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 see your last, or at least last to me, point but I think it is a bit off. Not much, but a bit. Cables may be dismissed as being capable of significant differences because they are, in essence and not in some very complicated "flowing lava"-kind of example, simple. At least in the minds of those suspicious ones. It is a wire and that is what, according to the understanding of most, conducts. Not much in between beginning and the end of it. These days, there are many things wrapped around, but it still stays metal inside. That is how those who are not in love with cables seem to think according to most of the posts on these threads. It is not that they feel threatened and want to stop progress of any kind just to stay in their comfort zone. It is that they are not buying the story of "active ingredient" in a cable being so different. They feel they are trying to be fooled and taken for a ride. Not many here seem to be over-educated in physics. Basic knowledge, but hardly much more. And basic knowledge does not leave much room for stunning differences between wires. Going way above basic knowledge starts requiring a lot more. More formulae, bigger picture, more exact definitions. And those who are on that level do not buy "it sounds better and you cannot calculate it because I just came up with some hocus-pocus explanation". So, simpler ones may not be sophisticated enough to grasp and more sophisticated ones are not getting answers that are sophisticated enough. Again, I am not talking about liquid metal which, after all, is also a metal. It gets more slippery to claim or contradict something about that because there has not been a century or two of experience, for all I know.
It is simply hard to believe, unless you are a priori firm believer, that changes in anything which is already on a fairly decent level can be so impressive. Noticeable maybe, but Earth-shattering (or whatever other description gets mentioned) just does not seem believable. It just does not. Many people take it as a marketing language that is common these days and they do not take it seriously. They may think "if that can truly be so spectacular, you may be too impressionable".
I’ll be posting a sales ad for a set of 4 solid Y-splitters on the market site today if folks want to try the SM on the cheap. Consider this a PSA of a future event.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: this "debate" about cables is not about cables. There’s some underlying tenet of a conservative nature that predisposes some to belly-up-to-the-bar.
The joking mention of religious fervor reminded me of it. Factor in the tribal nature that dominates all manner of discussion nowadays and one need not look any further than it being the impetus, the driving factor, behind a lot of these discussions we’re having and the elevated level of emotion that accompanies.
I think it is very helpful to the community to see further into the thinking processes of skeptics such as glupson and aftermarket cable proponents such as myself. :)
Please refrain from continued comments about weapons. I find it offensive. My brother in law was murdered 30+ years ago and the case never solved. No justice was brought by man, but I trust it will by God in due time. I saw what the havoc did to my sister, so I don't think it' so funny to joke about weapons with subtext.
taras22228 posts03-02-2019 8:23amWhat can I say, you’re Brilliant.....I’ve always said that....and incidentally just like your rocks, whose operating principle btw was used in a product that actually won an Oscar for technical achievement way back when...
Good point...but caveatically only if the cable strictly conforms to the established LCR standards ?....cause all that other weird stuff is not theoretically robust enough ?....which hopefully means we, as purveyors of really weird cable, will not be included in any upcoming class-action suit ( and you know it will happen because sooner or later some crazy guy will snap and grab a cable and perpetrate some crimes or something...)...
Wondering, Geoff, is this part of that Brer Rabbit and Tar Baby prophecy ?.....sorta the end of times-ish like, which is weird cause I always thought that was a kid’s story and this is pretty dark....?....
Methinks maybe we should all go wireless like right now to prevent this eh ? ....and look Geoff is already there, wow more sheer Brilliance !...
What can I say, you’re Brilliant.....I’ve always said that....and incidentally just like your rocks, whose operating principle btw was used in a product that actually won an Oscar for technical achievement way back when...
So let me get this straight, cables are generally dismissed because they are perceived to produce only incremental differences across brands, and any differences are written off as just more marketing hyperbole that can’t be believed.
But when some real performance differences are produced by innovative cable designs those claims are also dismissed as just more marketing hyperbole that can’t be believed.
So the takeaway from this its all just more marketing hyperbole that can’t be believed all the time.
And the funny thing this belief is maintained with a concurrent effort to actively ignore any possible evidence to the contrary even though such evidence is dead simple to access and really inexpensive to apply,
Audio used to be exciting....with designers/builders producing innovative equipment that created the audio market and innovative buyers who explored any and all avenues to get better performance out of their systems. Now its reduced to a crowd of fundamentalist naysayers who just sit on their hands and decry any perceived threat to their entrenched beliefs. Whats that line about only dead fish go with the flow and don’t cause any waves, or is it boats or something...but youse get the idea ?
