The Science of Cables

mkgus,

You have walked in to a church and questioned God’s existence.

Good luck.

Only in the audio industry, is anyone gullible enough to fall for the wild claims and ridiculous prices of wires and cables selling upward and over $1000.00 per foot.

It's not all audiophiles.  It's mainly the category of audiophiles who fully trust their subjective experience as the primary source of truth.  When you live in that paradigm, "anything is possible" which is why such an extraordinary range of phenomena come to be believed in that paradigm  (It's the same paradigm that ratifies every religion, cult, pseudo-science, etc - note how Flat Earthers constantly talk about "believing what your senses tell you about the world even if some stuffy scientist disagrees!"  Sound a bit familiar?).

Congratulations taras22. Your post exemplified the kind of cluelessness about the nature of science that can lead one to pseudo-scientific beliefs.

You’ve completely misunderstood the lessons of science in general, Newton in particular.

Apparently you wish to use Newton’s incorrect calculation about the age of the earth to draw the lesson "See? Even great scientists can be wrong...so we can’t just go trusting science!"

But anyone who knows a thing about the scientific method already knows you don’t use "Faith In Something Some Genius Revealed To Us." The whole point of science derives from the very fallibility of ANYONE. It’s the Method, not The Man. Just because a man was wrong...as every person who ever lived has been wrong about one thing or another....doesn’t give warrant for undermining the scientific method.

Newton is actually the perfect example. Many acknowledge him as perhaps the greatest mind to have ever lived. And the lesson of Newton is this: When he applied his great intellect to phenomena that could be seen and tested by all, and created testable theories which could be reliably replicated by anyone, despite their religion or lack of religion, he revolutionized useful knowledge for humankind with his theories of gravity (and others).
His theories were, and continue to be, used to successfully predict endless phenomena which work under those theories.

Kepler’s laws were useful within their domain of accuracy as well.

But what happened when each of those men turned their formidable intellects to the untestable realms of "Faith" "revelation" "religious belief?"


Both men were fervent Christians who took ancient scripture as utterly authoritative.

You got Newton working for 30 years on a religious treatise that languishes in obscurity and has helped no one, and produced no reliable knowledge. And in combination with ignorance of modern dating methods that they didn’t have back then, with taking the scriptures as historically accurate....you get total miscalculations of the type you reference, from both men.

This shows how much it is The Method that is more important than The Man, and when you appeal to "people...magic or otherwise" for your authority you will fall in to all sorts of pot holes. Recognizing the fallibility of human beings within your method, writing skepticism and doubt in to the method, acknowledging that anything you think you’ve demonstrated could be in error and that others should seek to replicate or show where you are wrong, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "fundamentalim" and "dogmatism."

Understanding that human’s are error prone and taking that seriously in your method - e.g. controlling for sighted bias - is the EXACT OPPOSITE of faith or fundamentalism.

That you mix these up is why you believe some of the things you apparently believe.

And you also imply an incorrect lesson about Newtonian theories of gravity and Eisenstein. Newtonian theory was not removed by developments from Einstein and others...it was *improved upon.* It was accurate within it’s domain for the most part, but was incomplete as a description and a new theory was required to explain things Newtonian physics could not. It’s still a usefully accurate account at a certain scale which is why it’s still used for that scale. If Newton’s theory were simply ’wrong’ you wouldn’t be able to explain why it works so reliably as it does . In many if not most day to day level applications, employing the more elaborate general relativity theory won’t yield you usefully more accurate results, so Newtonian physics is a perfectly useful model for most day to day calculations.

Whenever anyone appeals to science, you like to bring up bogus examples and ideas to sow a sort of mistrust in the appeal to science.  It just shows a dedication to psuedo-science.   And it’s particularly ironic because you are left to answer this question: In every case were ’the science’ has been shown to be ’wrong,’ incomplete or inaccurate....what method was it that uncovered those problems?

You guessed it: science. It’s got a self-correcting mechanism built in that tends to weed out error over time.


