I was serious, give me a credit.
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 44 responses by glupson
Earlier in this thread, a post mentioned... This just in about the ear: The ear is capable of detecting sound where the motion of the cilia in the ear is.... I am sorry, I know it was mentioned more than two months ago but I just noticed it. Does anyone know where the original work about that "less than the width of an atom" can be found? I am really interested in learning about methods used. Any info is much appreciated. |
celander, "glupson, I think one will hear a greater improvement in SQ with the SM of interconnect placement on an entry level audio system than on a $25k-$50k audio system."I have never tried it, I just went by one of the posts in which douglas_schroeder mentioned those numbers as being relevant for his method. |
douglas_schroeder, Despite the stance of a misunderstood prophet that you frequently seem to want to project, nobody is dismissing your method. At least not on the last page or so. It seems that most of us with relatively cheap systems should not expect much difference with it, rendering an attempt futile for now. We can only believe it is great and be thankful for an opportunity and enlightenment you generously bestowed upon us. Thank you. Now, if you could follow this thread’s title and clarify the science of it for those who are tired of empty promises of $50 000 bliss. That would be a much bigger contribution than everything you have done here so far. |
douglas_schroeder, You may be reading too much into anything related to your method. The word "pro" was referring to your sentence "I would be interested whether you use Pro cables, or whether you use aftermarket cables." Not to you as a person or anything else. "You intentionally misquoted me by omitting the word "big" in your summary. Then you proceeded to conclude that I am in error because you add that you could hear changes with a $60 earphone cable."I am not sure where I omitted the word "big". The quote from your post was copy/paste so if computer omitted it, I am guilty as well. Otherwise, it is what you wrote. I would not try to make my case by playing tricks. On the other hand, there is a word "big" somewhere in there. Maybe you omitted it by accident. You would not have done it to discredit me, I am sure. In fact, I was not even trying to make any case but just asking about your thoughts. It was not a trick question, it was a real question. "I have no clue" would be a perfectly legitimate answer. I have no intention of discrediting you, as far as I am concerned the whole world can switch to Schroeder method if it works for them. Still, it was not me who, based on experience, mentioned price of the system as something relevant. It makes sense to me on some primitive level (better is better and more expensive is most of the time better) so you do not need to defend your claims. It is just that I still do not know if you have any thought about the reasons for it or explanation of such observations. As far as me having Karma and Wilson speakers, the bug is saved and geoffkait will stay hungry. My only experience with Wilson speakers is passing by a pair of used Duetta (or something like that) in the hallway of JS Audio in Bethesda. They were not playing at that time. As far as budget goes, my choices are not influenced by budget, but by overall interest of the moment. That extends to audio cables, too. I passed by a Revel showroom just the other day and they have my speakers there at their full price ($5000). Maybe an older design, but still current. I would buy them again, unless some other model comes in yellow. Nobody is railing anything against you and your angelic offers to this community. You are really overly sensitive about things nobody ever spent time to think about. Great that you offer, now let’s go back to the title of this thread and let us know more about the science of it all. My conclusion from this thread is that I was right about geoffkait. He can figure some things out quite well. |
rocks, I have no experience with it, but from douglas_schroeder's post a few days ago... Also, I wouldn’t expect to hear big changes with systems in the $5-10K range if I were changing a single pair of ICs. I remember doing all that and many times there was marginally different result. It takes a rig at about $25K to always hear changes to any cables. Rigs at $50K it has been easy, universal in hearing changes. YMMV |
douglas_schroeder, My system is not a secret although there are no pictures of it anywhere. It is very modest and would not qualify for Schroeder method, just based on price. It is Luxman 505UX amplifier and Revel Performa F208 speakers connected by Monster Cable speaker cables bought in 1994 for about $30/spool of many meters. The sources are Technics SL-Q2 turntable, fully stock except for Soundsmith Otello cartridge, SONY HAP-Z1ES player, and Luxman D-05U SACD player (mostly used as a DAC on the rare days any of these actually get turned on). Interconnects are Shunyata Venom XLR (1 meter, I think), and JIB RCA from eBay ($20 or so for a pair). There is one more 90cm USB cable, unknown brand, bought for $10-15. Power cords are whatever came with actual machines. All in all, a mix of stock and aftermarket cables with perfectly functional electronics on the lower side of passionate discussion. Once I use any of the above for a career/earning, it will become Pro. Until then, it is just a conglomerate of metal, rubber, plastic, and whatever else goes in it. To keep in line with the title of this thread, do you have any thought why it takes $25 000 or 50 000 system to notice the difference/improvement with the Schroeder method while it took $60 to notice the difference between earphone cables (it was not for better, though)? Any science behind it? Theory? Wild guess? |
">>>>>>Did your dog tell you that?"I have faith in that dog and am leaving science for cable science threads that do not include much science. There must be a reason nobody ever says "a cable is man's best friend". Trust your dog, not your cable. Unless you manufacture cables, then you really have a very skinny best friend, all grounded in science of faith. |
