@michaelgreenaudio
I did not study under Jackson, but we used his textbook. Years ago, in 1991-92.
I did not study under Jackson, but we used his textbook. Years ago, in 1991-92.
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.
802 responses Add your response
I’m of a mind that it’s entirely likely there are characteristics of music (or an audio signal) such as ’ambiance’ or ’staging’ or ’presence’ that exist - we can experience it - but which science just hasn’t yet figured out how to measure. Just because you can’t see or quantify a thing, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. |
There is one more bit I would like to add to this discussion. Written by a gentlemen named Bob Smith, a really bright guy who I think has written something that is equal parts brilliant and provocative. It is a wee bit long but in my humble opinion a very worthwhile read. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5925b92115d5db394ff30043/t/5925e6e2be65945a7f0ab479/149565616... And in case that link doesn't work its from....( its the article on sub-debye ) https://www.mytdss.com/engineering/ |
cd318 “Had the results supported their opinions I'm certain that blind listening tests would have become the gold standard of audio testing and reviewing. As things stand it's up to the likes of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and a few others out there to continue to demonstrate that there is no reason for us consumers to be scared of blind listening tests.” >>>>>Actually, as I’ve oft proposed, blind tests should not be given too much credence inasmuch as they, like all audio tests, are fraught with difficulties. This is why The Amazing Randi has such success challenging audiophiles to participate in his Million Dollar Challenge - blind tests of high end cables and other controversial audiophile do dads. A great many things can go wrong with cable blind tests, including variables that are either unknown or unaccounted for. Also operator errors, failure to follow directions, listener skill and capability, system mistakes, etc., not to mention specific cable issues: cable break in, the problem with physically unplugging/plugging cables, and cable directionality. To summarize, negative results of blind tests have very little import and should not be taken too seriously. There are too many things that can go wrong. It’s not a question of being scared of blind tests. It’s a matter of not trusting blind tests. |
@jmlmx, "What I find interesting is that the second highest rated cable in the test had the worst fidelity, and the worst rated cable was right there in the middle when frequency and amplitude were measured." The magazines realised a while back what the implications of these kind of results were. That's why they turned their backs on them years ago. What magazine would want to report a coat hanger/ zip cord being preferred to a high end cable? Then what about amplifiers, or even CD players, DAC's etc?? Had the results supported their opinions I'm certain that blind listening tests would have become the gold standard of audio testing and reviewing. As things stand it's up to the likes of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and a few others out there to continue to demonstrate that there is no reason for us consumers to be scared of blind listening tests. |
"...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. |
millercarbon I did the same thing for my video (non-hi fi) system. I used a Yamaha CR620 receiver and a pair of ADS L620 speakers at a cost of $250, added my friend GroverHuffman.com much older technology ICs and speaker wire from 10 years ago (still better than a lot of expensive HEA cables), some original model Stillpoints under the speakers and one Perfect Path Omega E-mat on my power panel and voila! A really high quality mid-fi video sound Great bass, smooth mids and open highs. Not to be expected from the equipment combo. Image if I used the latest cables and Stillpoints. Great sound can be obtained on a budget but with great accessories and tweaks. (The room also has acceptable acoustics). |
Thank-you taras22. As for eric_squires all I get from you is an appearance of personal jealousy. Dismissing a detailed argument as irrelevant shows no analytic skill and is a lazy thinker's way of trying to dominate a conversation. You have been well and truly one-upped and the more you complain, the worse you look. |
drbarney118 posts02-16-2019 4:19pmI have heard subtle differences between how different speaker cables sound in an A-B demonstration at an audio club and the difference was above a threshold of placebo effect >>>>A threshold of placebo effect? Whoa! I did not know that. |
I have heard subtle differences between how different speaker cables sound in an A-B demonstration at an audio club and the difference was above a threshold of placebo effect. Interconnect cables can sound different if capacitance is not accounted for in their design and the context of input impedance. However, there is some bad physics adduced in the marketing of very expensive cables. Here are two examples. The first is skin effect, the concentration of current towards the surface
of a conductor as the frequency of alternating current increases. There
are some speaker cables which endeavor to address skin effect in their
design: either by making ribbon cables which are thinner than skin depth
at higher audio frequencies or by litz wires which bundle insulated
individual strands of wire which individually are thinner than skin
