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.
I'm sure that at this point our cable skeptics are really appreciating the gross generalizations I have made. i.e. cable skeptics are chintzy.
It's not so different than gross generalizations characterizing persons who use (even expensive) aftermarket cables with negative religious allusions or calling them unscientific.
Perhaps a bit of mirror gazing would be helpful for our skeptics.
When aftermarket cable makers measure, that's not good enough, huh? David Salz at WireWorld, Grant at Shunyata... No good, eh? When Mogami measures, that's good enough.
Hyprocrites. Imo, you're cheapskates. Your wallet rules your decisions. You don't compare because you can't stomach the idea of spending anything on it. Defense of Pro cables is to guard your money. You love them because their cheap, and you bought the marketing. LOTUS POSITION, EVERYONE! Do you guys sit with your legs crossed to get the most out of your Mogami cables? ;)
Chintzy. That's closer to the truth.
I know, I used to be a cable skeptic. :)
So, who among our skeptics wishes to try Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement?
Note also the myriad of factors Mogami says go in to a cable:
"There is no single magic bullet for cable design. Superior design is a mix of conductor material, dielectric, conductor and shield geometry, jacket stiffness, along with fanatical dedication to manufacturing quality. Only technical expertise combined with years of experience can result in the kind of performance that transcends the ordinary."
Funny; when users of aftermarket cables appeal to such factors in sound with cables they are mocked and charts/graphs are demanded. They are called unscientific. But look, Mogami has verified the uncertainty of cable making.
Huh, "no single magic bullet" for cable design. That from the cable that skeptics believe in.
Let's get scientific. Measure the crap out of a cable. Precisely how much does that tell you how it will sound? Not very much, imo. Why would I say that? Because I actually USE cables in comparison. I don't let Pro marketing dictate what I do, and what cables I select. :)
I love the "scientific" silhouette of a man sitting in Lotus position - perhaps uttering a mantra - at the Mogami Cable site. Real scientific.
Mogami will give you a religious experience, all right. You'll feel holy and clean as you consider yourself brilliant to be using such "scientific" cables.
Does Mogami do Electrical and Mechanical Characteristics comparisons to other cable brands/models? Have the published any such comparisons? If not, why not? Wouldn't you think it would be a great advertising scheme to publish such comparisons?
Science is not used to explain cables for the same reason it is not used to explain creationism.
Well as long as we are playing with the precision that the use of science implies I should note that science, in point of fact, is often used to explain creationism.
It’s interesting that mr Miller can actually say l/C/R/ impedance measurements have nothing to do with the way cables sound. When the companies spend millions developing components and materials that effect all those measurements. The point is they do.
In “my” opinion here’s the difference. The difference is your ears or my ears or Bill’s ears or Mike’s ears. So, if you spend a lot of money before you hear them then money doesn’t mean anything. I will gladly admit my ears are to old to be a very good critic, so to me measurements make sense. Many people will NEVER admit that they don’t trust their ears. Those same people will NEVER submit to blind tests. I’m also familiar with all electronics having a sound signature, because everything DOES! Those include, tubes, audio transformers, amps, preamps, coupling capacitors, hook-up wire, resisters, connectors, audio jacks and plugs. So if you buy the best of everything theoretically you should have the best sound! But can your ears hear the difference??
Example: My relatives live in Northern California and love their Sonoma, Napa wines, ( and they should), but will never submit to blind tasting if it’s California wine, it’s the best as soon as they see the label! Needless to say being from the Northwest I don’t buy California wines! Ha
Some audiophiles only read the labels and dole out the money. .......Foolish
Is there an acknowledgment of the impact of AWG? Do our skeptics ever compare cables of similar conductor for differences sonically between higher and lower AWG?
"While there is an apparent technological advancement in the materials used to make cables, it’s still all comes down to capacitance, inductance, impedance, and DCR"
Hopefully, the above is a statement we can all agree upon. The science of cables.
As the OP asked,
"If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables."
As far as I know, nothing beats high purity OFC. Not in performance, not in sound, nor in price.
OFC is ridiculously under priced for what you are getting. 99.99% purity.
