To clarify, this all assumes cables make a difference. OK, we couldn't measure this conclusively in 1970s. So.... can we now?
How I would measure cables
Hi everyone,
There’s been a lot of talk about "science" and cables. To me it sounds a lot like free energy, and cold fusion scams. With few exceptions, they invoke a lot of physics, without ever tying it back down to actual results. Fancy words, and lots of them.
In the fusion/energy camps this has become so common that they use a very simple method to find fraud. Like the discovery of the Enron scam, we have learned to compare input to output. Enron was first discovered to be a fraud by simply looking at the income and comparing it to claimed money generated. And oh how they howled that we just didn’t understand the business model.
So, with perpetual motion, fusion, dark matter conversion generators, and what have you, they have a simple test. Compare energy in versus energy out over time. The funny thing is, if any of these things actually worked, you’d think they’d make money by selling energy, but they don’t, they make money by getting you to invest or buy their equipment.
Anyway, point is, we live at a time where 96kHz/32 bit AD converters are common place, and commonly used in signal testing and analysis. If _ANY_ cable actually was worth high prices it would be super simple to test the output. For instance, record the signal at the speaker terminals for an entire performance you believe shows how good cable A vs. cable B is. Then go in and locate the difference. Perhaps it is frequency, perhaps timing, perhaps amplitude. It’s a lot of data for the 1970s, but all this would fit on anyone’s laptop now and be relatively easy to analyze.
I don’t have the time or energy to do this, anymore than I have the time to measure the power of the latest perpetual motion gizmo, however, this is affordable and practical for most manufacturers to accomplish. That none have done this, except a little done by Analysis Plus (with severe constraints) is why I will always remain somewhat with the skeptics and the "that’s way too expensive for a cable" camp.
So my point is, if you make cables you think do something cool, and worthwhile, I encourage you to undertake this type of basic research, maybe even define how testing should be done so others can follow and we can compare. For the rest of the world, I strongly encourage skepticism and to ask yourself repeatedly if what you are hearing really is worth the cost, or whether the same amount of money is better spent on a vacation.
If you want things which are clearly better than cables, room acoustic treatments by far are much easier to hear, prove they work, and end up with reliably great results.
Best,
E
There’s been a lot of talk about "science" and cables. To me it sounds a lot like free energy, and cold fusion scams. With few exceptions, they invoke a lot of physics, without ever tying it back down to actual results. Fancy words, and lots of them.
In the fusion/energy camps this has become so common that they use a very simple method to find fraud. Like the discovery of the Enron scam, we have learned to compare input to output. Enron was first discovered to be a fraud by simply looking at the income and comparing it to claimed money generated. And oh how they howled that we just didn’t understand the business model.
So, with perpetual motion, fusion, dark matter conversion generators, and what have you, they have a simple test. Compare energy in versus energy out over time. The funny thing is, if any of these things actually worked, you’d think they’d make money by selling energy, but they don’t, they make money by getting you to invest or buy their equipment.
Anyway, point is, we live at a time where 96kHz/32 bit AD converters are common place, and commonly used in signal testing and analysis. If _ANY_ cable actually was worth high prices it would be super simple to test the output. For instance, record the signal at the speaker terminals for an entire performance you believe shows how good cable A vs. cable B is. Then go in and locate the difference. Perhaps it is frequency, perhaps timing, perhaps amplitude. It’s a lot of data for the 1970s, but all this would fit on anyone’s laptop now and be relatively easy to analyze.
I don’t have the time or energy to do this, anymore than I have the time to measure the power of the latest perpetual motion gizmo, however, this is affordable and practical for most manufacturers to accomplish. That none have done this, except a little done by Analysis Plus (with severe constraints) is why I will always remain somewhat with the skeptics and the "that’s way too expensive for a cable" camp.
So my point is, if you make cables you think do something cool, and worthwhile, I encourage you to undertake this type of basic research, maybe even define how testing should be done so others can follow and we can compare. For the rest of the world, I strongly encourage skepticism and to ask yourself repeatedly if what you are hearing really is worth the cost, or whether the same amount of money is better spent on a vacation.
If you want things which are clearly better than cables, room acoustic treatments by far are much easier to hear, prove they work, and end up with reliably great results.
Best,
E