When taras22 and Teo_Audio chime in together on the same thread, it’s a lot of fun to read. Well done.
The Science of Cables
It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why cables sound the way they do. When I see discussions on cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like shielding, gauge, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things like resistance, impedance, inductance, capacitance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
Showing 49 responses by celander
My view is that we all want an audio reproduction system that permits the most revealing yet relaxed reproduction of music. I’m not sure that we are served by pigeonholing viewpoints to the disservice of that goal. Some designers have an intended objective about the criteria of the SQ they strive to achieve—and often that is not necessarily driven by monetary considerations. I’m not sure if articulating those objectives makes a difference to consumers. What matters to most is whether they have a smile on their face when they listen to their audio systems. |
I recall many of John Dunlavy’s emails from that 1996 time period. The DAL speakers pretty much had a 6 ohm nominal impedance. When he entered the speaker cable business, he believed his cables should reflect the impedance of his speakers. So he designed his cables to be an extension of the impedance of his speakers as seen by the amp outputs. John Ulrick, the man behind the Infinity Systems SWAMP and Infinity servoloop-controlled subs for the IRS and later the founder of Spectron Audio that designed the refinement of his class D amps, made a set of cables called Remote Sense cable that extend the negative feedback loop of the his amplifier all the way to the speakers to enable better control over the speaker. A lot of cable designers simply buy bulk spools of wire from a supplier and contract with a conductor weaver vendor and outer jacketing sheath vendor to throw a HEA cable together—whether PC, IC or speaker cable—and call it good. Other designers buy the conductor materials in bulk and refine them prior to creating their final cable products (either during manufactur like Teo Audio or post manufacture like MG through treatments). Why expend this effort, if not to control, fine tune or otherwise obtain their desired properties—whether measurable by test or by listening? With regard to the Schroeder Method, those who doubt its efficacy in improving SQ I suspect haven’t tried it with an open mind. The thread discussion on the topic didn’t start with what is labeled as the Schroeder Method thread described here, however. It is discussed in a few threads in the cable forum, most notably in the Teo Audio cable threads, for example. |
@douglas_schroeder, I think you might be thinking of Grannyring and his Acoustic BBQ brand here on A’Gon. @elizabeth, yes. That is correct. Canare StarQuad brand cables, for example, have 2 conductors per leg (2 signal carrying conductors and 2 returns). A SM dual Canare StarQuad assembly would have 4 conductors per leg tied in parallel. When I asked HAVE, Inc. to make the SM dual Canare StarQuad IC assembies, they simply used 2 separate Canare StarQuad single runs tied in parallel at the RCA or XLR plugs with an outer jacket sheath put around the assembly to keep things tidy. |
My goodness. If every invention got hammered for the materials used rather than the outcome, then how could we have ever ventured out of the cave to create fire and the wheel? The fact that such superb cables were easily improved upon by a simple modification that does not affect the integrity of their construction should be celebrated rather than condemned. |
So I’m going to help out here... https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-science-of-vinyl-analog-setups My hat tip to this thread’s OP. I blatantly copied and modified his original post to create this new one. |
It is inexpensive enough to have HAVE, Inc. assemble a set of SM IC assemblies having a set of parallel IC’s tied together with single sets of connectors in a single sheath. Yet, a set of 4 Y-splitters can be had for even less $$. Thus, testing the efficacy of the SM has a fairly low cost barrier of entry, provided one has the 2 sets of IC’s and set of 4 external splitters on hand. |
Ok. Maybe I can help out here again. Wordsmithing contests can post to the following thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/arguments-devolve-on-threads-to-wordsmithing-contests |
Prof has expounded at length about blind testing methodology. Search for those posts. If I recall the gist of one thread, my take away from those discussions is that blind testing is nearly impossible to do effectively. And I offer this by way of discussion, rather than going down another rabbit hole. |
And I am here to provide another outlet for this thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-posters-intend-to-hurt-the-feelings-of-other-members |
Refresher: the Schroeder Method (“SM”) of interconnect cabling a system refers to taking 2 similar or dissimilar brands of interconnects and connecting them in parallel. Y-splitters can be used for native interconnects. One can also use manufactured assemblies in which the separate interconnects (typically of the same brand and type of core cabling) are configured in parallel and terminated with the desired connectors (RCA, BNC, XLR or AES/EBU). Douglas Schroeder posted the original article here: https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-schroeder-method-interconnect-placement/ The main cable forum thread here is the following: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic In that forum thread are 2 further links to Teo_Audio threads that describe possible mode of action behind the method. Those are essential reading as to the underlying principles that really aren’t addressed in the above thread. Commentary at the end of Schroeder’s Audio Blast article cited above also provides insight. |
It’s worth noting that Mogami was originally used to name a set of 4 Japanese heavy battle cruisers that Japan deployed during WW2. All of them were sunk during the war. “The Mogami class cruisers have been seen by naval architects as a design failure.” Not a great background for such a storied line of the best cables in the world. |
Just because you might have a higher resolving rig does not mean it will necessarily reveal an x-fold increase in SQ by virtue of placing an SM interconnect assembly into such a system that exceeds that experienced in a lower-end system with the same SM interconnect assembly. Which has the greater improvement, a lower-end system that has a 50% improvement in perceived SQ or a high-end system that has a 20% improvement in perceived SQ? |
@douglas_schroeder Ok, so I am confused by these two posts. It might be a benefit to re-post these posts in the Shroeder Method thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic But back to my confusion. In the first paragraph of your first post, you mention the set-up: "I reverted back to my MF transport feeding the Exogal Comet DAC and Ion Power DAC combo." From this description, I gather the transport is only sending digital data as an output signal. And from this statement from your second paragraph, "I once again used the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement with the transport’s AES/EBU output," I gather you are using an SM digital AES/EBU interconnect cable between the transport and the Exogal DAC. And in the final paragraph of your first post, you mention that "AES/EBU with this unit is very sensitive to such cable changes." What is "this unit," the transport or the DAC? But then in your second post above, you clarify the SM IC is being used in the following manner: "AES/EBU is an analogue output." So my confusion is whether you are promoting the SM AES/EBU XLR IC, originally intended as a digital cable, as an analog cable. |
Oy vey.. The above post by Roberjerman is why I recommended Doug copy his two posts to the threads that more aptly discuss those particular IC topologies. I encourage Roberjerman to read Doug’s Dagogo article about parallel IC placement, which includes commentary about applicable theories. This forum has at least three threads devoted to the empirical and theoretical aspects of these IC topologies. The breadcrumb links to those Forum threads are found in the following thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic |