Not sure about snake oil, but I smell a snake. Totally unethical behavior by one bad actor and this forum is once again getting played.
The "Snake Oil" Trope
Yeah I know, a controversial topic, but after 30+ years of hearing both sides and seeing how the argument has evolved over the years, I want to say my piece.
First, I want to debunk the idea of ever using the term, "Snake Oil" because it has been incorrectly appropriated and is not being applied genuinely. For a product to be "Snake Oil" it isn't a simple matter of, "it doesn't do what it claims to do." It has to contain a few more qualities. Chief among them, the materials or ingredients have to be fake, falsified, or non-existent. I have yet to encounter a single premium cable manufacturer who has claimed to use copper or silver and it was fake.
This would be an example of cable "Snake Oil" if it existed:
Company claim: "A 10 gauge speaker wire made of ten 9's pure silver, extracted from conflict-free mines, using NASA quality FEP dielectrics, braided in 24 strands of 17 gauge wire, all concealed in the newly developed element, Star-Spangled-Bannerite, that enhances and boosts all frequencies, repairing broken audio as it travels down the conductor."
Reality: Cutting open the wire you find 3 strands of 14 gauge aluminum wire, wrapped in Glad's saran-wrap, threaded through a 10 gauge rubber garden hose, covered in a fancy colored net.
My biggest problem with the nay-sayer community is the hypocrisy of their accusation that premium quality cables are "Snake Oil" when their charts, measurements and tests have the same level of skepticism they purport to debunk. Using "Snake Oil" to prove "Snake Oil?" Ask yourself the following questions when you next see some online or vlog rant about how cables don't make a difference and they have the measurements to prove it:
1) Did they actually connect the cables to speakers and listen?
2) If they made measurements, did they show you how those cables were connected when they conducted the tests?
3) If it is a vlog, did they show in the video live footage of them conducting the test or is everything after-the-fact?
4) How does the test prove quality and how does the author quantify "quality?"
99% of the time the answer is "no." You just see people posting pictures of charts that could have been made using any form of software. Heck, I could make one in Photoshop that dictates any conclusion I want. The truth is, there isn't a single form of equipment or measurement software that tests the actual perceived quality or clarity of a signal.
For example, "that guy" from Audioholics posted a video bashing a $4000 Audioquest speaker cable. He claims to have run it through tests and he posted pictures of graphs that he gave conclusions for. Not once did he show how it was connected to the machines or equipment. More over, he claimed to have broken the cable, by easily snapping off the banana plug (made of pure copper coated in silver). Well, if that were true, then how could he have possibly connected the cable correctly to test it? He also claimed the cable was on loan from Audioquest. Red flag. Audioquest does not send out one speaker cable to test; they'd have sent out a pair. He also wasn't at all concerned that he had broken a $4000 loaner cable. Therefore, I suspect someone else broke their own cable and let "this guy" borrow it for a video. Lastly, he claims to test the effectiveness of the "DBS" system by showing you a digital read out on some other machine. He claims to unplug the DBS system live...but...off screen, and the digital read out changes. That makes absolutely no sense, since the DBS system isn't tied to the actual conductors or connectors. It's a charged loop from end to end and only keeps the insulation's dielectric field charged. So unplugging it while a signal is being passed through the cable wouldn't change anything. Therefore, the nay-sayer argument, in this instance, was nothing more than "Snake Oil" trying to prove "Snake Oil."
Another time, someone was given a premium XLR cable, but had no idea what an XLR cable was. They didn't recognize the connector format; a red flag straight away! Then goes on to claim all the different measurements they took from it and how it was no better than the free cables you get from manufacturers. Well, if that is true, how was this cable connected to the equipment? If he didn't know what the XLR format was, then it stands to reason they didn't have an XLR input on the equipment they used to test. Therefore, how in the world was this an equitable or viable test of the quality if the cable's conductors weren't all being used correctly during the test? Not once did this person connect it to an audio system to say how it sounded. How do electrical measurements translate into sound quality if one refuses to listen to it?
My final argument against the nay-sayers is one they all have the most trouble with. They don't use the Scientific Method. For example, where's the control in these tests? What system or cable do they universally *ALL* agree is perfect and that they test against? The systems and cables always change and are never consistent. Why is it that they argue for an A / B test, but aren't willing to set one up for themselves? As if it's someone else's responsibility because they refuse to be responsible for their conclusions. Why is it that they only test low end or middle grade cables, but never seem to run these tests on the highest levels? Why is it that the majority of nay-sayers never purchase any of this equipment to find out for themselves?