No one should get to have his own pet theory made safe - one that is not vetted scientifically - by trying the old "but they called Galileo Crazy" or"But Science Has Been Wrong Before!" trope, as if errors in previous science make unvetted pseudo-scientific claims less dubious

Claims about cables, especially extraordinary claims, ought to be able to pass the same vetting method as any other science.


That’s not a fact favorable to purveyors of expensive high end cables based on dubious theories, or to those who believe their subjective impressions can not be in error, which is no doubt why it receives some pushback

cleeds,

You keep raising that question, even though it's been answered a number of times.  Here we go again....

You assume people skeptical about boutique cable claims haven't 'done the work.'   But note that most of the skepticism comes from the engineering world in which people work with the electrical theories in question.  It is from an understanding - theoretical and practical - of how electrical components work that many EEs and other technically qualified skeptics conclude many audiophile claims are bogus.  The "work" on electrical theory and cables has essentially "been done."At least, this is a common position of most EE skeptics I've read.

Further, there have been plenty of technically knowledgeable skeptics who HAVE done technical and blind testing of cable claims.   Someone has posted quite a few here:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

Science oriented web sites like Hydrogen Audio contain plenty of technical tests on audio components, including cables, and blind test results of all sorts of audio components.   You can find more technical tests on Audio Science Review, and on Archimego's blog.

More recently, skeptic Ethan Winer has proposed a null test for cable claims...and you can see videos of him showing the results.

I myself have, as I've explained before, blind-tested cables and other devices.

So this objection you continually raise...as if it had any force...just seems ignorant of all the reasons skeptics give for rejecting many of the claims from high end cable companies, and the knowledge, and work, those objections are based upon.

geoff,

Given your web site: yes,  I see you have trouble identifying extraordinary claims ;-)

iasi,

Many skeptics would not say that cables have an impact on sound quality...but not necessarily in the ways many audiophiles believe.  That is: a basic, well designed cable, properly chosen for the job at hand (e.g. capacitance etc for a given length/job)...is essentially transparent.  That is, it's not the case that any time you change a cable the sound ought to change because "all cables 'sound' different."

But, yes, choose the wrong cable for the job and you can get something like a tone control (e.g. rolling off the high end), so in that sense cables can sound different.

That caveat out of the way.

I have often pointed out that audiophiles swooning over the 'sound' of their latest expensive cable purchase are simultaneously swooning over the sound of the relatively basic, cheap, industry-grade cables used to create most of the recordings we listen to.  

ieales

Many studios do use 'high-end' cables. I wired many with Mogami, Canare, Belden, Monster, etc.

Agreed.  Most of the studios whose cabling I know of, tended to use Canare or Belden or a combination for much of the equipment.  (I had a bunch of custom-length cables for my own systems made by a supplier to local professional studios).


But I would personally differentiate those cable companies from "High End" cable companies, which to me denote those in the audiophile-sales industry - the Nordost, Audioquest, Shunyatta's of the world - who charge far more, and make more extravagant and dubious claims,  than the industry average prices for Canare or Belden.

taras22

I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed by a number of others that, yet again, you posted some more nonsense about science and, when that nonsense was taken apart, you ignore the points (because you have no plausible replies) and retreat back to childish sniping.

Well...whatever suits you I guess.  Have at it.

taras22


You attempted your usual: "don’t be so dogmatic about science because science doesn’t know everything, scientific knowledge isn’t absolute, and even the greatest scientists got some things ridiculously wrong."

I explained as I have to you over and over before, how utterly that misses the point. That’s all a given - it’s THE POINT behind being skepticism. Science is built on skepticism. As I’ve said so many times, people aren’t perfect therefore science isn’t perfect, but it is the most rigorous and intellectually honest method we’ve created for getting at reliable knowledge about the empirical world. That’s why, as I often point out to your diatribes trying to undermine science: the only reason we ’know’ previous science to be wrong was...doing better science. If you think you have something better than the scientific method to vet empirical claims, it’s up to you to make the case for this alternative method. Otherwise...enough with these red herrings about the obvious fact scientists can get things wrong.

You retreat from that fact every time, only to show up and cast aspersions at anyone who adduces science in a way that challenges your cherished beliefs about cables.