depth. But nobody has made any calculations to determine whether such
designs make a difference in whether anyone could hear treble roll-off
caused by the skin effect in a speaker cable. So let us consider a set
of 5 foot long cables of 8 gauge copper wire connected to a pair of
speakers with 4 Ohms impedance. The total of 10 feet the audio signal
must pass through the two 5 foot speaker cables has a DC resistance of
only about 0.006 Ohms. At 20 kHz, skin effect concentrates the current
towards the surface of the cable reducing the cross-sectional area which
carries the current and the resistance increases to 0.012 Ohms. Compare
that to the 4 Ohms speaker resistance in the case of a magnetic planar
speaker which has negligible inductive or capacitive reactance and the
effect is slightly over one one hundredth of a decibel roll-off at a
frequency almost nobody can hear. Either the cable designer has too
shallow an understanding of skin depth to calculate this or they know
the effect is inconsequential but choose to capitalize upon their target
audience's superficial understanding when they advertise how they are
doing something about the skin depth problem which does not really
exist. Another questionable matter is the alleged grain structure of
copper wire emulating semiconductors at the interfaces between grains
making the resistance non-linear with respect to applied voltage at low
signal. Nowhere in any graduate school physics or electrical engineering
texts is there a non-zero derivative of resistance with respect to
voltage or current in Ohm's law for copper wire and if this law applied
to low signal voltages antenna cables from a receiving antenna atop a
tall tower to an FM tuner would have nonlinearities which would generate
Fourier RF harmonics that would disrupt any frequency of a radio
station inducing only micro-Volts in the antenna. Another issue is
slight nonlinearities in the dielectric which insulates cables. This
becomes insignificant at the few volts in a speaker cable and an
interconnect cable not suffering an electric field which makes the
alignment of dipole molecules change the dielectric constant at much
higher voltages. Also since the electric field in a cable is parallel to
the cable in a conductor, there will be no component of electric field
in the insulator.
|
I don’t want to bring anybody down but John Archibald Wheeler, Charles Misner and Kip Thorne wrote the book on gravity... a long time ago. Almost 50 years ago, actually. My, how time flies! Let’s just say gravity is not what you probably think it is but what it is is probably understandable to most people who aren’t English majors or audio engineers. 😀 I’m afraid you’ll have to look elsewhere for something that’s still a mystery. |
I recently landed on the "listening" side of the issue by buying Omega Mikro power cords (a radically unconventional design using micro thin "planar" wires and mostly air dielectric). The company uses listening to design their wires, which take no back seat whatsoever compared to my high level AQ wires, totally different design and approach (measuring). Conclusion: both listening and measuring, used almost exclusively, can be good, but to me, listening is more valid. Jim Heckman |
What I find interesting is that the second highest rated cable in the test had the worst fidelity, and the worst rated cable was right there in the middle when frequency and amplitude were measured. As i noted above, we have to distinguish between accuracy and musicality. They are different and valid. The problem is one is harder to measure. Most of our queues come from music theory. Concepts of consonance and dissonance, chords construction all follow the "some distortions" (e.g.: harmonically related additions) are welcome. Chords are examples, as is the resonance of a sounding board or violin case. Heck, tubes probably get their great rep from consonant harmonic distortions and that is known to be musical from folks who make music. No issue there, as logn as we understand what is happening. in cables we also have the possibility that what they are is long, expensive, fixed tone controls. We KNOW that rooms are far from flat. We also know that many electro-mechanical components are far from flat (cartridges, speakers...). Finally we know that there are HF distortions from the digital recording mastering process which, when it is done badly, are objectionable. all these problems can be made better or worse through simple frequency manipulation. So a cable that distorts - rolls of the HF - may sound very good to many in a particular system. Sadly it may sound dead in another. Decades (?) ago Mark Levinson launched a $20k equalizer on the world from Cello and got great reviews from Stereophile among others. I’m convinced we miss a trick by not having a loudness contour - in fact i think its one reason why many audiophiles listen more loudly than they might otherwise. Of course we need to avoid a cure that’s worse than the disease. So i’m not surprised. |
One way of measuring often applied is to take note of the output frequency and amplitude as it comes out of the amplifier using an oscilloscope and compare it to same at the input of the speaker. Interestingly, it seems that although measurable, it matters little to listener preference. There are numerous blind tests where listeners can't tell the difference between a big box store cable like Monster and coat hangers [ https://gizmodo.com/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger-363154 ] But what if you use better cables and invite self professed audiophiles to listen? Here's an interesting article from Stereophile magazine where such a test was done. What I find interesting is that the second highest rated cable in the test had the worst fidelity, and the worst rated cable was right there in the middle when frequency and amplitude were measured. [ https://www.stereophile.com/content/minnesota-audio-society-conducts-cable-comparison-tests-0 ] |