douglas_schroeder, I have no argument against Schroeder method. I mentioned "burn-in" as it is frequently mentioned when talking about cables. I am aware that this thread has become "Schroeder method"-focused despite its title being about the science of cables, not only about Schroeder method cables. Do not forget, there is a thread about Schroeder method only somewhere on Audiogon, too. The title of this thread is The Science Of Cables. It is quite long to read it all again, but most of the recent posts invite trials/experimentation rather than discuss theoretical basis of cables. Not that science cannot not include trials/experimentation, but there is not much theory being presented here lately. |
"Go buy the ones that make you feel happy..."That is a practical problem. How will you know which one will make you happy? I know you can go to the store and ask to compare two pairs of speakers, or amplifiers, but does the same happen with cables? Reading through these threads, I got an impression that any observation "I do not think that sounds any better" may be met by "they need longer burn-in". In the end, there may be no practical way to win and find a cable that will make you happy, unless it already makes you happy before you walk in the store. Do stores allow for returns and refund of cables? After a month or two of "burn-in"? |
taras22, "Flowing lava" did not refer to your cables in particular. It was just an imaginary thing instead of writing "all those complicated and marvelous descriptions of cable constructions that manufacturers present in order to justify their existence, attract potential customers, and distance their products from competitors’". I understand you may be a little more sensitive about this topic than an ordinary person would be, but do not think that every word ever written is about you and against you. Actually, a little later, I happily gave benefit of the doubt to your cables. In fact, they are really an interesting concept that I mention from time to time to describe how people try to change usual ways in this field. Have you ever thought that maybe it is not all of them, but one of you? If your message is not coming through and deniers, or whatever they can be called, are not switching sides that quickly, my guess about the reasons for it may be slightly more accurate than yours. I am not bragging, I am trying to let you know that not everyone out here/there is out to get you. You do not need to attack people all the time thinking how you will get them first. Toning it down may bring you more ears willing to listen to you and more overall happiness. Simply and simplistically so. |
douglas_schroeder, Just for a little amusement, as skeptical as I am about stunning differences between cables, I spent better part of the afternoon fighting to change the cable on my earphones (actually only one of them, the other one went smoothly). The new one, call it aftermarket, that got stuck on it was, to me, noticeably different/worse than the old original one. I believe the description would be "muddy" or "veiled", maybe something third, so I wanted to switch back. After destroying a large part of that earphone and then reassembling it to a large extent, it is back to "good" now. I would not do it again. I certainly would not be able to sell it as "mint" to anyone. Had I only been more careful with Crazy Glue. Add my limited experience with XLR interconnects ($15-16 vs. $300) and, at best, no change if not a little worse. No more "aftermarket" cables for me. "Aftermarket" because I think that most of the things, save for headphones, actually come without cables making almost every cable "aftermarket". Well, ok, I forgot power cords. Out of curiosity, do you have an explanation why tripling interconnects did not yield more improvement than doubling? |
taras22, I see your last, or at least last to me, point but I think it is a bit off. Not much, but a bit. Cables may be dismissed as being capable of significant differences because they are, in essence and not in some very complicated "flowing lava"-kind of example, simple. At least in the minds of those suspicious ones. It is a wire and that is what, according to the understanding of most, conducts. Not much in between beginning and the end of it. These days, there are many things wrapped around, but it still stays metal inside. That is how those who are not in love with cables seem to think according to most of the posts on these threads. It is not that they feel threatened and want to stop progress of any kind just to stay in their comfort zone. It is that they are not buying the story of "active ingredient" in a cable being so different. They feel they are trying to be fooled and taken for a ride. Not many here seem to be over-educated in physics. Basic knowledge, but hardly much more. And basic knowledge does not leave much room for stunning differences between wires. Going way above basic knowledge starts requiring a lot more. More formulae, bigger picture, more exact definitions. And those who are on that level do not buy "it sounds better and you cannot calculate it because I just came up with some hocus-pocus explanation". So, simpler ones may not be sophisticated enough to grasp and more sophisticated ones are not getting answers that are sophisticated enough. Again, I am not talking about liquid metal which, after all, is also a metal. It gets more slippery to claim or contradict something about that because there has not been a century or two of experience, for all I know. It is simply hard to believe, unless you are a priori firm believer, that changes in anything which is already on a fairly decent level can be so impressive. Noticeable maybe, but Earth-shattering (or whatever other description gets mentioned) just does not seem believable. It just does not. Many people take it as a marketing language that is common these days and they do not take it seriously. They may think "if that can truly be so spectacular, you may be too impressionable". |
