expensive cables [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

sofsoldier

12-09-2003, 05:09 PM

First of all, I'm not an electrical engineer! Now that is out of the way, I have some issues that I want to bring up with cables - and hopefully get some very calm and logical responces.

I used to be a cable believer, meaning that I thought these exotic designs for cables make a difference. While testing myself and really nit-picking the result, I came to the conclusion that I could not tell one way or another. So I sold my expensive cables and made a good bit of cash!

I buy some music online, mostly for LP's, through places like Music Direct and Accoustic Sounds. They have great selections, and sell some pretty cool equipment. They also sell cable. The prices on some of these cables is enough to give a guy a heart attack! Some of them are prices more that 3 50 inch plasma screen televisions! Or a small car!

Now I cannot prove they make a difference, and I cannot prove they do not make a difference, so I came up with a few questions:

1. If cables of varying design do indeed make some type of an improvement, why don't audio equipment makers implement (or contract out) the same wire designs within the chassis of a piece of audio gear? Or speakers?

2. If buying premium cables will make such a huge difference ("elevated to a new level of musical enjoyment" as quoted by one advertisement), why not include some lower level model for free with all pieces of audio gear sold? I mean, it would be good advertising, and perhaps the owner would be willing to upgrade if a difference is heard.

I just have a hard time accepting that a thousand dollar power cord, six thousand dollar speaker cables, and eight hundred dollars of interconnects actually yield 7800 dollar increase in musical clarity.

I say buy more music if one has that much to spend!

Rick

FLZapped

12-10-2003, 09:01 AM

I say buy more music if one has that much to spend!

Rick

On this board, that appears to be the majority opinion. However, you can go to the cable forum on Audio Asylum and these folks believe their cables are making huge diffrences....it is so fervered that the moderators tend to erase andy posts and eventually ban anyone that upset this view.

So far, no one has been able to conclusively that anything beyond the basic LCR parameters have an effect on "cable sonics."

-Bruce
(For non techen der geekspeak: L=inductance, C=capacitance, R=resistance)

Mwalsdor_cscc_edu

12-10-2003, 10:08 AM

Since I can't link the post without the entire thread attatched, here's my response to that very same question.
This subject has been discussed many times and I’ve shared this before but for those unfamiliar… In the last four years I’ve had numerous conversations with two designers on the subject of internal wiring: Craig Uthus, designer/President of Moth Audio and Alan Yun, designer/President of Silverline Audio.

Alan Yun is a designer of loudspeakers, ranging in price from $1,500>$35,000; he also manufactures his own line of speaker cables and interconnects. In conversations with the distributor that sold me the Silverline Sonatinas I learned that Alan uses the same wire in his cables that he also uses to internally wire his speakers. Included with my speaker purchase were two complimentary 10' runs of Alan's speaker cables and his interconnect. A couple of years later I contacted Mr. Yun about his new Sonatina II as I was curious if the new upgrades could be incorporated into my speaker. We discussed the modifications in the new speaker and eventually the internal wiring of his speakers. As a speaker designer he felt the internal wire was a valid consideration, finding good results with the wire selected. We parted company on the choice of conductor; he prefers copper, myself silver. And so he encouraged me to experiment if I was so inclined. We also discussed other upgrades, such as the copper Edison-Price binding posts. I came away with the distinct impression that he felt the collection of these ancillary elements do affect the signature of his finished product. In this respect our POV was quite similar.

Craig Uthus designs single-ended triode amps that have a retro appeal and a respect for modern applications of the SET philosophy. He also designs single driver speaker systems. The circumstances involving my connection to Moth Audio was quite different from the purchase of the Silverline. Foremost, the amp I purchased was not a stock product like the Silverline; instead it was a custom project that Craig elected to build for me. We discussed many of the internal parts; resistors, caps, potentiometer, secondary winding of the OPT as well as internal signal wire as possible upgrades. I told him I wanted to use pure silver as signal wire and contacted various suppliers / manufacturers before selecting Bob Crump. Bob had sent me products to demo in the past and was happy to supply the same wire he uses to hookup his 10k “Blow Torch” pre-amp for my project. Aside from amplification components he also designs cables and power cords. Bob's wire consists of a separate run of small gauge [22awg] solid silver wire [signal] and a silver-plated copper Wonder Wire [current]. He provided me very specific instructions along with the wire for Moth, including the wires directionality. In the course of our conversations I’d asked Craig about the captive power cords in his earlier designs. His response gave me the impression that the I.E.C. facility in the new designs was based more on customer requests than a personal endorsement of that product type.

Three months later the amp finally arrived and I was tickled pink about the build quality, looks, performance, heck it even came in a wooden shipping crate. It's cool as hell and the heart and soul of my system. Then some months removed I receive an email from the wire supplier, Bob Crump, informing me he thought my amp was "wired backwards". At least it appears so from the photo I posted in a review. So I contacted Craig at Moth about the allegation. Well, he was not the least receptive to my inquiry. He told me "it was wired correctly". That regardless of my wishes or the instructions given by Mr. Crump, he felt it simply wouldn't matter what wire was used. Strangely, this was never mentioned in our earlier conversations. I respect his professional opinion but didn't appreciate that he compromised our agreement on the specifics of the build process, knowing that the customization was a key element of the purchase. I admitted to him that I had no idea which of the two configurations would be "best" but that I respected Bob's reputation and experience on the subject and wanted it corrected.

Craig did not offer to "fix it" or compensate me and we've not spoken since. And honestly, I wasn't about to ship my amp back cross-country for such a simple procedure, even if I'd discovered it the day it arrived. It was more the matter of his "professional integrity" that pissed me off. I eventually had the amp wired correctly and in all honesty the difference was so slight [least my initial impression] that I forgot about the entire matter. I will say I do feel better about getting it "to spec". I realize I would have been better served if I had tested both configurations myself [as well as all the other custom passive parts] but the intent wasn’t to build the amp myself or get involved with a DIY project. Instead, I wanted to take an existing design and fine-tune it, which Craig was willing to do. So there is my limited experience with two manufacturers who have a different POV on the internal wiring of their components. One who considers the internal wire in his speakers to have an effect and another who doesn’t believe the difference [if any] is audible.

I don't know exactly what your position on cables are but perhaps your expectations were unrealistic. I've had good results with after-market cables but don't find them to provide a "huge difference". I've compared cables to other fine-tuning devices and I've found them to if not yield the least system benefit than certainly to offer the least value for that benefit. In other words, with limited funds I'd do other things before spending big money on cables. This assumes that you FIRST put your money into the "best" core components you could afford. There are many reasons why manufacturers don't follow your logic. Some don't believe cables / wire matter and others think [rightly] that THAT is a system/listener-dependant decision that NO manufacturer can "guess right". And if you want to go there, then do so on your own. Are any products perfect or not built to a price point? I think not, and that is why some people choose to maximize the performance by using better parts. Of course, better parts don't always = better performance but many times they do. Anything can be improved.

MikE

E-Stat

12-10-2003, 02:01 PM

I used to be a cable believer, meaning that I thought these exotic designs for cables make a difference. While testing myself and really nit-picking the result, I came to the conclusion that I could not tell one way or another.

Regardless of what anyone else says, that's what really counts, isn't it? While I would be considered a "believer" (at least to the extent that my JPS Labs sound marginally better than my Monster zip), the differences would not be considered huge to most folks. Discernable to me, yes. I only became a "believer" after first doing some informal testing with a friend to see if indeed I could tell the difference. I was sufficiently satisfied that on MY system using MY music sans any superfluous added cables or switchboxes in the mix, I can hear a difference that I find brings me closer to the recording. While I won't attempt to debate your findings, I will suggest, however, that perhaps you may not know what to listen for. I have benefitted from the experience of a couple of audio reviewer friends over a period of decades who have helped me in that regard. To master any skill, I aver that one needs training and practice. On the other hand, I would readily agree that most folks simply don't enjoy critically listening to music.

I just have a hard time accepting that a thousand dollar power cord, six thousand dollar speaker cables, and eight hundred dollars of interconnects actually yield 7800 dollar increase in musical clarity.

Indeed such value questions are always difficult to assess. What does an $8000 improvement sound like? I would be the first agree that it is not wise to plunk down additional cash on any cables first. If you were to hear a $300k system using such cables like Nordost Valhallas (as I have) perhaps you might have a different perspective. Can you hear the benefits of astronomically priced cables on astronomically good (and expensive) systems? I assert that trained listeners can. Is it worth it? Who's to say?