And you’ve ignored that I showed why the examples you gave of Newton and Kepler illustrated what happens when even great scientists go off the path of good empirical methods.


Being in favor of a method of inquiry that asks for evidence for claims and bu it’s very nature, has skepticism about one’s own beliefs and and tentatively held knowledge is literally the opposite of dogmatism.


But since this challenges your cherished notions about your subjective impression of cables, and you can’t actually rebut that fact, instead of admitting it you just move to repeating "you are dogmatic" over and over, in the vain hope it sticks.

Oh...and the old standby: "You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity."


How novel.

Its not only bad form, especially when you resort to calling the non-believers stupid or idiots or ignorant, but back-slapping self-righteousness is going end up really hurting your shoulder.

Of course, I did none of that. Every single person, no matter how smart, can be fooled. That’s why the great scientist Richard Feynman cautioned scientists about empirical investigation: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."


What’s wrong with being intellectually honest, consider the points someone is ACTUALLY making, instead of making stuff up to disparage?

taras22,

You are clearly referring to your post in which you wrote:

taras:

So if you are happy with functional mediocrity go ahead and knock yourself out, but please don’t try to impose your rather dogmatic beliefs on others.

And I paraphrased your implication as:

Prof:

"You are the one being dogmatic, and must simply enjoy mediocrity."

Now you try to wiggle out of your own insult, as if my paraphrasing was inaccurate.  As if your insult was merely "conditional" and not a direct implication.   And yet you know very well I’ve mentioned many times I use Belden cables, and in this very thread I had just repeated that fact. And obviously I’m happy with them...or I’d change them. That I use and am happy with Belden cable is not an unknown, therefore your clumsy insult CLEARLY entailed that I am happy with mediocrity.  And obviously declared me to be dogmatic.


Your attempt to paint my paraphrasing as a dishonest characterization of your implication is just...shameless on your part.

Ok, I’m done with responding to lame red herrings at this point.

Carry on revolutionizing electronics! Looks like you’ve got some people who think you are a source of reliable information on that subject ;-)

erik,

I sometimes use my old Eico HF-81 integrated tube amp and I quite enjoy using the tone controls.  I don't go adjusting them for every recording of course as that level of fiddling would for me suck the joy out of music listening.   But it's nice to have them to tweak the sound a bit.

Of course, agreed about your thoughts on cables.

As I've mentioned often on the subject:  I have auditioned many of the latest, greatest speakers in the under 20K range, all of them hooked up via highly lauded audiophile interconnects, speaker cables, attached to sources with high end AC cabling...all of that.  And yet I find I get essentially just as stellar sound quality at home, with all the detail and naturalness, and a "shock guests" quality of realism.  How in the world could this be possible using bog-standard cables so dismissed by the cable-elitists?

As you say: paying attention to the things that matter most; good speakers, careful speaker positioning, good room acoustics, etc.I find it much more rewarding, not to mention financially satisfying, than spending thousands of dollars trying to find wires to act as tone controls.

taras,

Except for the fact that you contradict yourself by consciously choosing specific cables for the given system in hand ---to act as tone controls.

Try looking up the fallacy "Begging The Question."

Then get back to me. 


(Hint, you are asserting that Belden cables do not pass a signal faithfully, when properly employed, and act as a "tone control' that audibly alters frequency response.  That type of claim is the very one under dispute.   You haven't remotely established that case that Belden cables as a matter of course alter frequency response...let alone in MY specific use case.  So, no, you don't just get a pass on such assertions.  Again...keep swinging at the air if that's what turns you on....)

@douglas_shroeder

I imagine that if you would dismiss all these persons' conclusions you would say it is due to confirmation bias. 

FWIW...I personally don't simply dismiss your findings as confirmation bias.

Not that I know either way how the perceived effect is occurring, but I don't dismiss it out of hand.   I'm sure it's fun to play with these things, especially if you get results, obviously.

Though I gave up playing with cables quite a while ago, I still do my own tweaking sometimes(usually with acoustics).  Hey..it's a hobby!

douglas,

I'm unclear about what you mean when citing "explanations for analogue ."  Especially given you've mentioned vinyl.