douglas_schroeder, I do not really consider myself anything when it comes to cables. I am not an agnostic, I am aware they exist and they need to exist. I do not belong to either side in this thread and leave it open that there may be something to it, but am not religiously accepting it without suspicion. That position makes me a bit more credible than anyone who has any investment in cables. No conflict of interest, minimal bias. I read this thread as something informational, a window to others' views and emotions about cables. I stay away from commenting about actual differences between cables here, or theories about them. I have not tried many and am not planning to. It would take a lots of time and effort and it is not my thing. As this thread is not only about cable technicalities, but touched marketing, pricing, etc., I mentioned a few things that I noticed. Price of NASA cables and praises that make claims less believable than they may deserve to be. Once changes are "spectacular" and "dramatic", not many will convert or seriously consider it. They will think it is a joke. Less dramatic descriptions or agitated responses may yield better responses and more fruitful discussion. |
taras22, I have no team, but I also have not seen participants in disagreement with you being trashed wholesale at all. My remark about jhills being in the lead was about his statement that no other industry uses $1000/foot cables. NASA was implied at some point and it turns out that even those are cheaper. |
Does anyone else see this thread as religious? One side is sure, the other one is sure it is not. Both sides are sure that others would be righteous only if they converted. Beliefs, personalities, preaching, witnesses of miraculous changes... If I remember correctly, elizabeth does have a car now. Ford Focus ST, manual transmission. |
"Will you please tells us which specific claims are troubling you?" I cannot speak for jhills, but maybe he had something like this on his mind. Just one of many and not specific to a particular manufacturer. "...we acted on the new information and built cable assemblies that incorporated this idea and the results produced spectacular results." Would it qualify as "Such a penchant for hyperbole"? |
"...an eutectic alloy of gallium, indium and tin, which neatly undercuts your claim that the only metal that is liquid at room temperature is mercury."Probably, it meant "the only natural-occurring metal". It may not be fair comparison. I am not sure, but I think I recall that none of these three mentioned in alloy are liquid at room temperature when alone. Concept of liquid cables is intriguing, to say the least. It makes regular people wonder "why would you"? I tried mentioning it and that was the response. More entertaining to me is that in forums that mention "snake oil" so often, someone brings up the product that has one of the descriptors as oil. Viscosity. I have never heard, and likely never will, liquid cables so I will give them benefit of the doubt that they are great. At the same time, as novelty and conversation piece, they are very clever and interesting. Five stars for that. |
taras22, I did not pay attention about the poster's name (you in this case), but noticed the words used. I focused on content, rather than a person writing it. Later, I did go back to see whose post that was.I did not even have him on my mind when quoting a sentence from his post. It is possible, it is very possible. It is so possible that it truly happened. |
douglas_schroeder, "glupson, just a mild point to interject. I’m not interested in jousting with you verbally. I find that is not productive for us, nor the community."I agree. This is my first post/reply directed at you as I have no opinion about your method. It may be great, it may not be. My only attempt at contribution has been to explain that some of the messages about perceived benefits of cables may get disregarded because of excessive and hard-to-believe praise. That was all. |
geoffkait, I am aware of that. It is that I feel that jhills was pointing to such words as "wild claims" which, in the minds of many, they really are. I see no problem in using them, but it should be no surprise when someone doubts them. They may catch the eyes of some in a desired way while jhills and some others will be more realistic. I am not sure how many people take magazine reviews seriously anymore. They are full of such words and they may cause "alarm fatigue" of some sort. |
geoffkait, There is no routine. I had no taras22 on my mind when reading jhills’ posts I was focusing on. I did not even have him on my mind when quoting a sentence from his post. It just happens that was the sentence I had read a moment prior to that and used it as an example. Why he seems so offended by it is beyond me. |
taras22, Fortunately, I have no interest in scoring any points in any kind of debate. I just noticed that your reference was something that clearly had "eye-catching" in the text. I admit I missed your ear catching part. It may be due to its incorrect written presentation. By the way, my mentioning "spectacular" had nothing to do with the fact that you might have heard some difference in whatever you were listening to. It was about "wild claims" that jhills had mentioned. To many people, putting "spectacular" in such a description makes it seem much less believable than describing it in a little bit less bombastic way. Luckily for you, some people would still find it believable. I noticed that you repeatedly tend to resort to insulting my English language skills. It is not the greatest way of presenting yourself. It is a spectacular way to show your character, though. |
taras22, Hate to nitpick but this is definitely what you wrote (copied and pasted from your post)... spec·tac·u·lar Dictionary result for spectacular/spekˈtakyələr/adjective beautiful in a dramatic and eye-catching way. "spectacular mountain scenery"Or, better to say, someone else wrote it for you. No "ear-catching" in sight. You surely have not changed over the last 6 months. |