OK, the conservative element in audio is doing what conservatives all think they are doing, and if the strict definition is applied they think they are preserving or conserving something ( like say the rule of some law ). Well, unfortunately in this case they are suffocating the spark that led to the creation of high end in the first place, and that spark is innovation which by its very nature breaks rules and preconceptions, or at least interpret in a wholly different manner ( just remember theory has two ways of being understood...its either something seemingly solid....or its just a theory, read a wild guess....and don't look now but the history of science is littered with the remains of solid theories that over time morphed into wild guesses...)
I do not really consider myself anything when it comes to cables. I am not an agnostic, I am aware they exist and they need to exist. I do not belong to either side in this thread and leave it open that there may be something to it, but am not religiously accepting it without suspicion. That position makes me a bit more credible than anyone who has any investment in cables. No conflict of interest, minimal bias.
I read this thread as something informational, a window to others' views and emotions about cables. I stay away from commenting about actual differences between cables here, or theories about them. I have not tried many and am not planning to. It would take a lots of time and effort and it is not my thing. As this thread is not only about cable technicalities, but touched marketing, pricing, etc., I mentioned a few things that I noticed. Price of NASA cables and praises that make claims less believable than they may deserve to be. Once changes are "spectacular" and "dramatic", not many will convert or seriously consider it. They will think it is a joke. Less dramatic descriptions or agitated responses may yield better responses and more fruitful discussion.
I have no team, but I also have not seen participants in disagreement with you being trashed wholesale at all.
My remark about jhills being in the lead was about his statement that no other industry uses $1000/foot cables. NASA was implied at some point and it turns out that even those are cheaper.
Does anyone else see this thread as religious? One side is sure, the other one is sure it is not.
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.
glupson, so, do you consider yourself a cable agonstic (undetermined, or qualified participant in regards to the question of efficacy of aftermarket cables) or an adherent to one side or the other?
Wow, being in the lead in what is this thread’s equivalent of a Miss Congeniality contest is really not such a big whoop eh. But then I suppose given the way your team has been trashed wholesale here any win no matter how insignificant is good.
There, I sincerely hope that after my terrible transgression above that this post gets this thread back on the rails again.
Much sorries for whatever I did to throw such a pall across this august thread. I will from this point on dedicate my life to making sure I never ever do that again. Be aware that as I type this I am shaking at the thought of the horror I unleashed.
Does anyone else see this thread as religious? One side is sure, the other one is sure it is not. Both sides are sure that others would be righteous only if they converted. Beliefs, personalities, preaching, witnesses of miraculous changes...
If I remember correctly, elizabeth does have a car now. Ford Focus ST, manual transmission.
Elizabeth, I invite you to try it; then we may not be able to get you to shut up about it. :)
If you have a better cable method or technology that pertains to the question of this thread, "The Science of Cables," feel free to promote/discuss it at length. Schroeder Method pertains directly to this conversation because 1. it involves cables, 2. It is nouveau, 3. It is imo testable informally, and I presume at this point formally, 4. It is not understood theoretically, and 5. It was in existence prior to this thread and was already amassing instances of success - in fact, to this point only success, i.e. no negative outcomes.
Aside from the arguing on this thread, I see little other objective ways to DO something to propel understanding and discussion productively forward. Perhaps some would rather rant and moan about others, but I am proposing a simple and imo quite effective means of opening up discussion not excluding or damning skeptics, but welcoming them to the party.
How’s that for a different approach? Instead of vilifying them I am inviting them. Note the thin response to those invitations so far. That, sadly, is to be expected when working with people who absolutely trust their intuition, whether it’s right or wrong. The multiple targeted invitations met with silence mostly are evidence imo that skeptics are not as interested in doing anything to challenge their own beliefs, but are more interested in attempting to overwhelm cable users with theory. That’s not going to work too well when the results are so easily heard. Whatever.
I know, I used to be a hard core cable skeptic.
Something tells me that if you had developed Schroeder Method you would be talking about it every bit as much as I do. Like when you got your system instead of buying a car - you couldn’t be shut up, endless chatter about it. It was nauseatingly monotonous, and imo you made some claims that I didn’t think were supportable, but I didn’t blame you for it, because it is wonderful when you discover something new. (Perhaps most of that was on Audioasylum, but I quit going there years ago.) So, forgive me if I enthuse quite a bit, because the double IC is something important, and germane to the thread.