Just for grins, I did some very informal (sighted) testing last night with an average recording of Dido's newest offering. First I listened to a cut with the JPS hearing some subtle deep-in-the-recording details that I doubted would be as prevalent with the old Monster 12 gauge. I switched to the Monster and listened again. Well, most of those details I first heard were still there, if not even more present. Switch back to the JPS Labs and listen further to passages with her voice and with an acoustical guitar. Back to the Monster for comparison. Gradually after switching back and forth about five or six times, I could start to hear a pattern of differences. They were subtle, but discernable. Dynamics, especially the ability to render softer passages were better with the JPS Labs. There was more "sheen" on the acoustic guitar strings. Articulation on her voice was better.

Contrary to what many say, most seasoned reviewers like Harry Pearson of TAS will readily admit that there is way too much snake oil in the cable business. I think it is not an all or nothing question. To each his own.

rw

bturk667

12-10-2003, 04:37 PM

1. If cables of varying design do indeed make some type of an improvement, why don't audio equipment makers implement (or contract out) the same wire designs within the chassis of a piece of audio gear? Or speakers?

2. If buying premium cables will make such a huge difference ("elevated to a new level of musical enjoyment" as quoted by one advertisement), why not include some lower level model for free with all pieces of audio gear sold? I mean, it would be good advertising, and perhaps the owner would be willing to upgrade if a difference is heard.

I just have a hard time accepting that a thousand dollar power cord, six thousand dollar speaker cables, and eight hundred dollars of interconnects actually yield 7800 dollar increase in musical clarity.

I say buy more music if one has that much to spend!

1. Some audio companies do. McCormack does as up-grades on the original equipment, pre Conrad-Johnson. Coincident Speaker Technology does, as an up-grade. There are others.

2. Who ever said premium cables will make a huge difference? Huge, I doubt it. Don't always believe what you read in ads! But I do believe cables make a difference, just not huge.

I doubt a pair of $40,000 mono block amps are forty times better than a $1000 stereo amp. I not sure a $100,000 pair of speakers is one hundred times better than a $1000 pair. But you know what? That doesn't stop people from buying them.

If peole want to spend insane amounts of money on THEIR equipment, and cables, who in the hell cares. It's THEIR money, not yours. I say go for it. Trust me, the people who spend that kind of money on equipment also spend money on music. Probably more than you or I do.

pctower

12-10-2003, 09:15 PM

Here's an interesting technical discussion from a company that sells very expensive cables:

http://www.mitcables.com/technology/power1.asp

I'm not qualified to pass judgment on the technical merits of this paper, but it seems fairly reasonable to me. However, the most interesting part of the paper to me was the final side bar, which read as follows:

"Through the use of the power factor, we at MIT have been led to conclude that a poor power factor is a mechanism for distortion. That is, that networks exhibiting poor power factor transport and play in-phase music along with out-of-phase music simultaneously. What level of this distortion is audible? We are continuing our research in this area."

When I read that I thought I would like to ask the president of that company whether he thought it a little strange that his company went to such lengths to solve the problem discussed in that paper (assuming the paper is legitimate and not mere snake oil) and charges their customers such astronomical prices to solve this problem when this company (which has been in business over 20 years) hasn't even yet determined whether the problems in cables they are trying to remedy are even audible.

And, BTW, from my own experience based solely on uncontrolled listening, for purposes of my own perceptions, cables do make a difference,

mtrycraft

12-10-2003, 09:35 PM

to solve this problem when this company (which has been in business over 20 years) hasn't even yet determined whether the problems in cables they are trying to remedy are even audible.,

Yep, some like to put the cart before the horse, or give causes before there are any :)

sofsoldier

12-11-2003, 08:36 AM

I did not know that certain brands offer internal wiring upgrades, but you are talking about equipment that is way beyond my price range. I still need to buy my pizza and beer!

It seems the consensus is that there are some audible difference with cables, but it is interesting that a major cable manufacturer (MIT) is still researching the possibility if the power distortions are audible!

That the trick though, right? I mean, specifications are one thing. Hearing the result is another. An example is my love for vinyl. CD's, SACD and DVD-A's have better frequency responce, better dynamic range, and a quieter noise floor. But I still like the sound of vinyl better!

Have a Merry Christmas everyone!

Rick

pctower

12-11-2003, 09:00 AM

Sof:

I don't mean the following comment to be flip, but my 30-plus years in this hobby have taught me that there is no such thing as a concensus in anything having to do with home audio, and probably never will be. That's part of what keeps it interesting.

My advice: do what works for you, keep a tight grip on your wallet, and consider cables as the last place you choose to look for improvements. Many here with a lot of knowledge and experience will advise you never to look to cables as a place for improvements. Others, on other boards will disagree.

I say try everything you can within reason and consistent with maintaining your own enjoyment of the hobby. I often have to remind myself that listening is what it is all about and tinkering or upgrading is at best a means to an end. Above all, don't buy into the belief that more money necessarily buys improvement in performance.

As for choice of formats, my own personal experience leads me to believe the quality of the original recording and the number of masters and re-masters it has been through are far more important than the particular choice of format. Beyond that, the cost and availability of software is also extremely important.

You have a very merry and happy holiday season.

skeptic

12-11-2003, 10:23 AM

"Through the use of the power factor, we at MIT have been led to conclude that a poor power factor is a mechanism for distortion. That is, that networks exhibiting poor power factor transport and play in-phase music along with out-of-phase music simultaneously. What level of this distortion is audible? We are continuing our research in this area."

This is a technical paper ONLY in the eyes of non technical readers looking at advertising copy.

All of the technical explanations about impedence, capacitance, inductance are AC electricity 101 to an electrical engineer.

There are some factual errors; "Since a High-End audio cable is typically constructed with many coils of wire, constructing a cable is like constructing an inductor. In fact, it is during the winding process that the important element of inductance is added."

Actually they are constructed with many STRANDS (not coils) of wire but they are each pulled off coils in the cable assembly plant. Series inductance of the overall cable is the result of the geometry of the oveall cable meaning the diamater of the aggregate conductor and the spacing between them.

Power transfer for signals fed through interconnects is insignificant probably at most in the microwatts if not nanowatts. If power or voltage transfer of an interconnect were a consideration in audio cables, they would cause enormous distortions in video signals fed through them because they require 300 times the bandwidth. They don't.

Power factor changes created by a few feet of lamp cord to power equipment is virtually insignificant and probably not even measurable.

Power factor changes to loudspeaker loads by "normal" speaker cables
such as zip cord are undoubtedly insignificant. MIT says you have to have the right mix of inductance and capacitance? What is the right mix? Every loudspeaker load is different and most are highly inductive. If there was a right one for one speaker, it would be wrong for another. If there was a right "mix" created for a certain cable of a certain length, it would be wrong if you used a different length. If the wire had the right inductance stretched out, it would be wrong if it were curled up.

The graph is virtually worthless. You can't see a thing. Comparative data on a chart would have been better. MIT's claim that some cables such as zip cord do not allow efficient transfer of low frequencies presumably because of power factor is not borne out by experience and there is no data to support it. Changing the power factor to a load not only depends on the impedence of the cable but the impedence of the load. Compared to loudspeaker loads, inductance and capacitance of most cables are insignificant. This concept of power factor is no different than the concept of LCR changing frequency response except made more complicated by stating it differently so it sounds like something new and different.

There are no double blind tests to show that there is any audibly detectable difference between their cable and others.

There are no waveform capture photographs or computerized analysis to show that there is any difference between current or voltage waveforms transmitted through their cable and anybody elses.

There is not one single objective fact or suggestion of a fact to justify the purchase of their very expensive product in preference to much cheaper alternative.

BTW, what the hell is "in phase and out of phase music"? I never heard of such a thing. The phase angle of non periodic waveforms typical of music always varies all over the place. Nothing new there either.

It all sounds to like technobabble smoke for suckers. This is what they produce because this is what the law allows. Suggestion, inuendo, hypothesis, complex irrelavent facts, but no actual claims. Example; "Power that is not transported in phase may still be transported to the load. But it will be out-of-phase power." The concept of reactive power is of some use to industrial power distribution engineers like me, because some users eat up utility company amp capacity on transmission lines without using up watts. Beyond a point, some utilities charge extra for low power factors and so there are industrial means to deal with it (large power factor correction capacitors.) But it has no relevance or meaning here. Just there to impress and confuse prospective non technical customers.

BTW, I'm not picking on MIT. They each have their own way of doing exactly the same thing. Each different, each worthless.

Buyer beware.

(Sofsoldier, I am an electrical engineer.)

FLZapped

12-11-2003, 11:10 AM

Here's an interesting technical discussion from a company that sells very expensive cables:

http://www.mitcables.com/technology/power1.asp

Sorry Phil, this one goes in the snake oil bin too......

Here's some hints;

1) Where is their actual test set-up used to test with?

