expensive cables

[pctower]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.)

[sofsoldier]

(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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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.

[Monstrous Mike]

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.

[pctower]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[pctower]

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.

[FLZapped]

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