@taras22 "The only natural metal liquid at room temperature is mercury" EGaInSn - Thank-you for confirming. Other than being liquid, there are few properties that one would consider ideal for audio electronic connection. The material's primary benefit over solid connectors is that it is 'stretchy.' Given that audio connections remain fixed, using a material which has lower conductivity and non-constant or inconsistent charge density seems pointless. See http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kaviany/researchtopics/SYu_JCP_2014.pdf and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23746149.2018.1446359 It may have sonic properties that differ from Cu and Ag, but that is the same claim made by every other cable maker for their product! |
kosst_amojanm @cleeds I'd expect this kind of mindless quip from you. The OP asks a very rational question that clearly went clean over your head. How do you properly pair components if you don't know what the measurements on them are like?Kosst, you might want to calm down, then carefully read the OP again. He doesn't mention a single thing about component measurements - he's talking about cables. And my response to him was in reference to his topic, which was cables. Now you complain about my comment, but reference it to components, which were not part of the conversation. So if anyone here has been "mindless," it's likely Kosst for not understanding the topic that's under discussion here. Or perhaps he is just cruising for an argument. It's difficult to tell with Kosst. |
Hi vwfan53 Remember when HEA went discrete only giving the listener a volume control to adjust lol? We all looked at each other and said "what are these guys thinking". It was like a big joke at first until we realized these goofballs were serious. I think more than anything, going to a volume control only was what started the writing on the wall for the end of HEA. And they made this horrible move with such arrogance. So weird to walk into a studio with all the adjustments then walk into a HEA store and there were none. Think about the insanity of HEA plug & play. Instead of making an adjustment these guys would change out a component. They made a hobby out of component swapping. I’m still amazed at the few who still are stuck in that mode, and stuck in that mode standing on mounds of ashes. What a sales job! Like I’ve been saying along with those who are sane, DSP, Equalizing or Physical. Only three ways this thing is going to work or ever did work. Thank you vwfan53 for posting your post. mg BTW I should add to be clear, I don't use an Eq and I don't use DSP. I use variable Acoustical, Mechanical and Electrical adjusting tools, a purist approach. |
| Post removed |
What is the audio equivalent of adjusting “contrast” (like in a photo / image editor)? When I have rejected a lot of cables and power conditioners (very expensive ones included) it is because I find them artificially boosting what I can only describe as “contrast”. Like in photography, boosting contrast can makes images look better (sharper, clearer, punchier, etc...), but kinda just for an instant. Over the long term, you kinda lose interest in the artificial boost and just want your images (or music) to look (sound) natural. In a sense I find a lot of cables trying to sell themselves on a sonic gimmick of sorts. That said when you find the right cable it can sound so “natural”, “balanced”, “uncolored”, “organic”, etc... partly i I ask this question and make this comment because I don’t feel I hear a vocabulary around the “sound” of cables that corresponds to my experience. I do agree with the previous comment re: modern tone control... I have noticed that too. But more so in the negative... I find many deficient cables lacking in a proper tonal balance and the most synergistic cables pretty balanced across the spectrum, perhaps with a bit of extra weight in the mid-bass that seems to be my personal preference (or tolerance for a lack of perfect balance.) |
+2vfwfan53 . I have tried many cables and have always come back to my Mogami . Just a well balanced wire all around . It works well with my King Sound King stats , it has underperformed with other speakers though . Some dull sounding speakers sounded , well dull using the Mogami and wires that boosted highs worked better in those cases . |
Ok, let me flip this around. As a Pro-Audio guy, cables do/can sound "different". Any audio engineer can tell you the difference a Mogami or Canare cable vs. some low end 100' generic cable. It is a matter of, method of "TONE CONTROL". Easily explained by physics. *** Cables are the 'new' Tone Control. *** (Poorly if you ask me) Years ago, our audio gear had tone controls, and remember graphic and parametric 'Equalizers'? Want a boost in the mid's? Bump 1K a hair. Somehow Audiophiles got so caught up in signal path they took away 'tweeks, and adjustability'. We now are stumbling around swapping cables to hear "clearer mids", "better bass", blah blah blah. Here is my take on this, and why I have a McIntosh C52 with 8-Band EQ.I use quality cables with good measurements, most of which are the same cables used in the actual recording studio (Mogami, Canare, BJC). And then if I need a little tweak here and there, or to fix a poor recording, I engage the EQ and make it sound how I prefer it. "FLAT" is overrated. Save yourself the money on esoteric cables, and just bring back tone controls. :-) P.S. The majority of music you listen to was recorded with Mogami/Canare cables, so maybe we all should standardize on that and let the system (speakers, amp, pre, source) speak for themselves. |