2) Each load(speaker design) has a different impedance/phase vs frequency profile requiring a unique power factor correction(at each frequency), so what complex load impedance did they use when writing this paper? I don't see any mention anywhere of a complex load impedance being attached to the wires, they only seem talk about the wires as if they were the load impedance that needed the phase correction(power factor). You can't do power factor correction until you know what your load looks like - and the wires ain't da load.

I would worry about power factor correction if I were trying to drive a hugely inductive analog power supply with a small generator, not my amplifier driving my speakers.

Wire Power Factor is a Non-Factor and I don't think it will make the O'Reilly Factor......

-Bruce

sofsoldier

12-11-2003, 11:12 AM

(Sofsoldier, I am an electrical engineer.)
Great!

As an electrical engineer, have you considered a website with the purpose of acuratly educating people with such things? I mean, there is a host of very expesive "tweaks" that may or may not provide audible improvements (like a demagnetising CD or cable elevators), that should be challenged! You said it best: "Buyer Beware."

Example: As an Astronomer, I find it comical to read media information on news of Astronomy, as well as the Astrology b.s. There is a really great source of info at www.badastronomy.com. It is well researched and its purpose is to educate.

Rockwell

12-11-2003, 12:03 PM

Great!

As an electrical engineer, have you considered a website with the purpose of acuratly educating people with such things? I mean, there is a host of very expesive "tweaks" that may or may not provide audible improvements (like a demagnetising CD or cable elevators), that should be challenged! You said it best: "Buyer Beware."

I think you are looking at that website :D Actually, I think there are several such websites, but I don't have any links.

Unless companies selling tweak/wire products can give real evidence that their products do what they claim, it is wise to consider those products rubbish. If audiophiles actually put the responsibility on the companies to prove questionable audio tweaks make a positive difference, then those comanies would dry up quickly because they likely can't. As it is now, said companies make claims, audiophile buy. No proof needed because audiophiles buy and trust their ears will tell them. Unfortunatley, ears may tell them whatever they want to hear, without controlled blind testing.

skeptic

12-11-2003, 02:03 PM

Unless companies selling tweak/wire products can give real evidence that their products do what they claim, it is wise to consider those products rubbish.

As it is now, said companies make claims, audiophile buy.

But you see they haven't made any claims. They've made statements of facts which are either well known or irrelevant using technical jargon to impress people who don't know what they are talking about. They have not anywhere said that your stereo system will sound better if you use their product. That is an inference you and many other people draw by reading into their statements more than is actually there. That's how they stay within the law or at least as close to it as they can.

They have not claimed that you will have less distortion, flatter or wider frequency response, greater dynamic range, lower noise or anything else. They have simply compared theoretically ideal wires with real ones pointing out some of the deviations from perfection in those areas where they might be able to prove some aspects of their products closer to perfection than some other alternative product not telling you that it makes an audible improvement or if it's at the cost of some other factor somewhere else.

The manufacturer of a car could say something for example like; my product has more trunk room than a BMW, more leg room than a Ferrari, more glove compartment space than a Caddilac, and will stop from 60 to 0 in less time and distance than a Rolls Royce. He wants you to come to the conclusion that his car is better than the others even if it is a Yugo. And if you buy it, that's your problem, not his. Until the FTC gets on his case that is. Maybe it's time for me to start a new posting about FTC rules of fair advertising again. It's been a while.

Rockwell

12-11-2003, 02:44 PM

But you see they haven't made any claims. They've made statements of facts which are either well known or irrelevant using technical jargon to impress people who don't know what they are talking about. They have not anywhere said that your stereo system will sound better if you use their product. That is an inference you and many other people draw by reading into their statements more than is actually there. That's how they stay within the law or at least as close to it as they can...

Take a look at this blurb I quickly found on Kimber website :
http://www.kimber.com/select/KS3038.htm

Improved sound is certainly implied in the add copy, and the customer blurbs usually say it directly. But you are right, there probably isn't legally actionable in what they are saying. What I was getting at is that people who buy this stuff should be more demanding from these companies. The selling points add up to nothing but hot air, and customer blurbs are worthless, but the message to buyers is thet these products will make you system sound better. I wish Mr Audiophile would demand that CompanyX actually demonstrate that their product is better than CompanyY's or even generic brandZ. It seems to me that if the Tweek/FancyWire industry were legitimate, that would be common practice as in other industries.

skeptic

12-11-2003, 04:41 PM

Improved sound is certainly implied in the add copy, and the customer blurbs usually say it directly. But you are right, there probably isn't legally actionable in what they are saying.

Implied, inferred, suggested. What does it all add up to? A cloud. Smoke. A wish.

"delivers dynamics, focus and harmonics like no other. "Total control of all frequencies; especially deep bass, air, air, and more air, EVERYTHING improved across the entire spectrum. This supernatural cable was doing absolutely zero to the signal. I never knew the signal could be so pure. If there was ever a "superconductor" these cables would be it!" Andy Genco-Enfield, CT"

They NEVER claimed anything here. This is a letter they got from a customer or a reviewer. Not their claim but HIS opinion and with absolutely nothing to back it up. Why don't you call Andy up in Enfield and see if Ray owes him money or has a son in law who works for him and just wants to help him out?

Why should anybody try to prove anything? They almost certainly couldn't if they had to but then they don't have to. The suckers just keep coming and coming and coming. The worst that will ever happen in all likelihood is that one day they will receive a letter from the FTC to either prove something or stop writing misleading ad copy. Guys like Ray Kimber will probably be reading it laughing all the way sitting on the beach sipping a tall island drink in his home in Bimini or where-ever---paid for by the guys who buy these cables.

E-Stat

12-11-2003, 06:02 PM

Why should anybody try to prove anything? They almost certainly couldn't if they had to but then they don't have to.

Tell me, Skeptic how many products do you buy solely on the basis of DBT testing? Do you choose your macaroni and cheese based upon DBTs? How about the car you drive? How about that new video camcorder? The new leather couch for the den? How about your new winter parka? Perhaps your house? How about the cola that you drink? What are the DBT results between Fruit of the Loom underwear and Jockey? Are you so insecure in your judgement that you require corroboration by means of verification by the masses?

rw

skeptic

12-11-2003, 07:32 PM

Tell me, Skeptic how many products do you buy solely on the basis of DBT testing? Do you choose your macaroni and cheese based upon DBTs? How about the car you drive? How about that new video camcorder? The new leather couch for the den? How about your new winter parka? Perhaps your house? How about the cola that you drink? What are the DBT results between Fruit of the Loom underwear and Jockey? Are you so insecure in your judgement that you require corroboration by means of verification by the masses?

rw

I never said that consistantly positive DBT tests in itself was even close to adequate to convince me that more expensive or unusual cables would produce superior sound. It isn't, in fact I said many times it would be the first rung on a very tall ladder.

Most things that perform comparable functions to a comparable degree of satisfaction have comparable prices. Audio cables don't. It's not just by a factor of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 but sometimes 100 to 1. The onus of proof therefore if the market were rational would be on the producer. Fortunately for them it isn't rational so they can get away with selling their unproven products at sometimes outrageous prices without any proof at all.

I try to spend my money as wisely as I can. I can't help it if people are so stupid as to buy Tylenol instead of generic acetomenaphin or other brand name products identical to others with different packaging and no advertising sitting right next to them on the shelves because they can't read a label. My verdict on Shop Rite ketchup---identical to Heinz at a fraction of the price after several double blind tests at home. I'm about to compare their "real" mayonaise with Hellman's. I chose my car after reading consumer reports, several other publications, and talking with mechanics including a friend who worked for a dealership that sold that car. He knew every nut and bolt of it including its weak spots. Right now it's got 106,000 miles on it and just starting to get broken in.

I am responsible for spending other people's money. Lots and lots of it. They have procedures including those mandated by corporate purchasing departments to be certain that they have the best chance of getting their money's worth. I don't see any reason why I should be any less careful with my own money. As for yours, I couldn't care less if you throw it away on whatever you like including unproven cables.

PS, the house I live in is worth about twice what I paid for it 4 years ago--about $1.4 million. I can afford to buy any audio cable in the world if I want to. But I usually buy my speaker cable from Home Depot. 100 feet of RCA for about $20. With the left over money I bought 4 36 inch Sony WEGA extra bright television sets and hook up my vcrs with RS RCA cables, about $1 each.

Rockwell

12-11-2003, 07:34 PM

mtrycraft

12-11-2003, 11:01 PM

mtrycraft

12-11-2003, 11:08 PM

I try to spend my money as wisely as I can. I can't help it if people are so stupid as to buy Tylenol instead of generic acetomenaphin or other brand name products identical to others with different packaging and no advertising sitting right next to them on the shelves because they can't read a label. My verdict on Shop Rite ketchup---identical to Heinz at a fraction of the price after several double blind tests at home. I'm about to compare their "real" mayonaise with Hellman's. I chose my car after reading consumer reports, several other publications, and talking with mechanics including a friend who worked for a dealership that sold that car.
.