An interesting piece of history, Elizabeth - I remember years ago on this site that you were quite lukewarm yourself about aftermarket cables. Finally, you tried and what do you think happened? Your attitude changed with experience. You are quite a different audiophile now than even five years ago.
Do you think I am unaware of how frequently I have invited people to try it? I have been building a case that shows right here the M.O. of skeptics. Slash and burn tactics with cables, but wait! An inexpensive, easy to do, purportedly quite significant means, an opportunity to either falsify or support their contentions - and only 1 is willing to try. THAT is the point of my multiple invitations to particular skeptics. They are proving right here how closed-minded they can be. Yet, it’s not too late if they want to show they are not entrenched.
I used to think I was so sharp, laughing at aftermarket cable fans for their stupidity at spending ridiculous amounts on cables... I have quite a story to tell about prejudging situations. The incident that opened up reviewing to me happened precisely because I chose not to arrogantly prejudge a speaker. That’s a story for another time...
Congratulations again to jhills, the only one who was willing to be open to questioning his interpretation of the situation and try Schroeder Method. Elizabeth, thank you for sharing your opinion, and now that it has been voiced, I trust you won’t need to state it again. Please know that I have no desire whatsoever to enter into lengthy discussion about this post. :)
Well, he is talking about an idea that produces the most dramatic difference I have ever heard in the audio cables category. And which btw is definitely in the running, and may well be the winner, for the most dramatic difference for any audio category ( and frankly, I can't, at the moment, think of another difference making idea that is more dramatic and I have been playing in this sandbox for over 50 years and have seen lots of toys come and go ). So Doug has some very very good reason to sound wildly exuberant and zealous.
Will be very interesting to see what your response will be once you have heard the difference this method makes ( and I'm assuming you will give this try at some point in the near future...I mean even with "lowest common denominator cable" in the most basic configuration, which uses splitters, this produces a much more than significant difference ).
I will be interested when jhills reports back on his discovery in trying Schroeder Method ICs. When I spoke with him he indicated that he had the interconnects and would only need connectors.
Some are not impressed by the use of connectors such as splitters or Y-cables, as though that would obviate any potential gain. That is not so; all users who have used splitters and Y-cables hear a marked improvement in their system. The skeptics are speculating on that point. I have invited them continuously to put their doubt to the test, but as we can see many of them hold their opinions with absolute certainty. That’s a great way to cement a rig in current performance, eschewing potential wonderful improvements. That kind of attitude gave rise to my byline, "The greatest impediment to developing an audiophile system is the audiophile."
The reason I initially (now, I’m experiencing at least one brand of manufactured double IC - anyone else care to make and send to me for trial?) used assembled ones is for convenience, proof of concept vs. making/buying, and to see if the benefit could overcome the inefficiency/deterioration that comes with splitters/Y-cables.
Also, assembled Schroeder Method cables are very easy and quick to reduce to a single IC for comparison. That is ideal in such situations. It’s the cheapest, fastest way to get to comparisons. And for that some are dismissing Schroeder Method. I use a sensible approach that doesn’t cost a lot, and it’s written off. That’s typical skeptics for you. Operate as they would and the method gets condemned for it. But, if I were to say it is only efficacious if one buys manufactured models of it, then they would fuss about the cost, I’m in cahoots with the makers, etc. Self-confidence and doubt like to operate from both sides of the coin - that way skepticism seemingly cannot lose.
I do not give much credence to arguments that say merely rising from a chair, or replacing a cable nullify a comparison. It is easy for me to hear the differences. Then again, I am doing this in a custom room with about 8dB less noise level than typical quiet room in a home, and the characteristics of a mastering studio. Likely your room is not better. Just another reason why, Imo, skeptics are in no position to declare what I can and cannot hear in that room. :)
@cd318- "What about tactics such as linguistic obfuscation? It’s common for some to try to derail attempts at clarity........
A recent case in point was a post about the uncertainty regarding quantum behaviour which neglected to mention that this phenomena is strictly confined to sub atomic particle behaviour."
At what level of atomic particle, does sound begin to be affected? GOT ANSWERS(as in, "science")? It’s the likes of you, that choose to deny the plausible/possible, regarding how this universe operates, when presented with SCIENTIFIC FACT. That you can’t grasp the possible significance of phonons and consciousness, regarding how/what people hear, doesn’t make them irrelevant, or- a related conversation, "obfuscation". Someone once said, "None are so deaf as those that WILL NOT hear."
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.