"Oxygen-free copper (OFC) or oxygen-free high thermal conductivity (OFHC) copper is a group of wrought high conductivity copper alloys that have been electrolytically refined to reduce the level of oxygen to .001% or below.[1][2]
Use in home audio
The high-end speaker wire industry markets oxygen-free copper as having enhanced conductivity or other electrical properties that are supposedly advantageous to audio signal transmission. In fact, conductivity specifications for common C11000 (ETP) and higher-cost C10200 Oxygen-Free (OF) coppers are identical;[12] and even the much more expensive C10100 has only a one percent higher conductivity—insignificant in audio applications.[12]
OFC is nevertheless sold for both audio and video signals in audio playback systems and home cinema.[12]"
Coming from a electronics technician background of 35 years, I am always astounded at the extremely over analyzed critiques of cables. I am also blown away by the extravagant cost.
I suppose my background makes me look at them from an inductance, capacitance, resistive ( DCR ) and impedance point of reference .
While there is an apparent technological advancement in the materials used to make cables, it’s still all comes down to capacitance, inductance, impedance, and DCR. Now, with all those new advanced cable components , they do have an affect on the previously mentioned technical characteristics.
So, I decided to make my own cables. I bought some reasonably priced American designed Australian made RCA male connectors. Then I began looking for a good two conductor and single conductor with shield cables. I hate the stif inflexible “high end“ cables that you can buy online and through hi-fi audio vendors. I found some very good Japanese made highly flexible shielded cable and was able to easily assemble them.
As if science is incontrovertible and scientists are never swayed by agenda. Just another participant that wants everyone to know how he stands on a particular issue not related to cables.
danvignau, imo you are ignorant on both points. But, to not inflame the discussion further, I will refrain from commenting further. I do not care to engage you in a debate here, if it would mean that the moderators would pull the thread - a very real possibility, and one that I imagine some might enjoy/hope for.
Now that you have expressed yourself on the topic, I trust that you will refrain from doing so in the future on this thread. Most participants know that injection of religion can cause rancor and get a thread deleted. I hope that is not your intention.
Why don't you try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? If you seem assured of your position, why not put it to the test? I presume you would see double interconnects as "unscientific" and since there is no thorough explanation (I am NOT saying no explanation exists), I would guess you to be derisive of it. Fine. Why not try it, because imo every once in a while skepticism needs to be put to the test.
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.
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.
glupson, I'm not making any promotion of burn in. So, you can lay aside that argument against trying Schroeder Method ICs. Double ICs need no burn in to sound superior to single IC. I advise that you make the comparison to single IC as soon as you have built the double. It will take zero time on the system to sound superior. :)
You may find my Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In at dagogo.com to be interesting. You will see why I don't wait around for change; I make it happen. :)
I presume that plenty of ardent audiophiles would disagree with me on that topic. However, I have no interest in debating my perspective on it.
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"?
Boxer12, congratulations! You are a wise man for properly intuiting the discussion by myself and other users. Just wait; with variations it can get much better!
It's time for me to trot out my saying: The greatest impediment to advancing an audio system is the audiophile. Demonstrated wonderfully on this thread. :)
My understanding is that manufactured Schroeder Method ICS are a significant step up. Don't you doubt it! :)
I love moments like this! Win/win, but the skeptics keep losing out. Their choice. So be it. :)
Last point: let's not call this a tweak. I named it a method to differentiate it from many of the insipid activities and products I disdain. This is worthwhile as a method, whereas most tweaks are a waste of time and money.
So I adopted the DS method about a week ago between my DAC (Audio Alchemy DDP-1) & preamp (Jeff Rowland Consonance) using audioquest yukon cables & 4 well dampened splitters. Since the splitters are new I wanted to wait until I had some time on them before commenting. In my system there is not one drawback from this. The stage is wider & deeper which is a great improvement in and of itself, but what really surprised me is the overall improvement in clarity. This "tweek" is the real deal. Thank you Doug for bringing it to our attention.
bsimpson, would you like to try Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? It likely would be more efficacious than your selection of speaker cables and would also likely be something your audio friends would appreciate. Not a hint of any, "very advanced anti-EMF nano snake oil helix structure that would take 10000 hours to break in," because, like you, I'm not into wasting my time and money.
My situation hopefully would not apply to all of you:
My expensive cables always sound better if they cost more than my local audio club buddies'. But strangely, the same new cables typically sound much worst than my last ones from their perspective.
So in a nutshell, who cares what other people think. Each person has different perception and sensitivity to sound. Go buy the ones that make you feel happy, even if they cost thousands of dollars due to the very advanced anti-EMF nano snake oil helix structure that would take 10000 hours to break in.
elizabeth I have decided to be a all out denier on Tuesdays and Thursdays. A believer in everything anyone says on Wednesdays and Fridays. "Who cares" on Mondays and Saturdays, Reserving Sundays for actually thinking for myself, in any way at all.