jrpnde says: I am confused....There are plenty of folks on these these forums that are VERY knowledgeable about electronics, electricity, and circuits. There is an extremely wide price between the "junk" cables that came with a product and the super, extremely expensive ones that can be had. No it is not just a matter of money. And it doesn't take a very sophisticated system. What it does sometimes take is some fairly sophisticated hearing or listening skills. Its actually 50 years, half a century, since Julian Hirsch misled a generation with his "wire don't matter" mantra at Stereo Review. Heck, I bet most of the people today who doubt if wire matters don't even have any idea how their skepticism can be traced back to Julian Hirsch. What's amazing about this is how long its been since his view has been out of date. Sure back in 1970 he could say prove it and nobody had hardly anything that sounded very much different than anything else. By 2000 though it was pretty damn obvious you can do an awful lot better than stock power cords, patch cords, and lamp cords. The situation today, and which has been the case for many years now, is you can actually totally justify spending more money on speaker cables, interconnects, and power cords than on all your other equipment put together. Read that again. Every word. Because its true. Here's how I know. Not think. Know. As in been there, done that. First time was the now retired Stewart Marcantoni had me listen to this one system he put together at Weekend Environments. Sounded fantastic! We played a bunch of stuff, all amazing, and then he told me: the wire and power conditioner in this system cost TWICE AS MUCH as the speakers, CD player, and amps. TWICE! I'm not saying spend twice as much on cables. I'm saying it has been PROVEN that if you do so it is not a waste. Not at all. But that was a pretty high end system. What about normal folks? My father in law, although worth millions was the kind of guy who could never see spending hardly anything on a stereo. So when his died he gave me a budget of only $1200 for the whole thing. With that $1200 budget I got him a CD changer, integrated amp, bookshelf speakers, power cords, interconnect, speaker cable, and cones. Fully tweaked out and budgeted it all came in just under $1200. Putting it all together at my place to burn in and make sure it all sounds good before delivery I was really surprised at how darn good it sounded. I mean if you are thoughtful and plan it out and don't forget details like power cords and cones. Tweaks beat components. Every. Single. Time. But then I thought, like the OP, what would happen if..... so I took one of the $500 interconnects from my system and... damn! Totally transformed that little budget stereo! What if I try this $600 power cord? Boom! Same thing! $500 speaker cable? Now well over twice as much money in cables as components and I could hardly believe how good this thing sounded. People will dispute. People will argue. These will all be people who have never done this. I have actually done it. It works. Its true. And this was years ago, and the developments since have only made it even more true. Quality cables are essential to every system regardless of budget. They call it a system for a reason. Everything matters. |
I realize not all will like this, but it IS informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ AES panel discussion |
defiantboomerang The real science of "cables" is too difficult for most audiophiles to understand. Don't believe me? Try reading this book ... If you get through Chapter 8 and solve the problems in it (I have), then you can claim the moral right to talk about the science of "cables".Pardon me, but no one here needs to fulfill any requirement specified by you in order to acquire a "moral right" to talk about cables. |
itsjustme How does it prove nothing when subjects reported substantial differences, which, according to the test, could not have been there?It wasn't a valid "test." It was a deception, an illusion, a misdirection intended to produce an invalid result. That's not even remotely a scientific test. |
@jhills, "Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to. While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation." Thanks for putting it as clear as it possibly can be as of 2019. Perhaps one day things might actually improve... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity |
| Post removed |
I know you didn't ask me, but i took a quick look at: Could you please do us all a big favour and take a peak at the following thread....I cant even figure out what the OP is saying. he doesn't provide schematics (step 1 IMO), nor define which "IC", nor define the characteristics of those ICs.. or does he mean "interconnect", at which point its just less resistance and more capacitance and I'll stay out of relative subjective judgement-land. But if we don't know the characteristics of the source, media and termination we don;t know much. Sounds like a very expensive tone control to me. G |