Are you saying there is no one out there citing measurable, objective basis for why vinyl can sound different from digital sources?  

@douglas_schroeder


I read your whole post, which seems an extension of your first paragraph:

Prof, no, I am saying there appears to be no measurable, objective basis for cultivation of an analogue rig. I see that the same largely subjective assessment is used by analogue lovers in their use and consumerism as cable users. My concern is not at all with the topic of distinction between signals/sound quality of analogue vs digital.
I find the question somewhat strangely put.

But I’d like to untangle what you would actually be asking and of whom.

IF you mean to level charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency in the audiophile world, you will certainly find large targets. Especially in the subjective-oriented audiophile world.

So if you want to say: "I evaluate whether cables make a difference by putting them in my system and seeing if I hear a difference. How can YOU be critical of me if that’s how YOU evaluate the rest of your analog system!"

And if this is your charge....I completely agree with you; there would be a lot of hypocrisy.

And I would say both sides (you and the people you are calling hypocritical) are using a suspect methodology for gaining reliable knowledge.

But...are you really lobbing your charge of hypocrisy at fellow purely-subjectivist audiophiles? It doesn’t seem to me they are the ones largely responsible for skepticism about cables in the first place.

On the other hand:

If you are saying that the case for someone having an analog system - and you seem to be targeting vinyl/turntables - is NO BETTER than the case you make for high end cables, then I’d certainly disagree.
Take loudspeakers.

There are controversies and arguments about loudspeaker design and goals, even among the most hard-nosed skeptical, degreed engineers.

But there is no controversy over whether speakers actually can and do sound different from one another. Why? Because the type of sonic results introduced in many choices in speaker design produce differences well in to the known audible range for human beings. (There’s plenty of science on human hearing, and also quite a bit correlating audibility and consequences of a range of audio parameters, distortions, etc).
Bias still comes in to play even with speakers - hence you get science by people such as Floyd Toole and Harman Kardon trying to remove bias when correlating speaker design choices with perception.


But the fact that speakers sound different from one another has such obvious and uncontroversial plausibility....through the most subjective to the most accredited objectivist...that reporting "i heard a difference between speaker X and Y" is entirely plausible.


The cable phenomenon isn’t like that. As you know, it is highly controversial. And the skepticism, tends to come those who: 1. Know what they are talking about in terms of electrical theory - Electrical Engineers tend to be in the skeptics camp. 2. People who pay attentionto the poor quality of arguments given for cable differences, especially AC cables.

So given:

1. The claims about cable differences are often disputed among people with the requisite knowledge to vet such claims and...


2. We know how much influence human bias has on our perception.
Then skepticism is a reasonable approach when people claim they know cable A sounds better than cable B because "I could hear the difference!"
it begs all credulity to accept that the problem of bias, so obvious in our every day dealings with each other, and so well established specifically scientifically, is something that we don’t have to bother with....just when it comes to our own pet hobby of audio.


So it’s far from a given that when someone says "I heard a big difference between cable A and B" there are good reasons to not immediately accept this, and retain skepticism, and ask for better than anecdotal evidence.



So...back to vinyl.  The relationship of vinyl/turntables to cables is similar to that of speakers to cables.


It is NOT a controversial claim that "We can hear differences between vinyl sources and a digital counterpart." I’ve never seen even the most diabolically "objectivist" engineer claim that vinyl and digital are by nature indistinguishable. In fact, they will more often tend to point out the MEASURABLE ways in which vinyl departs from accuracy, how distortion is intruded via the various kludge necessary to even get sound on to and off a vinyl disc. Like speakers, the types of distortions and deviations that can occur in the analog/vinyl manufacture-to-playback system are generally well understood and uncontroversial among engineers. And most fall within known audible parameters. Mastering often changes the bass signal, changes the high balance (de-essing etc), can produce additional cross-talk, puts limits on dynamic range, introduces a range of other audible distortions, and there is nothing controversial or implausible in the way cartridges, for instance, can be set up in ways that alter the signal. Then there are all the ways vinyl mastered in the old analog way would differ from digital sources mastered today. Add to that all the mechanical/electrical ways in which turntables can deviate from accuracy, rumble, wow/flutter, how cartridges measure differently, etc The list of plausible ways a vinyl playback can sound different from a digital source is quite long.