The Kikland battery at Costco is about $.22 each for AA size. Next to it is the name brand that costs 60% more, each. Funny since Kikland is made by that name brand, coppertop, company and still they make money on producing it for Costco. The problem is that Costco is not getting other sizes like 9V.

I wish I could DBT everything in the marketplace:)

skeptic

12-12-2003, 03:48 AM

How do you think tasters do it? You think they know which product they are tasting and rating? Hardly, or if they do, their value is zero.

The reviews published in Wine Spectator Magazine make many winemakers and wine merchant furious. (Only Rober M. Parker garners as much or more respect and anger including death threats in his reviews and although his tests are not blind, his integrity is beyond question and his opinions almost always proven to be right by time.) Food processing companies like Betty Crocker, Swanson, etc. employ many test tasters to evaluate new recipes and to test for potential problems when recipes aren't followed so that their products can be made as idiot proof as possible. My favorite cooking show "America's Test Kitchen" also evaluates all recipes blind. And of course many other products like drugs under development are tested blind to see if they really work.

Not only has Wine Spectator and its peers given wine consumers the ammunition they need to make their buying decisions based on real quality, not price or prestige, they have helped elevate the overall level of winemaking over the last few decades by putting makers of inferior product on notice that if they don't produce quality commensurate with price, they will find it increasingly difficult to sell it at all.Right now, the entire California fine wine industry is on the verge of a shakeout because hundreds of wineries overexpanded and took on high debt in the last few years. Now they have raised prices from $20 a bottle to often $80 to $120 for the same quality in order to pay for it. The informed market isn't buying it. On the other hand, the uninformed audio cable market will pay any price, believe any hype. I guess rich drunken winos are smarter than rich sober audiophiles.

Monstrous Mike

12-12-2003, 09:21 AM

...my JPS Labs sound marginally better than my Monster zip...
rw

Here's what I don't understand. We can send a man to the moon but we can't figure out why some cables sound apparently better than zip cord.

Sure there are lots of reports like about clearly audible improvements and there are many people with lots of technobabble on why one cable sounds better than another.

But where is the scientific paper? Where are the repeatable test results?

I know a lot people say "who cares about all that science stuff" and that's just fine. But I would be highly suspicious of any claim that seems to be fairly widespread (or perhaps not so widespread seeing as we might be living in a fishbowl here) but has absolutely no scientific backing or even foundation.

Monstrous Mike

12-12-2003, 09:33 AM

Great!

As an electrical engineer, have you considered a website with the purpose of acuratly educating people with such things? I mean, there is a host of very expesive "tweaks" that may or may not provide audible improvements (like a demagnetising CD or cable elevators), that should be challenged!

In my time on these boards and reading the points of view of various people, I would suggest that no proof would be acceptable to counter the beliefs of those select few.

Even if Albert Einstein came back from the grave and did another PhD specifically on audio cables and found the whole high end industry was a farce, I believe the response of the select few would be: "Yeah, but what kind of system does he own?"

And I honestly say this not cynically, but rather because I believe it is the God's honest truth.

It's sort of like convincing your grandma that she is wrong about some old wive's tale she has believed all her life. Sometimes it's better just to let her go on believing it.

Monstrous Mike

12-12-2003, 09:47 AM

E-Stat

12-12-2003, 03:55 PM

...We can send a man to the moon but we can't figure out why some cables sound apparently better than zip cord.

...Where are the repeatable test results?

I would love to see the full details behind any one DBT test that you would consider "academic" and relevant concerning something like zip vs. Valhalla or any other universally accepted high resolution cable. Over at AA, Zapped by Jitter and others usually parade the ex-MacIntosh guy Russell's site as the evidence. Have you read how sad and utterly incomplete those references are? All are pathetically devoid of any test details (in terms of documenting virtually anything used in the test, be it equipment, music, listener, superfluous switch boxes, etc) There was another reference he posted that was equally amusing and useless. Here's my favorite line from the "researcher's" comments:

The amplifiers used by the headphones and loudspeakers were assumed to be phase linear.

P.S. Can you thing of any other product, other than art, that has such a large range of price for virtually the same functionality?

Let's talk cars. You can easily get any pickup truck to measure the same lateral G force as a Ferrari Modena on the 200 foot test circle by stiffening up the simplistic suspension. What does that tell you about either vehicle's dynamic ability in the real world?

rw

E-Stat

12-12-2003, 03:59 PM

PS, the house I live in is worth about twice what I paid for it 4 years ago--about $1.4 million. I can afford to buy any audio cable in the world if I want to.

More importantly, tell me about your music system. I don't recall seeing that in the "what equipment do you use" thread on general.

rw

Monstrous Mike

12-12-2003, 05:23 PM

I would love to see the full details behind any one DBT test that you would consider "academic" and relevant concerning something like zip vs. Valhalla or any other universally accepted high resolution cable. Over at AA, Zapped by Jitter and others usually parade the ex-MacIntosh guy Russell's site as the evidence. Have you read how sad and utterly incomplete those references are?

rw

I'm not sure what you find sad about those references, other than the word of self-proclaimed technically competent people and I believe you know who I am talking about, but as you have also noted, there is zero reliable scientific explanation for what is claimed to be going on with audio cables. I have said, and will continue to repeat as long as necessary, that a lack of evidence is proof of anything but a continued lack of evidencde points to the fact that there is no evidence.

Let's talk cars. You can easily get any pickup truck to measure the same lateral G force as a Ferrari Modena on the 200 foot test circle by stiffening up the simplistic suspension. What does that tell you about either vehicle's dynamic ability in the real world?

rw

I'm not sure what analogy you are trying to draw here but I am going to assume that it has something to do with driving a car like a Ferrari, getting a feel for the handling, and not being able to attribute that feel to any one particular spec or measurement. Well that may be true, but you have to remember a car is a very complex machine with many performance parameters which have a sum total "feel" wrt to handling, etc.

An audio cable is a simple piece of wire transporting a signal from A to B. It seems you (and others) want to give this simple passive device a set of characteristics similar to a complex machine and thus assess its performance in a similar manner.

I do not believe this is a good comparison. Every tweak and odd claim audiophiles make always seem to have to be complicated to a point which is beyond scientific explanation. While this may be convenient to the audiophile I personally feel it is a stretch beyond which I, or any other person of science, would take.

And once again, people do not need scientific approval to spend their money and enjoy their hobbies, but if something is expensive has no scientific basis for its claims, I generally need to investigate in an objective manner.

skeptic

12-12-2003, 08:19 PM

More importantly, tell me about your music system. I don't recall seeing that in the "what equipment do you use" thread on general.
rw

In a house this large, I am fortunate enough to have the space for several. OK, many. Here is my main system.

The main speakers are Teledyne AR9s each enhanced with three indirect firing 3/4 inch Audax polycarbonate tweeters in parallel crossed over at 6 Khz. Amplifier is the Klaus/Peterson Mosfet 120 built from a kit. There are two preamps in series, a Marantz 3800 and an HK Citation 11 which is the main preamp. There's a BSR 110X equalizer. The cd player is Denon CDC 1520 and the turntable is Empire 698 with a Shure V15 Type V MR cartridge. There's a Teac R435X cassette deck, a Panasonic PV 8660 VCR and a Sony KV-36-XBR-250 tv set. The current enhancement surround system consits of 2 Dynaco SCA80Q amps, 2 more BSR 110X equalizers, and 16 RS Minimus 7 speakers. The processor is Yamaha DSP1.

The room is 13'-8" x 29'-6" x 9'-6" and is the standard Toll Brothers music conservatory. the walls are approximately 40% glass, the carpet is a low pile burber, and acoustics are on the live side.

E-Stat

12-13-2003, 06:19 AM

Here is my main system...

Thanks for sharing. I, too once had a Citation 11 preamp back in seventies. It was certainly among the best SS designs of it's day. I used mine with a Crown D-150. Why the two preamps in series?

The room is 13'-8" x 29'-6" x 9'-6" ...

MIne is 30 x 15 x 7'6". I wish the first two dimensions weren't such even multiples as it required some bass traps and extensive speaker placement experimentation to tame the inevitable nodes. :)

rw

E-Stat

12-13-2003, 06:41 AM

I'm not sure what you find sad about those references, other than the word of self-proclaimed technically competent people and I believe you know who I am talking about...

