Hype, Hyperbole and high price!

Like the OP I too have been an audiophile since approximately 1979.  And I too spent my career at what during its latter stages became a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, performing and managing design of analog and digital circuits.  And I too am frequently and greatly turned off by claims and explanations in audio-related marketing literature, as well as in forums, that I know to either be complete BS, or that I know to have little or no likelihood of being great enough in degree to be audibly significant. 

In the recent past there was a very lengthy thread here entitled "Why do people feel the need to buy expensive cable."  I posted the following in that thread, which I think is sufficiently relevant to be worth repeating here in its entirety. 

To put it all succinctly, my opinion is that as with most things in life the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground between extremist points of view.

Almarg 3-15-2016 3:30pm EDT
1)Wires sound different, to a greater or lesser degree depending not only on the wire but on the technical characteristics of what they are connecting, their lengths, the AC voltage and noise characteristics at the particular location in the case of power cords (at least), the system, the room, the recording, and the listener.

2)For many reasons, including synergy with the aforementioned variables, the correlation between cable price and cable performance is significantly less than 1.0 (i.e., significantly less than perfect).

3)Based in part on a substantial body of anecdotal evidence that has accumulated over the years, the correlation between cable price and cable performance is significantly greater than 0.0 (i.e., significantly greater than none).

4)It seems evident that some cables are overpriced, one reason among several being that their prices are determined in part based on what the market will bear. And it seems evident that SOME segment of the market assumes a higher degree of correlation between cable price and cable performance than is actually the case, and that segment of the market will therefore pay higher prices to achieve results that may (with sufficient experimentation) be achievable at lower prices in their particular cases.

5)Additional reasons that cables may in many cases be overpriced relative to the benefit they are likely to provide (I’m quoting from myself in the following thread from a couple of years ago; and pardon the redundancy with some of the points mentioned above):

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/small-cable-companies-making-preposterous-claims

(a)As seems to be generally agreed by most audiophiles, cable performance is highly system dependent.

(b)From a technical standpoint, it can be expected that cable performance will vary significantly depending on the technical characteristics of the components that are being connected, such as impedances. Even to the point of a comparison between two cables yielding exactly opposite results depending on what they are connecting. In past threads, such as this one, I have cited examples of situations in which exactly that can be expected to occur. [See especially both of the paragraphs in my post in that thread dated 12-15-2012 which begin with "one interesting example"].

(c)It seems to be generally agreed by most audiophiles that cable performance cannot be either fully explained or fully predicted based on generally recognized science. It follows from that, however, that the cable designers have no way to accurately predict the point of demarcation between optimization of a given cable parameter or design characteristic and what may be overkill of that parameter or design characteristic, which will accomplish nothing in most or all applications. Therefore it can be expected that what is likely to be a significant driver of the cost of many very expensive cables is overkill of some or all of their design parameters and characteristics, which will accomplish nothing in most or all applications.

6)It can be expected that if SOME audiophiles whose cable experience has focused disproportionately on the higher part of the price spectrum were to give equal opportunity to a variety of cables at lower price points, and experiment with such cables as extensively as they do with higher priced cables, there is a significant chance that they may be able to achieve performance comparable to what they have achieved at those higher price points at significantly lower price points. A substantial body of anecdotal evidence that has been reported here and elsewhere supports that conclusion, for example the threads about vintage Western Electric wires.

7)It can be expected that if SOME audiophiles whose cable experience has focused disproportionately or entirely on the lower part of the price spectrum were to focus on the higher part of the price spectrum they might in some cases, depending in part on their equipment, be surprised at how good the results are. A substantial body of anecdotal evidence that has been reported here and elsewhere supports that conclusion

8)Some audiophiles care more than others about achieving the last 5 or 10 or 20% of the performance their components are capable of. Some are satisfied with 80% and just want to listen to music. Both approaches are equally valid.

9)Assertions that wire is just wire are erroneous, and that belief should not be promulgated.

10)Assertions that more expensive necessarily = better are also erroneous, and that belief should not be promulgated, by implication or otherwise.

11)Just as not all audible differences are measurable, not all measurable differences are audible. I say that in connection with measurable differences that are presented in some marketing literature.

12)An assertion that spending more on cables rather than less increases the **probability** of achieving optimal results is arguably correct, but pronouncements to that effect are not gospel. And opinions to the contrary, if presented in a respectful manner, can and should be discussed in a respectful manner.

Kenny928, thanks for your bravery in initiating this thread.

Regards,
-- Al

Grm 5-6-2016
I guess I’m in over my head here, not for lack of trying... Lesson learned!

No, you’re not in over your head at all, IMO. In fact your post struck me as as a very credible recitation of your experience, and as raising some particularly intelligent questions.

Regarding "it’s a digital signal, should they not sound the same?," the reasons differences in digital cables can significantly affect the sonics of a system are technically explainable, and are well established. They relate primarily to small short-term random or pseudo-random fluctuations in the times at which the component receiving the signal detects the transitions that the signal makes between its two voltage states. That is referred to as "jitter," and will generally result to some degree in fluctuations in the timing of D/A conversion.

Among different coax or other electrical cables, the amount of jitter that will result with a given cable in a given system, at the point where D/A conversion is performed within the DAC (which is where it matters) depends on a complex (and mostly unpredictable) set of relationships and interactions between the parameters of the cable, including length, impedance accuracy, shielding effectiveness, shield resistance, propagation velocity, bandwidth, etc., and the technical characteristics of the components it is connecting, including signal risetimes and falltimes, impedance accuracy, jitter rejection capability, ground loop susceptibility, etc.

And with respect to optical cables, as you reported finding those can be beneficial due to their immunity to ground loop issues (which can significantly affect jitter, btw, as well as causing hum), but they also bring additional variables and unknowns into the mix, including the quality and various technical characteristics of the optical transducers in the two connected components.

For more than you’ll ever want to know about the subject, see the following paper by a distinguished academician and researcher:

http://www.scalatech.co.uk/papers/dunn_hawksford_1992.pdf

Note, though, that this paper was written in 1992, and arguably the issues it raises about jitter are even more critical in many of today’s systems, due to the greater resolution many of today’s systems can be expected to provide, compared to many of those of earlier times.

Good luck, and welcome to Audiogon! Not all threads here are as controversial as this one :-)
-- Al

Uncledemp 5-7-2016
If engineering expertise can be applied in a factual manner to audio, why does a company not dominate as a result?

Seriously, I often read what doesn’t work. But what does? I assume electrical engineers are designing at least some of the available equipment. Is it just the nature of audio that lends itself to this differing of application and result?

There are a multitude of factors that are involved, some of which have been well stated in the previous responses to your question. I would say simply that as in many other technical fields, for example medicine, audio is an inexact science.

And I’ll add that a good engineer is open-minded enough to recognize that while circuits and systems can be analyzed and measured, some things inherently have little or no predictability. One example, among countless others that could be cited, being the effects of electrical noise that may be coupled into a circuit. Or the effects involving digital cables that I referred to in my post near the top of this page.

Also, just as in the case of, for example, an automobile, any design represents a unique combination of a vast number of tradeoffs. And as with automobiles, no matter how perfect the net result of those tradeoffs may be, no one company will dominate because different people have different tastes, different practical requirements, and different budgets.

Regards,
-- Al