So the phenomenon of vinyl playback sounding different is very much UNLIKE the cable controversy in all those important respects.

And, like the case with loudspeakers, if you report "I heard a difference between the sound of my vinyl record and the CD" you generally won’t get audio engineers, or even the most objectivist and experienced people in the field - e.g. Floyd Toole and others - decrying this as implausible. You are almost certain to be told "Yes...and if you prefer it, it’s because you prefer a form of distortion you think to be pleasant."


Now....as it happens, I’ve long been almost entirely digital for my source and have NEVER had the issues with digital that vinyl proselytizers have claimed ("can’t sound natural, musical" and all that b.s.). Digital is flat out capable of superior fidelity in terms of measurable deviations vs vinyl.


BUT...I’ve gotten in to vinyl big time in the last year and LOVE it. I often *prefer* the sound of many vinyl records to my digital source. Not always, but I’ve been surprised how often. Could some bias be infecting my perception? Absolutely! But...and this is the important part...like speakers, there are well acknowledged technical reasons why it is entirely plausible...and even expected....that I would hear some level of sonic deviations between vinyl and digital playback. In fact, given the analog/vinyl system tends to result in certain deviations/colorations in the output, you can RECORD the output from a vinyl vs CD, and SEE OBJECTIVELY the differences. Example of many:

http://themultiformous.blogspot.com/2017/01/vinyl-is-bullshit-or-how-i-learned-to.html

That puts the claims that vinyl/analog alters the signal on much firmer ground than claims often made by cable proselytizers or cable companies. Note, for instance in the case of AC cables, that you pretty much never get similar objective evidence in terms of demonstrating that musical output signal has been altered in any way (and in any audible way!) via the use of high end audio AC cables in a system.

It’s likely not for nothing that John Atkinson, for instance, will run detailed tests on speakers, amps, dacs etc, but doesn’t bother doing them for audio cables. I think he knows something ;-)

Hi Douglas,

I hope you notice that I haven’t cast aspersions at your new "Schroeder Method." Frankly I haven’t investigated it to a degree I’d feel comfortable having offering any opinion. So I was speaking to the general idea of the types of claims made by audiophiles for boutique cables, vs the justifications for a turntable/vinyl set up.

I agree and have said often: we audiophiles aren’t operating in a scientific lab. We all do the best we can with what we have.


For myself, I have tweaked here and there like other audiophiles, either having bought various items or having been given items to try at home - everything from high end speaker/interconnects, boutique AC cables, mpingo discs, isolation tweaks of various kinds...you name it.

Having done my time in tweakville, and having assessed my own experience along with looking at the case for and against many such items, I believe I’ve come to well justified skepticism in some areas.
I don’t, btw, use "Skeptic" or "Skepticism" in the sense of "close minded" "Mind Already Made Up And Won’t Change it" kind of thing.Rather, I see Skepticism as simply good ol’ critical thinking, asking for appropriate evidence for a claim before jumping in to whole hearted belief.

A couple of points: it seems something of a shibboleth among audiophiles, particularly those most invested in a purely subjective version of the hobby, to say "If you haven’t tried it for yourself: SHUT UP.You have no grounds for critiquing or saying it doesn’t work."


This is of course a fallacy. One can have well-grounded skepticism about a claimed phenomenon without having tested it oneself.If I claim the moon is made of cheese, or that I have a perpetual motion machine doing work in my backyard, you can be rightly skeptical. The reply "but have YOU been to the moon to test it? Have YOU tested my perpetual motion machine?" are red herrings because it’s reasonable to point out other qualified people have done the work to establish the improbability of such claims.