You mean that amusing exchange between jj and ZbJ as to the value of using trained listeners with familiar musical material for their DBTs? Yeah, you can dumb down the tests so as to prove whatever you would like to. As for the Russell references, well there are NO DETAILS. Tests prove what they prove. Ok. Some unspecified group of people listening to something on some kind of system in some kind of environment were unable to hear the difference between 50' of generic zip vs. Monster zip. That conclusively proves...well what? It is when the results of such tests are then extrapolated to somehow cover every future combination of completely different systems that they become ludicrous.

I gather the answer to my question concerning any fully documented tests is no.

...Well that may be true, but you have to remember a car is a very complex machine with many performance parameters which have a sum total "feel" wrt to handling, etc.

An audio system is also a very complex system with many parameters which have a sum total "feel" with respect to musical reproduction.

An audio cable is a simple piece of wire transporting a signal from A to B.

A tire is a simple piece of rubber transporting a vehicle from A to B.

Perhaps you are not aware that a hundred years later, tire technology continues to improve with LOTS of driver experimentation encompassing a host of variables that defy any simple numerical analysis. It requires exhaustive track testing by guys like Michael Schumacher to determine what works and what doesn't on differing track conditions.

rw

FLZapped

12-13-2003, 07:55 AM

Over at AA, Zapped by Jitter and others usually parade the ex-MacIntosh guy Russell's site as the evidence.
rw

Uhm, how about posting a link to the site I supposedly reference instead of some vague reference to it.

-Bruce

pctower

12-13-2003, 09:04 AM

Bruce:

Why don't you and the others who purport to take a "scientific" approach to this subject just admit that most, if not all, of the reported cable DBTs results are woefully unreliable due to lack of appropriate protocol, statistical analysis and/or appropriate documentation of test procedures?

That doesn't mean cables sound different - far from it. It just means that serious scientific DBT cable tests have not been reported. Isn't the goal to get to the truth, as we currently know it, rather than promote a particular agenda. "Truth", it seems to me, includes accurately reporting and commenting on the reliability of test results that are widely quoted and tossed around on the internet.

If I am mistaken and there are DBT cable reports of tests that you believe are reasonably reliable from an appropriate scientific view point, then I will stand corrected. I have no need to promote anything other than a legitimate search for the truth.

FLZapped

12-13-2003, 10:10 AM

Monstrous Mike

12-13-2003, 10:16 AM

A tire is a simple piece of rubber transporting a vehicle from A to B.

Perhaps you are not aware that a hundred years later, tire technology continues to improve with LOTS of driver experimentation encompassing a host of variables that defy any simple numerical analysis. It requires exhaustive track testing by guys like Michael Schumacher to determine what works and what doesn't on differing track conditions.

rw
Sure you are right although I am not sure how much tire technology has improved in the last twenty years. If you take a new tire like a Goodyear with "aquagroove" for supposedly better handling in wet conditions, I'm not even 100% certain these tires are any better than others in rain. And one of the points you keep avoiding is cost range. And aquagroove tire may cost $10 or $20 (i.e. 10-20%) more than a similar tire whereas cables can cost 10-1000% or even 10,000% percent more.

If you don't find that odd, then I guess we are speaking in different languages.

Bruce:

Why don't you and the others who purport to take a "scientific" approach to this subject just admit that most, if not all, of the reported cable DBTs results are woefully unreliable due to lack of appropriate protocol, statistical analysis and/or appropriate documentation of test procedures?

If I am mistaken and there are DBT cable reports of tests that you believe are reasonably reliable from an appropriate scientific view point, then I will stand corrected. I have no need to promote anything other than a legitimate search for the truth.

You are right in that I have not seen a DBT result that has been taken and reported which has a very high standard with regard to scientific approach.

I can only guess at the approach used by Dr. Floyd Toole when he did DBTs on cables because he did not report on it. I only have third hand evidence that he applied his DBT method used in developing his speakers to a test of exotic cables against zip cord. In his very scientific work designing speakers he wanted to know the truth about cables and if they added any value to the sound coming out of the speaker. He found none and stuck with zip cord.

He did write a paper on the necessity of conducting DBTs when evaluating audio equipment due to the biases of sighting listening. It seems some people can't even accept that small fact.

I really don't see any useful DBTs coming out the near future for the reason that they would have a large target on them, the results may be displeasing to many people and cable companies and would probably be generally disregarded.

Why go through that effort?

E-Stat

12-13-2003, 12:04 PM

Uhm, how about posting a link to the site I supposedly reference instead of some vague reference to it.

-Bruce

Here 'ya go:

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

And if you're up to it, my observations on the gripping evidence presented:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2386&highlight=edgar+villchur+E-Stat&r=&session=

rw

E-Stat

12-13-2003, 12:37 PM

Sure you are right although I am not sure how much tire technology has improved in the last twenty years.

My Acura TL family sedan corners with the same lateral G force as did Corvettes, Ferraris, and Cobras of twenty years ago. (.82) This is does because of tire technology. There are several performance cars today that exceed 1 G of lateral force. F1 race cars can handle 4 Gs!

You are right in that I have not seen a DBT result that has been taken and reported which has a very high standard with regard to scientific approach.

How about an approach that reveals even the tiniest of details?

I'm not sure what you find sad about those references, other than the word of self-proclaimed technically competent people... (that from an earlier post)

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So you say you know of no credible scientific tests that support the "all wire sound the same" theory. Further you say that you rely on the word from twenty years ago of the guys from Stereo Review and Gordon Gow to establish the current state of the art. Did I miss anything here?

rw

markw

12-13-2003, 01:14 PM

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So you say you know of no credible scientific tests that support the "all wire sound the same" theory.rw

OTOH, I don't know of any "credible scientific tests" that justify somewires costing more than others. I know of various semi-religious fanatics that insist upon this and are willing to pump out a bunch of "shoulds", "mighta", "perhaps" and "possibly"s but as to a "real" test? Nada, zip. zulch. They about as "scientific" as ancient myths that sprung up to justify the actions of nature.

Further you say that you rely on the word from twenty years ago of the guys from Stereo Review and Gordon Gow to establish the current state of the art. Did I miss anything here?rw

Again, who can you point with more recents tests to prove (no technobable postulations, but proof) that DON'T sound the same? Again, nada, zip zilch. Careful listening tests would seem to prove otherwise and to try do discount that fact is to bury one's head in the sand.

But, if one wishes to go on faith, all well and good but to use faith as "proof" to another is simply foolish. Let's sacrifice a few virgins and do a few ritual dances to keep the cable gods happy, eh? That'll impove the sound of our systems.

But, we're more modern than that. Nowadays, a simple financial donation to the right companies will guarantee the same results.

Norm Strong

12-13-2003, 07:02 PM

E-Stat

12-13-2003, 07:03 PM

Again, who can you point with more recents tests to prove (no technobable postulations, but proof) that DON'T sound the same? Again, nada, zip zilch. Careful listening tests would seem to prove otherwise and to try do discount that fact is to bury one's head in the sand.

Historically, it has taken about fifteen to twenty years following some technology change for the "scientific audio community" to catch up with what discerning listeners ascertain almost immediately. The first solid state preamps were a disaster. This, despite the fact they measured much better than tubes. Well, at least until we discovered that THD tests are useless and there are more pervasive kinds of measurable distortion like TIM to deal with. Similarly, it was twenty years ago that the first "perfect music forever" CDs appeared on the market. They contained NO distortion, right? The first of those too, sounded horrible. Eventually the audible effects of jitter and a few other details of digital signal processing were fully realized.

It is just a matter of time for when some cables (I certainly don't endorse all the snake oil out there) are vindicated in the same way. Until then, I'll just partake of deeper musical enjoyment. Especially those occasions when I get a chance to hear one of my reviewer friend's killer system. Yeah, it's got those hyperexpensive cables. :)

rw

FLZapped

12-13-2003, 10:48 PM

Here 'ya go:

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

And if you're up to it, my observations on the gripping evidence presented:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2386&highlight=edgar+villchur+E-Stat&r=&session=

rw

Your second link is incomplete. And that's McIntosh. Sheesh. -Bruce

FLZapped

12-13-2003, 10:52 PM

A tire is a simple piece of rubber transporting a vehicle from A to B.

rw

But whe people go to buy tires, they have a rating system tht helps them decide what range of performance they are to expect for their money. There is no such thing for cables.

-Bruce

okiemax

12-13-2003, 11:27 PM

[QUOTE=Monstrous Mike]

[You are right in that I have not seen a DBT result that has been taken and reported which has a very high standard with regard to scientific approach.]

The DBT studies I have seen on-line are difficult to evaluate since they provide little if any discussion of methodology, and don't show all the relevant data. Some also can be faulted for failure to correctly use statistical methods.