To get a true indication of the efficacy of each, please rotate the days of the week monthly and report back.
"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.
Pretty significant difference between overly sensitive people and those with serious grievances/concerns. Tolerance has sunk to the level of absurdity and our ability to converse freely is a freedom which may soon be gone.
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).
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.
Look, maybe cables matter, maybe they make a difference, maybe not so much, maybe they don’t. Each to her/his own. Who cares? What really matters here is sharing what has worked, not worked, in his/her own systems. After many years of buying cables both expensive and not so expensive, I found that I don’t need to have expensive cables in order to get good sound; sound that I am happy with and so can forget about the stupid cables. Chances are there is no such thing as a bad cable, it’s just system context, once again, and one’s personal preferences for form, fit and function. Again, who cares? Be happy. Listen to music, not boring cables.
Well I guess someone has to say something about an earlier post and request by douglas. First let me say that I sympathize with the families of any victim of violence but I cant understand why anyone would ask that certain words and speech not be used in their presence because it "offends". Worse yet to apologize and add credence to such a request.
May I remind you that you words must be taken in context and intent is critical. I am ashamed of these recent developments in our society which have lead to: safe rooms, time outs, optional school attendance due to some perceived trauma, discouragement of healthy political and social discourse and challenge referred to as hate speech to name just a few.
My day is not complete without several offenses, challenges and some spirited discourse. Just think about how ridiculous most of this has become.
Not much of a stretch to say that functionally the cable haters/deniers club are saying much the same thing...
"After all many people consider the whole cable pursuit unworthy because for them, the result isn't worth the cost"
....or maybe the idea that this audio thing was the result of moving the audio pile forward, common sense be damned, is now just a crazy idea that is becoming "a former member of the species" in this hobby...and this hobby is destined to be a calmed ship going nowhere...yet off in the distance is the call of the Schroeder Method yet that is being ignored or maligned or dismissed and in most of those cases quite smugly....
After all, many people consider the whole HEA pursuit unworthy because for them, the result isn't worth the cost.
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.
You are free to believe as you wish, of course. But once a difference is established, whether it is an "impressive" difference or not is purely subjective. After all, many people consider the whole HEA pursuit unworthy because for them, the result isn't worth the cost.
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.
Well, a few things about the above...which seems a central pivot of your post.
First it is not "flowing lava" is any way, shape, or form. Which is something that you could not say if you knew even the slightest thing about the eutectic alloy we use. And we all know the saw about talking about something we know little or nothing about, but I digress...
Second, it is not at all simple, though it is typically expressed and "understood" in simplistic terms by folks such as yourself. And btw there is a considerable difference between simple and simplistic, a difference you may want to examine.
And third, those aren't necessarily just suspicious minds though that is some small part of it, rather they are minds that are more correctly described as functionally most incurious, and very tightly closed .
glupson, I appreciate your cordial ongoing discussion. It's much better than us sniping each other's arguments. :)
I am unsure where you got the impression that I tried triple interconnects, or that they were not efficacious. I have never tried the triple IC. I may at some point, but that was not me; there is another member whom I believe has contributed on this thread who was doing the triple. So, I cannot comment from experience.
However, my recollection is that this member was very happy� with the triple IC arrangement. I do not recall seeing any comments of displeasure with it. I believe he felt it was worth trying. I do not know; perhaps he has gone back to a double IC that he felt was superior. He watches the cable threads, so perhaps he can comment. I think he was talking it up quite a bit on the thread bearing my name.
I had raised a concern that unlimited parallel runs of ICs may cause problems with the output of certain devices if the native impedance of the cable is too low. One maker of a NOS DAC did not want me to use Schroeder Method because he suspected that the DAC would not drive it well.
I myself would be willing to try a triple, but I would want to discuss with equipment manufacturers or other industry members first. I don't like potentially blowing up gear.
If the geometry and gauge of the aftermarket XLR IC you tried was similar to the $15-16 one, then I am not surprised at all that the sound quality was so close. If they were quite different, ie. different conductor material or different AWG, then I do not know why they were similar sounding.
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
I figure you won't believe me, but Schroeder Method has been more profound of a change to the system than changing single ICs. It also doesn't seem dependent upon the cost/pedigree of the ICs used.
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?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