The high end cable controversy is not as cut-and-dried as those examples, but nonetheless one doesn’t have an EE degree, or have examined specific cables, to comprehend that people with suitable qualifications (and who don’t have a business interest in selling boutique cables) decry lots of audiophile cable claims as B.S. And you don’t have to be an EE, or test a cable yourself, to note the rather dubious nature of the claims made by many high end cable companies. (As I often point out: they tend to point to problems of a measurable, technical nature that their technology has ’solved,’ but instead of providing objectively verifiable measurements showing they have indeed solved the problem, marketing takes over and we get appeals to subjective, anecdotal evidence).
There’s also the problem of the methodology. When an audiophile says "Try it for yourself and see the results" the problem is the method itself.If the method on offer is unreliable, my using that same method will amount to unreliable results as well. So it wouldn’t be unexpected I would "experience a difference" as well, but that still doesn’t tell us that the phenomenon is due to the cable, or due to me.


You mentioned that people often aren’t sufficiently skeptical of their own assumptions, and it takes humility to put those to test by trying something we may be skeptical about.

There is certainly some truth to that. But there are issues mixed in that have to be untangled. As above, there can be good reasons to be very skeptical about X without having tried X. And for those reasons, it can be reasonable to think trying X isn’t worth one’s time. In those cases, it isn’t some lack of humility in action; it’s just good sense about how to devote one’s limited time on earth ;-)

But back to testing one’s beliefs and skepticism: I wonder how far you have gone in that direction?
Myself: Over many years I’ve tried tweaks before, during, and after being skeptical about them. But I’ve also learned to question my deepest assumptions, and experiences that just "seemed obviously true." I have sometimes taken an experience of "hearing a difference" that seemed very solid, but realized I’m prone to bias like anyone else, and have gone further to try to get behind that bias. For me, blind testing, which I’ve occasionally employed, has been very eye-opening.


It’s really something to feel "I absolutely heard a difference" and then, when you no longer know which you are listening to, experiencing that ’obvious difference’ fade away.

I wonder: Have you tested your own assumptions/conclusions/experiences in a way that tries to account for the type of cognitive/perceptual biases we all share? Have you ever tested, say, AC cables, or even your Schroeder Method, via a method (blind testing) where you actually trust your ears, and not your "eyes" too?

Keep in mind, I’m not "demanding" you do so. I wouldn’t bother doing it on the demands of anyone else (unless I wanted to). I’m just curious.

Thanks.

douglas,

That's terrific!  Nice to see.

I'll take a look at the articles further when I have time.

Where you able to discern differences between AC cables using blind testing/ABX?   If so, that would be the first example I've ever seen before.

Douglas,


Congrats.  Never heard of anyone passing a blind test for AC cables.  Only failures.

But, the ABX was testing one leg of cabling, not the entire set.

I'm not quite grokking that.  Could you be a bit more detailed about how you blind/ABX-tested the AC cables?  I would love to see results between a regular, competently built AC cable and whatever high end cable you would have chosen.

I blind tested some Shunyata cables against a $15 off-the-shelf cable and could not detect differences in blind tests.   I wouldn't think this would, or should, change anyone's mind about cables any more than your results would.

However, if after looking over your methodology, it looks sound, I would take your results as a data point in favor of some cables being audibly different.   But, just as no  one should take my blind tests as definitive, I wouldn't take yours - either of us could have made some unknown error.  Which is why repeatability of the same results by other parties is a feature in science.

Still, for us measly audiophiles, we do our best and make our own conclusions from our experience.


And the results of your blind tests would also support the usefulness of blind testing.  Lots of blind-test nay-sayers claim blind tests aren't, or can't be, conducted in a way to detect differences.  So they think blind testing itself somehow erases the ability to hear real differences.  Which is untrue as lots of blind test show positive results for identification.  Some of mine were positive too.

glupson

Does anyone else see this thread as religious? One side is sure, the other one is sure it is not.

Well, bit of a broad brush there glupson. At least some of us (e.g. myself) do not take a stance of ’religious’ character in terms of dogmatically accepting things without critical inquiry. Or dogmatically claiming others "must be wrong." I have often written, including in this thread, that I’m open to the claims about cables, but look towards better evidence than is usually supplied. And as I said also, I made no judgement either way on Douglas’ new cable method.



But, yes, in the audiophile world, especially when it comes to cables and other more tweaky areas, there is quite an analogy to religious thinking - a particularly confident belief in one’s own subjective experience as an arbiter of reality, vs trying to get beneath or around our biases.