understood was the guy quoting lines from Danny Kaye's The Court Jester talk about LOL funny...good timing among the techno-lingo...get it , got it...good!

Further reading seems to be required...hard to figure some folks out.

jimHJJ(...good luck with your albatross...)

[jneutron]

What's up over there...sorta reminds me of what this place usta' be like...Have you been stealin' apples from the king of the forest or somethin'? He seems less than gruntled with you for some reason...an ongoing campaign it would appear.

While I get the overall gist of the thing, at least in my gut, the most I really understood was the guy quoting lines from Danny Kaye's The Court Jester talk about LOL funny...good timing among the techno-lingo...get it , got it...good!

Further reading seems to be required...hard to figure some folks out.

jimHJJ(...good luck with your albatross...)

He has serious issues with accepting the ideas of others, especially if it appears that the ideas may be far beyond what he personally understands.

It remains to be seen if my hypotheses' are indeed correct, but the non professional, emotional knee jerk reactions, to me, reflect the underlying insecurity of one who realizes they are at the limits of their abilities.

Cheers, John (aka, Don Q.)

[Resident Loser]

He has serious issues with accepting the ideas of others, especially if it appears that the ideas may be far beyond what he personally understands.

It remains to be seen if my hypotheses' are indeed correct, but the non professional, emotional knee jerk reactions, to me, reflect the underlying insecurity of one who realizes they are at the limits of their abilities.

Cheers, John (aka, Don Q.)

...good Sir knight...

jimHJJ(...I realized mine some time ago...that's why I lash out in fits of cathartic snotiness...)

[jneutron]

...good Sir knight...

jimHJJ(...I realized mine some time ago...that's why I lash out in fits of cathartic snotiness...)

Now That was funny.

Just realized..that top post in props was just his way of intimidation, he figures that by calling me to elaborate publicly within a new thread, I'd somehow roll over and play dead.. There's lots more a bit further down.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

...reflect the underlying insecurity of one who realizes they are at the limits of their abilities.
Yes, but... he remains very impressed with himself. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

.I haven't a clue, I'm not a wire engineer...
Nor am I. I just like stuff that's makes better music.

Why are you hung up on a certification bestowed upon a $1.98 extension cord? Is all your stuff THX rated? ;)

rw

[Resident Loser]

Nor am I. I just like stuff that's makes better music.

Why are you hung up on a certification bestowed upon a $1.98 extension cord? Is all your stuff THX rated? ;)

rw

...Personally. I'd like better bands to make the better music and more attention paid to the recording process...

Re: UL...I simply find it remarkable that someone would have the cojones to charge a grand or two for a PC and not get it certified...but I'd guess if I took some off-the-shelf components, twisted it all together, put it in a length of garden hose and shrink-wrapped it in a nice techie-looking mesh, I'd have reservations about letting someone twist it, tear it and tie it in a knot as a part of their mechanical stress tests...but that's not particularly unique to the breed, as much of the tweakier stuff needs to be handled with kid gloves...carts, tonearms, TTs...even some ICs as I recall...MikE and Skeptic rolled that one around ages ago...

As an aside re: off-the-shelf components...before anyone gives me an argument on that one...you, me, anyone can have things manufactured with our name...or icon...or the phrase "Bite Me" boldly emblazoned upon it...simply lay out the cash for a minimum production run and you got it...and for a grand-a-copy you want things to look better than some Belden and Hubell parts any Tom, Dick or Harry can pick up at the Home Depot...

Re: THX...No, not one bit of it...While they set specific requirements for gear (which are probably achieved by many products whose manufacturers just don't wanna' join and pay the required dues) and seek some sort of standardization with which to exhibit their entertainment, it seems to me most of the THX rules and regs have to do more with overall performance parameters of the system/room in toto...Otherwise, in my often-flawed and NSHO, like ISO, it's really about bragging rights paid for with licensing fees...I doubt that anyone's house will be damaged if two random seating locations don't spec out to be within the required SPL dB tolerance...the only tragedy will be not getting the plaque showing the world your HT is a bona fide and THX-certified Home Cinema...tsk, tsk...

It should also be duly noted (by those who may care) that it is predominantly Monster ICs and speaker wire that have THX certification...and in fact there is no product catagory for power cords.

jimHJJ(...it's all out there, just look around...)

P.S. What about the metrics I mentioned?

[E-Stat]

...Personally. I'd like better bands to make the better music and more attention paid to the recording process...
As for me, I have collected over thirty years of music I still cherish.


What about the metrics I mentioned?
What about them?

rw

[Resident Loser]

As for me, I have collected over thirty years of music I still cherish.

What about them?

rw

...and the recording quality runs from excellent to p!$$-poor...and while they are mostly wonderful performances or simply bits of left-over teenage nostalgia, there is no piece of equipment, particularly a wire, which will undo the poor production values of some of them. Typically, classical and D-T-D recordings sound best...the pop/contempo stuff is a cr@pshoot...after all it was disposable product being sold to adolescents with some disposable income...witness the original Beatles stuff done on a three-track with zero concern for any sort of (chuckle) soundstage...all the voices in the left channel...a drum or guitar over there in the right...heck, if you pay close attention you can here the pots opening before some of the vocal parts and instrument solos.

Re: the metrics...I mean you asked about them wayback in the thread...I simply mentioned a few measurable, quantifiable possibilities...

jimHJJ(...but I'd guess the interest in them has waned...)

[E-Stat]

...and the recording quality runs from excellent to p!$$-poor...
A while back, I thinned the herd of the "PP" category! :)


...and while they are mostly wonderful performances or simply bits of left-over teenage nostalgia, there is no piece of equipment, particularly a wire, which will undo the poor production values of some of them
True. On the other hand, I enjoy nuances with even fair recordings masked by lesser wires. I have some sixties vintage Astrud Gilberto recordings that reveal more today than they did prior to a number of cable upgrades in my two music systems. Inflict less damage. Similarly, you cannot improve the braking capability of a Hyndai to match that of exotics that use big a$$ Brembo brakes, but you sure can reduce braking distances by replacing the junky tires with sticky ones!



...witness the original Beatles stuff done on a three-track with zero concern for any sort of (chuckle) soundstage...all the voices in the left channel...a drum or guitar over there in the right...
The one track that immediately comes to mind is "Day Tripper". Guitar, tambourine, and vocals to the left, bass and drums on the right. I read an interview some time back with George Martin. He said those early recordings were never originally intended for stereo. Someone else created the ping-pong game later.


Re: the metrics...I mean you asked about them wayback in the thread...I simply mentioned a few measurable, quantifiable possibilities...
Ah, thanks. More fuel for my assertion that LCR is not the whole picture.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Ah, thanks. More fuel for my assertion that LCR is not the whole picture.
rw

...too soon...after all I'm an idiot (or at least close to being one) on the down-n-dirty mysteries of wire...those things I mentioned are primarily applicable to unsheilded bell-wire and the like...each one of them addresses specific deficiencies which can be ameliorated by specific shielding strategies from simple twists to Cat-5e and various permutations of coax braids/foils and the like...increasing the TPI (Twists Per Inch) while aiding in noise rejection and signal coherence adds capacitance and is really more applicable to data speeds...so LCRs are still of primary importance I would guess...after reaching an acceptible design on the drawing board I would think it's still necessary to do some lab work, bombarding the wire carrying a specific signal with various forms of EMI/RFI to see if what went in is what comes out...if the configuration scheme used passes the signal unscathed, I would assume the party's over...wouldn't begin to know where to go after that...and certainly wouldn't think my ears could do any better.

jimHJJ(...but then again, what do I know...)