[I can only guess at the approach used by Dr. Floyd Toole when he did DBTs on cables because he did not report on it. I only have third hand evidence that he applied his DBT method used in developing his speakers to a test of exotic cables against zip cord. In his very scientific work designing speakers he wanted to know the truth about cables and if they added any value to the sound coming out of the speaker. He found none and stuck with zip cord.]

I don't know if Dr. Toole is still with Harman, but if so, I find surprising the following quote from the owner's manual for JBL's TiK Series speakers: "Careful selection of cables and interconnects can have quite a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners." I dont think I can link directly to this manual, but you can find it at Harman's web site.

[He did write a paper on the necessity of conducting DBTs when evaluating audio equipment due to the biases of sighting listening. It seems some people can't even accept that small fact.]

I don't think my sighted listening is so bad that I can't make any judgements based on it. For heavens sake, it's got to be right some of the time. Did Dr. Toole find that sighted listening was always inaccurate?

E-Stat

12-14-2003, 07:29 AM

Your second link is incomplete. And that's McIntosh. Sheesh. -Bruce

Ah, the pitfalls of automated scripting. In the process of AR's otherwise helpfully inserted html tags, it appears to truncate. The visible part of the preview seems to work again, but appears cut off. Here's another cut & paste attempt and below one stripped of the initial part if it should not work again. Just add the internet prefix stuff.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2386&highlight=russell+E-Stat&r=&session=

db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2386&highlight=russell+E-Stat&r=&session=

A thousand pardons for the misspelling.

rw

E-Stat

12-14-2003, 08:14 AM

But whe people go to buy tires, they have a rating system tht helps them decide what range of performance they are to expect for their money. There is no such thing for cables.

-Bruce

While there is a rating system, it like THD measurements is largely useless. The UTQG (uniform tire quality grade) traction rating only attempts to measure straight ahead wet braking traction. It speaks nothing of numerous other performance parameters such as cornering (either in the wet or dry), break away characteristics, etc. Not only that, the grading curve is skewed to the top such that most tires appear to possess the same performance. The rating is absent of useful distinctions within a wide performance envelope lumped into "best". There is a vast gulf between the overall performance of say a Michelin Harmony and a Bridgestone Potenza S02, both having the same traction rating. If there were such a weakly designed cable rating, you could as easily lump Belden 89259 with Nordost Valhalla based on a single factor and be led to believe they are equivalent in overall performance.

There is, however, one useful UTQG metric: tire wear. It is here where you might read between the lines and gather something of the real performance difference between the two tires I just mentioned. The Michelin is 680 vs. 140 for the Bridgestone. That suggests that the Michelin should last nearly five times as long as the Bridgestone. Softer tire compounds are typically "stickier" and thus trade wear for traction. Once you factor the price differential ($97 vs. $140) and the longevity, the high performance tire is 7 times more expensive. The Bridgestone is the OEM tire found on a number of high performance cars such as the Ferrari Modena, Porsche 911, and the Honda S2000 (of which I am a happy owner).

BTW, your post is missing a couple of letters. Ask Vanna next time for assistance. :)

rw

Monstrous Mike

12-14-2003, 09:26 AM

I don't think my sighted listening is so bad that I can't make any judgements based on it. For heavens sake, it's got to be right some of the time. Did Dr. Toole find that sighted listening was always inaccurate?
No. He stated that when trying to distinguish very small differences, biases played a role in the decision of the listeners when they knew what (equipment or cables) they were listening to. His theory was that double blind testing elimates those biases and makes the test more accurate.

I personally don't do DBTs when purchasing any audio equipment although I have done a few in my own home on cables just to satisfy my curiosity. When I purchase speakers, I can do direct sighting listening using a side by side technique to decide which speakers I prefer and in the past I did some serious listening to turntables and cartridges before buying.

Monstrous Mike

12-14-2003, 09:37 AM

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So you say you know of no credible scientific tests that support the "all wire sound the same" theory. Further you say that you rely on the word from twenty years ago of the guys from Stereo Review and Gordon Gow to establish the current state of the art. Did I miss anything here?

rw
I'm not relying on anybody's word about cables. I am simply stating that there is no credible evidence for or against cable techology being scientifically valid as far as performance improvements.

I hypothesize that expensive cables do not give any sonic improvement over zip cord. If I am wrong, then surely somebody should be able to identify some parameter of zip cord that is distorting the sound. And that's really the crux of the matter. If hyper expensive cables sound superior then average cables must have some sort of deficiency.

And finally, I base my hypothesis on my education and work experience. It really irks me when people say that since I don't actually work in the field of "audio engineering" that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Hey, I really would love to have some solid scientific evidence to ponder over. That's why I became an engineer, to figure out how things work and why they work the way they do. You might be right in that in the coming ten or twenty years all of this cable technology will be proven. However, if somebody had a gun to my head today and told me they would blow my head off if I was wrong, I would say cable technology is a myth (shaking in my boots of course).

skeptic

12-14-2003, 01:28 PM

Why the two preamps in series?

The Citation 11 is the main system control preamp. The Marantz 3800 is a slave for controlling the main speakers. The arrangement I have facillitates independent adjustments of the main system and the surround system independently. The controls on the Citation 11 preamp allow control of the entire system from one point. For example, the 5 band equalizer can be used to compensate for frequency response or tonal balance variations in different recordings without upsetting the relationship between the main and surround systems. This is an extremely complex system to operate. And it may get worse. I probably need at least one more DSP1 to duplicate the effect I got from an earlier but cruder prototype which employed several tape decks for time delays. When you sail in uncharted waters....you are strictly on your own.

E-Stat

12-14-2003, 03:53 PM

The Citation 11 is the main system control preamp. The Marantz 3800 is a slave for controlling the main speakers. The arrangement I have facillitates independent adjustments of the main system and the surround system independently...

Thanks for the info.

rw

FLZapped

12-15-2003, 07:01 AM

Ah, the pitfalls of automated scripting. In the process of AR's otherwise helpfully inserted html tags, it appears to truncate. The visible part of the preview seems to work again, but appears cut off. Here's another cut & paste attempt and below one stripped of the initial part if it should not work again. Just add the internet prefix stuff.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2386&highlight=russell+E-Stat&r=&session=

db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=2386&highlight=russell+E-Stat&r=&session=

A thousand pardons for the misspelling.

rw

Well, okay, but I don't see where I had anything to do with that conversation. I do know of the site you mentioned. It's okay, no glaring errors. Won't win any technical awards.

The mis-spelling really had me going for a minute, it's not you average typo..... :D

No problem though.

-Bruce

skeptic

12-15-2003, 08:35 AM

It might be more accurate to say that it allows the two subsystems to maintain their exact relationship once adjusted which in this case is very critical. The amount of reverberation that is added or actually generated compared to other systems which only try to capture what is in a recording is substantial. With 16 indirect firing surround speakers, the location of the source of the reverberant field is practically undetectable from almost anywhere in the room, yet the reverberant field is a true vector field, not a scalar field like most other systems. When properly adjusted, the effect is to say the least unique. With the enormous number of variables that can be adjusted, trying to improve this system by changing wires even if that were possible would be the joke of jokes.

E-Stat

12-15-2003, 04:16 PM

It might be more accurate to say that it allows the two subsystems to maintain their exact relationship once adjusted which in this case is very critical... With the enormous number of variables that can be adjusted, trying to improve this system by changing wires even if that were possible would be the joke of jokes.

I see - it facilitates level matching of the primary two channel system vs. the complex surround arrangement.

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of piggy-backing gain stages due to the inevitable loss of resolution. I take the opposite approach when using my CDP. I use stepped attenuators between the CDP and amplifiers, eliminating the otherwise superfluous gain stage of my preamp (used solely for phono source). With my system, the result is noticeably better resolution, wider soundstage, and better micro dynamics.

rw

skeptic

12-15-2003, 05:33 PM

My experience is that most good preamplifiers sound pretty much the same and distortion is so low that cascading several of them makes no audible difference as long as none of them or overloaded or driven beyond their rated voltage output. Whatever minor differences there are in fequency response are cancelled out by the equalizers anyway.

pctower

12-16-2003, 06:29 AM

In my time on these boards and reading the points of view of various people, I would suggest that no proof would be acceptable to counter the beliefs of those select few.

Even if Albert Einstein came back from the grave and did another PhD specifically on audio cables and found the whole high end industry was a farce, I believe the response of the select few would be: "Yeah, but what kind of system does he own?"

And I honestly say this not cynically, but rather because I believe it is the God's honest truth.

It's sort of like convincing your grandma that she is wrong about some old wive's tale she has believed all her life. Sometimes it's better just to let her go on believing it.

Is that the "select few" that your fellows-in-arms repeated claim are throwing "millions of dollars" down the drain on cables? Have you ever noticed that almost weekly new cable companies emerge and that the existing ones seldom go out of business?