| Post removed |
While I largely agree with the direction of Dunlavy's post, I will give slight shelter to two claims: For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.Any properly shielded wire can be directional. A Faraday shield should typically be grounded ONLY at the source. And dialectic do absorb and release charge non-linearly. It is called dialectic absorption (closely related to dissipation factor) and can be read in any good data sheet. The larger the physical form factor the less this is a meaningful concern, since the capacitance goes way down. Not really defending the position of many cable claims, but there is a hint of truth in there if you look closely.... G |
@defiantboomerang So you piled thru Jackson, congratulations....and solved all the problems, double congratulations. Tough sledding that. Could you please do us all a big favour and take a peak at the following thread.... https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic ....and give us your ideas about what all the hub-bub is about. Thanks in advance. |
@taras22 Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to. While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation. For audio cables and most everything else, I believe in sticking to the standards of proven technology and performance and the motto of KISS, JMO.......Jim |
Basically, I pulled my post and left this instead...as this is just an entrenched position thread, where we each lob bombs over the hedge without regard to the damage we do to each other, as we feel threatened in our expression fundamentals. We feel threatened at our core. The only end point in such things... is where the thread is overly moderated and then shut down. I'd like to bring the tone down, not tensioned and ratcheted up. |
cleeds, How does it prove nothing when subjects reported substantial differences, which, according to the test, could not have been there? One cannot prove a negative, we we cannot prove there are not differences, (except maybe the null test), but that suggests that the mind is having a major influence on reported results. I KNOW this is true of me which is why i am very careful to listen multiple times under multiple circumstances before i come to a concision.... headache? I hate it. Good wine? I love it. Just sayin' better to invest in wine maybe G |
I'm not getting into the technical melee here, but if anyone is interested in measurements - including one that can ID differences ***when we don't know precisely what to measure***, look up a youtube video of an AES talk by Evan Winer on his Null Tester. OK he;s a techie, but if more mastering engineers has his commitment, we'd probably like more recordings and even like digital masters. Note the subtlety here - I disagree that we cannot measure audible artifacts. The problem is that a) we dont know what to measure and b) we don't know how to weight consonant vs dissonant distortions. There is a difference between "sounds nice" and "is accurate". IN fact, distortions make great pianos and violins - but ah what distortions they are... (rich resonances that are primarily low-order, even harmonics). Measuring cables is complex. I tried one with nearly $1m worth of lab gear (not mine) and failed miserably. but it was fun. |
Some people seem to be under the impression that conductivity is everything. If that was true we’d all be using silver cables. There are obviously many parameters involved in cable design. You don’t have to be a brain 🧠 surgeon to figure that out. ”If I could explain it to the average person they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.” |
What "tarnished beyond repair" HEA was the lack of listening, and an industry that way over charged the public for their experiments and theories. I don’t know about any other listening experts, but blind testing is only as good as a system’s ability to settle in between changes and a listener's ability to reset. mg |
... when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.That proves nothing. It’s not a scientific evaluation, but a parlor trick. ... I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled ...There are many people who do not accept the results of scientifically controlled, double-blind testing for audio purposes. |
Here is an interesting post from 1996 from John Dunlavy_ Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:08:50 -0500 Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials. To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance. The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc. Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.). While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat Emptor! For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance. Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm! Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect - which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest! Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time. Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist - if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc. Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!) So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve - in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize. Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry. I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve. Best regards, |
