2. misc-audio
  3. 1346485705

Some Thought on Cables and Tweaks

What is the mechanism by which a cable or tweak produces an audible difference in a system? It seems clear that the flow of electrons is being altered or colored in some way. We sometimes hear talk about the best cables doing nothing and we sometimes hear the word "neutral" when referring to cables but I personally feel these are both inaccurate descriptions. A cable cannot be doing nothing. The physics militates against this claim. And, frankly, I don't know what the word "neutral" means when referring to cables.

I don't think any tweak maker would claim their tweak was doing nothing or is “neutral”. I don't think that customers would line up for their products under those conditions. But I find it interesting that cable customers line up under those very same conditions. My question is this: what is the difference between a cable and a line tweak in this respect? After all, some tweaks are even incorporated into cables.

Has any cable maker or any audiophile or any physicist -- actually seen electrons during the process of being altered or colored? I doubt that anyone has. Can anyone say with complete accuracy what is actually going on in cables or tweaks to produce the results they produce? I doubt that anyone can. There are few cable or tweak makers who will admit to this.

It seems as though the proof for what goes on with cables and tweaks is mostly empirical. The physics may be understood by some -- to one degree or another -- but the proof is in the pie. To tell you the truth, that's good enough for me as long as the resulting sound is good. I am not very intellectual when it comes to the sound of my system. But I am curious as to how much cable makers really know about what their cables are doing because most of the cables I have had in my system have been nothing to write home to Mama about.

Some cable makers and tweak makers produce more verbiage than you can shake a stick at to describe what their products do. How many cable makers or tweak makers really understand the physics of their products well enough to describe accurately what is going on with their products? I believe they have mostly arrived where they are at not through understanding the physics of cables and tweaks but by experimenting -- with metals -- with "geometries" (whatever that word means)-- with dialectrics -- with shielding. I believe most of the theories being promulgated for most of the cables and tweaks are an afterthought. The best makers come up with products that create great sound. The rest -- well, let's be kind and say run-of-the-mill.

There are a whole lot of audiophiles chasing a whole lot of cables and tweaks based on manufacturers’ claims. But how reliable are those claims that have high end audiophiles chasing one product after another? If even a fraction of those claims were true then there would be a lot less chasing going on. I mean, how many truly great cables and tweaks are there out there? A lot less than are advertised as being great. IMO.
sabai

Showing 6 responses by sabai

sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Nonoise,
Your comments ring very true. If we look critically at reviews instead of accepting what is said at face value we can find all sorts of contradictions -- and ample evidence of outright manipulation. It has been mentioned many times that it is rare to find a negative review of any audio product. I believe this is a true statement. This begs many questions. It calls into question, ipso facto, the veracity of many comments in audio reviews.

Geoffkait,
Better does not mean neutral to me because I have no idea what neutral means when referring to audio cables. I don't think anyone has ever elucidated this term in such as way as to elicit agreement on its meaning -- and agreement on what cables reach this standard. Since all cables are altered or colored by their make-up I think it is obvious that no cable can call itself neutral.

Your list is a very comprehensive compendium of the various factors that affect the quality of cables. But I don't believe all of these factors will always make for better cables. For instance. I have an active cable that sounds awful in my system when the MPC is connected. The MPC must be disconnected for the best sound to emerge. I think a number of your other points could be the subject of lively debate, as well. Nonetheless I do agree that the total absence of any of these factors will make for a poor sounding cable.
sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Ivan_nosnibor,
This is an intriguing thought. All I can do is speculate.
sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Mt10425,
With all due respect, there must be at least 100 high end cable makers -- enough to fill more than 2 buses.
sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Mt10425,
Are you referring to wire assemblers?
sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Bryoncunningham,
Your points are very well taken. You stated, "And I understand 'coloration' to mean 'audible inaccuracy.'" This is interesting. You seem to mean "the more color, the less accurate". If I understand you correctly, I would agree with your statement. Now we have to look at describing what we mean by "color". That's a tough one.

Mrtennis, you stated, "you can measure some parameters associated with cables. but there are probably some which cannot be measured, which is why objective measurement does not fully correlate with listening." I agree completely. The human ear and human brain are infinitely more subtle than any measurements. That's one reason I take John Atkinson's measurements with a grain of salt. Unless you listen to what he is describing there is little meaning in the numbers, per se.

You also stated, "as for tweaks, who knows what to measure. i think one has to be an empiricist and use tweaks and listen." Once again, I agree completely. Only experimenting and listening can tell the tale.
sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Ivan_nosnibor and Geoffkait,
Your points are well taken. Using a so-called "loom" from one well-known cable maker turned into what I will politely call the wrong decision for my system. The claimed synergy was pale in comparison to what it was when I mixed and matched.

Selling the concept of a "loom" is a very profitable thing. It is an easy concept for a maker to sell based on convenience and superior results. Unfortunately those hoped-for results may not be there and all youo are left with is the convenience that works mostly in favor of the maker. I have read "looms" work well for some audiophiles. They have not worked well in system.

Manufacturers can claim anything they wish based on whatever they wish. But you will never know the truth until you get their products into your system. I have had "looms" from two well-known cable makers. In one case, their highly heralded cables seriously constricted the sound stage and reduced most other parameters, as well, including low level detail and transparency. Their marketing is largely based on the charm of the owner and designer -- and all the hype they can muster with the active support of various audio reviewers. I learned a lot from this experience -- caveat emptor and don't believe everything you read in the reviews of prestigious audio reviewers.
More to discover