You simply can't get beyond your pre-conceived notion that purchases of audio cables are based on "belief". What about the placebo effect you often talk about? You can't have it both ways. So which is it? Do the majority of cable buyers buy because of their "beliefs" or because of the "perceptions" they derive from trying different cables (be they derived from placebo or from actual audible differences)?

Monstrous Mike

12-16-2003, 08:05 AM

You simply can't get beyond your pre-conceived notion that purchases of audio cables are based on "belief".

Correctamundo.

What about the placebo effect you often talk about?
What about it? That has not yet been proven either. It is simply a possible explanation for people perceiving differences when there are none. It's just hypothesis.

Do the majority of cable buyers buy because of their "beliefs" or because of the "perceptions" they derive from trying different cables (be they derived from placebo or from actual audible differences)?
I suppose it is a combination of both. Some buy based on the reports of others while some buy based on their perceptions from in home testing and listening.

While I realize my post may be inflammatory towards those that "believe" or "perceive" cable differences, I am merely pointing out that these are the only reasons. Scientific evidence and proper DBT testing results are absent so that is all that is left.

I personally do not "believe" nor "perceive" any of the differences that are so often reported. I hope that doesn't make a me a bad person although I am often painted that way.

Mwalsdor_cscc_edu

12-16-2003, 09:12 AM

I take the opposite approach when using my CDP. I use stepped attenuators between the CDP and amplifiers, eliminating the otherwise superfluous gain stage of my preamp (used solely for phono source). With my system, the result is noticeably better resolution, wider soundstage, and better micro dynamics. If people want to put more crap between them and they're music, go right ahead. In my 29 years in audio I learned one truth, neutrality is the goal, just don't lose the passion or you'll become numb. Simplify... yes, but simple, no.

MikE

skeptic

12-16-2003, 09:21 AM

You simply can't get beyond your pre-conceived notion that purchases of audio cables are based on "belief". What about the placebo effect you often talk about? You can't have it both ways. So which is it?

So Phil what do you attibute it to? It can't be specifications, most manufacturers of cables don't publish them. It can't be objective independent test reports verifying or describing their electrical properties. Those are also rarely available. And even if they were, you'd have to be an electrical engineer with knowledge of network design and analysis to use the cable, speaker, and amplifier data to analyze the combination and predict whether there was even a chance for an improvement.

So they go by what they hear, or think they hear, or by someone's recommendation. What if you chose drugs that way? You have a cough and someone else who had a cough said take this it made my cough go away. Or you remember that the last time you had a cough that same medicine worked. But this is a different time and what worked well on an irritated throat won't do much for pneumonia. So even if it could be demonstrated that a cable improved one sound system, what reason is there to believe that it will improve another unless you understood exactly how and why it worked once and what your new situation means in terms of cable performance. That's why some of us call it snake oil. Those remedies used to be sold exactly the same way. Then the Federal government stepped in and put a stop to it. Someday, they may do the same for cable merchants. And for exactly the same reason.

E-Stat

12-16-2003, 06:44 PM

So Phil what do you attibute it to? It can't be specifications, most manufacturers of cables don't publish them. It can't be objective independent test reports verifying or describing their electrical properties.

While not Phil, here are my ramblings on the topic.

I certainly don't have an answer. The folks who were completely underwhelmed by the distinctly poor performance of the earliest solid state amplifiers didn't have an answer either. All of the measurements conspired against such a heretical response. Thirty years later, however, we now know far more about the nature of the distortions they perceived. They were right after all. Measurements got smarter. There was LOTS of backpeddling in the objective camp. I hold the Crown IC-150 preamp as exhibit "A" as to how someone could produce a product that was at once capable of wonderful measurements and yet utterly dreadful sounding. May the LM301A chip rest in peace. Please! The results of this iconoclastic behavior? Product got better.

The folks who were completely underwhelmed by the distinctly poor performance of the first of the CD players didn't have an answer either. Again, nearly twenty years following the introduction of "perfect sound forever", we have greatly improved redbook performance and not one, but two new standards that engineers designed to elevate the performance of "perfect". The pioneers of the earliest CD players who claimed musical nirvana were either indiscriminate listeners or liars. Take your pick.

Denial has been the repetitive pattern for those who are solely measurements oriented where the numbers of the day apparently don't support the "subjective" observations of those who are musically inclined . I am convinced that history will repeat itself. Again.

rw

E-Stat

12-16-2003, 06:59 PM

My experience is that most good preamplifiers sound pretty much the same...

Just curious here. Have you heard any better preamps than your Cit 11 or 3300?

rw

Monstrous Mike

12-17-2003, 08:26 AM

Denial has been the repetitive pattern for those who are solely measurements oriented where the numbers of the day apparently don't support the "subjective" observations of those who are musically inclined . I am convinced that history will repeat itself. Again.

rw
Do you only apply your denial/history repeat theory to cables? What about green markers? Frozen CDs? Pennies on the speaker?

Or perhaps everything today that cannot be disproven scientifically will magically appear obvious in the future along with the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

Sorry bud, but you do not have an arguement, you are fantasizing. You can't use logic, reason, measurements, evidence or anything else that construes a valid arguement. You can only fantasize. I heard something therefore I <i>wish</i> it was because of my fancy cables.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying you are incorrect about cable sonics. But as of this moment in time, it is still a wish, a hope, a yearning but it is definitely not a sure thing.

You have to admit that fact. You really have to because all you have is a theory, just like me. I admit it, can you?

markw

12-17-2003, 08:35 AM

While nobody can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Monstor doesn't exist, I would have no problem letting my grandkids swim in Loch Ness.

Monstrous Mike

12-17-2003, 09:03 AM

I am convinced that history will repeat itself. Again.

rw
Now that I think of it, you presented some examples of people being wrong in audio before. I believe these examples focussed on objectivists, if I may call them that. Well, a more balanced arguement would have also included examples of subjectivists claiming some sonic improvement but also being proven wrong. And as a matter of fact, this is much harder to accomplish.

Hey, how about those crop circles? People would still be believing that they were made by aliens if it hadn't been exposed how they were done by a couple of guys. And why did people before adhere to the alien slant you ask? Because it is a really good fantasy, aliens swooping down in the middle of the night a carving up farmer John's cornfield. It just has a really cool allure. And the sad part is, some people still believe it's the aliens doing it!

So, I too am convinced history will repeat itself. Again and again.

FLZapped

12-17-2003, 11:06 AM

While there is a rating system, it like THD measurements is largely useless.

rw

This discussion isn't about THD and isn't applicable.

-Bruce

FLZapped

12-17-2003, 11:09 AM

If people want to put more crap between them and they're music, go right ahead. In my 29 years in audio I learned one truth, neutrality is the goal, just don't lose the passion or you'll become numb. Simplify... yes, but simple, no.

MikE

Neutrality? Where are you going to get that?. No recording in a studio is going to sound like a live concert..... so it's gone right from the get-go.....I know, I know, you meant your equipment :)

-Bruce

E-Stat

12-17-2003, 01:56 PM

Do you only apply your denial/history repeat theory to cables? What about green markers? Frozen CDs? Pennies on the speaker?

There are many claims out on the fringe not consistently accepted by high end audio reviewers, listeners, and manufacturers. Those particular examples are outside my experience.

You have to admit that fact. You really have to because all you have is a theory, just like me. I admit it, can you?

I would readily agree that there is no scientifically accepted acknowledgement of what a large number of perceptive music listeners hear. My contention is that we are seeing deja vu all over again.

rw

E-Stat

12-17-2003, 03:08 PM

This discussion isn't about THD and isn't applicable.

-Bruce

Despite good intentions, I find poor metrics of product performance to be worse than useless. They convey a false sense of value to those who don't understand the underlying limitations. That holds true for tires as well as audio components.

rw

E-Stat

12-17-2003, 04:02 PM

... Well, a more balanced arguement would have also included examples of subjectivists claiming some sonic improvement but also being proven wrong.

That is a fair assessment. Perhaps you might provide examples for the counterpoint.

Hey, how about those crop circles? People would still be believing that they were made by aliens if it hadn't been exposed how they were done by a couple of guys.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is not a good analogy. I do remember the story of how some guys with simple tools created the complex and symmetric patterns at night. The difference is that I don't recall anyone claiming to have witnessed the alleged alien activity. Instead, there was rampant speculation as to the cause.
Unlike the "must-have-been-created-by-alien" speculists, the position of countless music lovers is by direct experience. While there are those (hello mtrycraft) who would dismiss such assessments because they are not conducted in a DBT environment, the perception is pervasive. I had never before heard the "skin" of a tympani being struck before improving several aspects of my system, including cables.

rw

pctower

12-17-2003, 05:26 PM

So Phil what do you attibute it to? It can't be specifications, most manufacturers of cables don't publish them. It can't be objective independent test reports verifying or describing their electrical properties. Those are also rarely available. And even if they were, you'd have to be an electrical engineer with knowledge of network design and analysis to use the cable, speaker, and amplifier data to analyze the combination and predict whether there was even a chance for an improvement.

So they go by what they hear, or think they hear, or by someone's recommendation. What if you chose drugs that way? You have a cough and someone else who had a cough said take this it made my cough go away. Or you remember that the last time you had a cough that same medicine worked. But this is a different time and what worked well on an irritated throat won't do much for pneumonia. So even if it could be demonstrated that a cable improved one sound system, what reason is there to believe that it will improve another unless you understood exactly how and why it worked once and what your new situation means in terms of cable performance. That's why some of us call it snake oil. Those remedies used to be sold exactly the same way. Then the Federal government stepped in and put a stop to it. Someday, they may do the same for cable merchants. And for exactly the same reason.

I don't think I disagree with you. I suppose people have different reasons why they buy expensive cables, but I assume you and I could both agree that one reason is not that there is valid scientific evidence to support a conclusion that an expensive cable is any better sonically than a stock cable. I certainly agree that anyone who buys cables because of what they read in and add or an audio magazine review, or what someone else says, is falling prey to snake oil. Of course, those can be pervasive effects and I would never try to deny that my own personal "perceptions" may be largely the product of those influences. As best I can analyze my own personal decisions, I have been unable to draw any connection with add copy, reviews or opinions of others, but I have no way of determining what subconscious forces affect the personal expereinces I have with cables.

My main beef with MM is on a fairly narrow issue. I believe that a lot of people (me included) buy after-market cables because we "perceive" improvement and are willing to pay for that "perceived" improvement. I don't go beyond that. My only beliefs with respect to cables are (1) there is no scientific proof to support my selections of cables, and (2) based on my experience, they add to my enjoyment. The increased enjoyment may very well be due to ABEs, but personally I don't care. On the other hand, I would never want another person to base a purchasing decision in any part on what I do, as it is indicative of nothing other than the fact that I'm willing to pay for cables that I have not subjected to DBTs and have no scientific basis on which I can justify my cable purchases.

I do take issue with someone who attempts to liken me to a believer in alien abductions, whether or not such belief is based on wild unscientific speculation or a "perception" that he was actually abducted. In my case I guess one could say that I believe the cables I own improve my enjoyment. But that doesn't mean I believe that cables actually can sound different. I just don't know and it doesn't matter when it comes to my personal purchasing decisions. Unlike the the abduction-believers I don't go around trying to convince others than cables really make a difference, nor have I reached any conclusions on the intellectual level other that to acknowledge no valid scientific proof exists.

Again, my disagreement with MM is on a very narrow issue and relates to his seeming insistence that "belief" rather than "perception" or "experience" (regardless that perception or experience be solely the result of ABEs or otherwise) is the main driving motivation for many who buy after-market cables. I sometimes wonder if MM is incapable of removing his engineering cap for even a moment to acknowledge that not everyone makes every decision in life based on scientific certainty. Some of us are hedonists for whom personal choice is much more a question of what improves our enjoyment of life rather than what is correct from a strict scientific viewpoint.

Sorry for the long diatribe. I know you have little tolerance for verbosity.

skeptic

12-17-2003, 06:27 PM

On the other hand, I would never want another person to base a purchasing decision in any part on what I do, as it is indicative of nothing other than the fact that I'm willing to pay for cables that I have not subjected to DBTs and have no scientific basis on which I can justify my cable purchases.

If you think about it, you will feel sorry for people you unknowingly influence. You are fortunate. You have substantial financial resources and can afford to spend money on things you like for purely emotional reasons even if they don't perform their stated function any better than far cheaper alternatives. But people who speak with you, visit your home, and who are looking for guidance on how to spend their own limited resources on stereo equipment because it is their first system or a long awaited major upgrade will see your expensive cables and take that as an endorsement falling much easier victim to pushy audio salesmen and wasting their limited funds on products that give them nothing of value to them in return. It's something to be on guard against.

Monstrous Mike

12-18-2003, 10:24 AM

I do take issue with someone who attempts to liken me to a believer in alien abductions, whether or not such belief is based on wild unscientific speculation or a "perception" that he was actually abducted. In my case I guess one could say that I believe the cables I own improve my enjoyment. But that doesn't mean I believe that cables actually can sound different. I just don't know and it doesn't matter when it comes to my personal purchasing decisions. Unlike the the abduction-believers I don't go around trying to convince others than cables really make a difference, nor have I reached any conclusions on the intellectual level other that to acknowledge no valid scientific proof exists.
Just for the record, I do not classify you in the same category as alien abductees. Besides, it is not that I don't believe the story or experience of an alien abductee, I simply do not believe whatever that person actually experienced was the result of aliens but was rather the result of something terrestrial like a dream or traumatic experience. I do not deny perceptions, I question conclusions about the cause of the perceptions.

Again, my disagreement with MM is on a very narrow issue and relates to his seeming insistence that "belief" rather than "perception" or "experience" (regardless that perception or experience be solely the result of ABEs or otherwise) is the main driving motivation for many who buy after-market cables. I sometimes wonder if MM is incapable of removing his engineering cap for even a moment to acknowledge that not everyone makes every decision in life based on scientific certainty. Some of us are hedonists for whom personal choice is much more a question of what improves our enjoyment of life rather than what is correct from a strict scientific viewpoint.
This may surprise you, but I make many decisions based on others experiences rather than scientific proof or evidence. However, I do take into account such things as cost or personal safety. As a recent example, I bought deer whistles for my car since we live in an area populated by many deer and collisions are a real danger. These whistles have no scientific foundation yet at a cost of $5 a pair, I am willing to give them a try. I have even noticed that now deer usually look towards my car when I am approaching them and this gives my a very non-scientific conclusion that they may be effective in some small manner. Interestingly, I would think that dogs would also notice these ultrasonic whistles but I have to conclude anything about that.

My main beef is not with you but with people like Jon Risch or any average Joe who trumpets ad copy from cable companies, psuedo-scientific analysis or simple, sighted home listening anecdotes as proof of cable sonics.

pctower

12-19-2003, 02:25 PM

My main beef is not with you but with people like Jon Risch or any average Joe who trumpets ad copy from cable companies, psuedo-scientific analysis or simple, sighted home listening anecdotes as proof of cable sonics.

Me too.

See: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/303926.html

Toho

12-19-2003, 10:40 PM

I use Mogami Cables that I got from http://www.hookupvideo.com and that is all I ever use anymore. I use to use Monster and AudioQuest but they where over priced and do not perform as good audio and video like Mogami. I'm not sure if it 's because they are made in Japan or not using excellent Japanese ingenuity. However this is the prime cable brand of over 90% of audio and video recording studios use around the world. The prices are extremely cheap for pro version interconnects.

pctower

12-22-2003, 07:15 AM

If you think about it, you will feel sorry for people you unknowingly influence. You are fortunate. You have substantial financial resources and can afford to spend money on things you like for purely emotional reasons even if they don't perform their stated function any better than far cheaper alternatives. But people who speak with you, visit your home, and who are looking for guidance on how to spend their own limited resources on stereo equipment because it is their first system or a long awaited major upgrade will see your expensive cables and take that as an endorsement falling much easier victim to pushy audio salesmen and wasting their limited funds on products that give them nothing of value to them in return. It's something to be on guard against.

I'm glad you're so sure of my "substantial financial resources". Me - I wish I could locate some of those resources.

As for people I influence, I don't recall anyone in the last 5 years visiting my home (other than Richard Vandersteen, who was here to adjust my Fives) who even knew I had anything special for cables, or who cared. Nor do I ever encourage anyone to do anything other than try cables or equipment for themselves.

However, I have no intention of moderating my personal buying choices because of how it might influence someone else who might be stupid enough to make their own personal choices by reference in any way to what I do, just as I'm sure you have no intention of selling your house that is probably larger than the homes of 99% of the people in the this country just so you won't influence others to live in large homes that consume far more than your fair share of power and used up far more than your fair share of the earth's resources in building it, not to mention costing a fortune and which could lead others to go broke trying to keep up with you, not to mention serving as the source of extreme envy by those less fortunate, thus seriously aggravating civil unrest and class envy in this country.

In other words, GIVE ME A F***ING BREAK. Of all the comments that have ever been made by people who choose not to use after-market cables, your post absolutely takes the cake.

PS. I need no lecture from you as to what does and doesn't constitute responsible advice to others regarding audio.