What I have discovered after 30+ years of arguing this topic, is that the nay-sayers just don't want to have to buy expensive cables. Instead they seek out any form of cognitive bias they can find to use as justification to not buy it. Then suddenly concern themselves with other people's purchase power and tell them not to purchase such cables, as if these people are spending their money. Or they claim that they should have spent all that money on better equipment. Touche', but if they bought better equipment, they'd still buy premium cables to push that better equipment. That's like saving your money to buy a Lamborghini, then deciding on buying 15 inch steel rims with narrow tires for it because wheels are wheels...they bought a better vehicle, so won't need premium tires...or premium gas because the engine is superior. *eye roll.* What it seems to boil down to is that they don't like the idea that just buying premium cables alone can surpass a high grade, well-engineered system. To borrow from my car analogy, buying premium tires for a 4-cylynder hatch back won't make it go any faster, but it will effect some performance, likely gas mileage and road grip. Using the same analogy, buying better cables is akin to buying a turbo kit, back-exhaust system, better suspension, better intake valves, better cold air filters, etc to make that 4-cylinder hatch back perform nearly as well as a stock Lamborghini.
Final thoughts, "Snake Oil" salesmen back in the day weren't just interested in defrauding their customers, they wanted to do it with the least amount of effort. They didn't try to get authentic, high quality ingredients to make the oil look or taste better. They used whatever was on-hand and as free as possible. Cable companies sure seem to go out of their way to acquire the best possible conductors and materials, and have R&D teams engineer complicated wire geometries and spend years finding ways to treat the cables, or develop active tech to impact the signal, just so they can make a few bucks. If the product had absolutely no impact on sound quality, at all, it wouldn't take long for well-engineered systems to reveal their faults and the industry would tank, almost over night. Clearly, they haven't and it's because it isn't "Snake Oil" no matter how many times that old trope is trotted out.
One of the serious problems in this entire discussion is that the perception of "quality" is 100% subjective to the listener, the state of the equipment, the room it is being conducted in, and health of the listener. After years of auditioning my system to people, I realized it isn't a simple matter of asking, "How did that sound to you." You have to be very specific. Ask, "Did you hear that specific sound?" 9 times out of 10, they'll say they didn't hear it. So you play it again and point it out. Then they light up and realize that no matter how many times they heard that song, they had never heard that particular sound. Then they go and compare it to the car radio or through their device's ear buds and realize they cannot hear it or couldn't hear it as clear. Then they come to respect what you're trying to achieve.
First, I want to debunk the idea of ever using the term, "Snake Oil" because it has been incorrectly appropriated and is not being applied genuinely. For a product to be "Snake Oil" it isn't a simple matter of, "it doesn't do what it claims to do." It has to contain a few more qualities. Chief among them, the materials or ingredients have to be fake, falsified, or non-existent. I have yet to encounter a single premium cable manufacturer who has claimed to use copper or silver and it was fake.
This would be an example of cable "Snake Oil" if it existed:
Company claim: "A 10 gauge speaker wire made of ten 9's pure silver, extracted from conflict-free mines, using NASA quality FEP dielectrics, braided in 24 strands of 17 gauge wire, all concealed in the newly developed element, Star-Spangled-Bannerite, that enhances and boosts all frequencies, repairing broken audio as it travels down the conductor."
Reality: Cutting open the wire you find 3 strands of 14 gauge aluminum wire, wrapped in Glad's saran-wrap, threaded through a 10 gauge rubber garden hose, covered in a fancy colored net.
My biggest problem with the nay-sayer community is the hypocrisy of their accusation that premium quality cables are "Snake Oil" when their charts, measurements and tests have the same level of skepticism they purport to debunk. Using "Snake Oil" to prove "Snake Oil?" Ask yourself the following questions when you next see some online or vlog rant about how cables don't make a difference and they have the measurements to prove it:
1) Did they actually connect the cables to speakers and listen?
2) If they made measurements, did they show you how those cables were connected when they conducted the tests?
3) If it is a vlog, did they show in the video live footage of them conducting the test or is everything after-the-fact?
4) How does the test prove quality and how does the author quantify "quality?"
99% of the time the answer is "no." You just see people posting pictures of charts that could have been made using any form of software. Heck, I could make one in Photoshop that dictates any conclusion I want. The truth is, there isn't a single form of equipment or measurement software that tests the actual perceived quality or clarity of a signal.
For example, "that guy" from Audioholics posted a video bashing a $4000 Audioquest speaker cable. He claims to have run it through tests and he posted pictures of graphs that he gave conclusions for. Not once did he show how it was connected to the machines or equipment. More over, he claimed to have broken the cable, by easily snapping off the banana plug (made of pure copper coated in silver). Well, if that were true, then how could he have possibly connected the cable correctly to test it? He also claimed the cable was on loan from Audioquest. Red flag. Audioquest does not send out one speaker cable to test; they'd have sent out a pair. He also wasn't at all concerned that he had broken a $4000 loaner cable. Therefore, I suspect someone else broke their own cable and let "this guy" borrow it for a video. Lastly, he claims to test the effectiveness of the "DBS" system by showing you a digital read out on some other machine. He claims to unplug the DBS system live...but...off screen, and the digital read out changes. That makes absolutely no sense, since the DBS system isn't tied to the actual conductors or connectors. It's a charged loop from end to end and only keeps the insulation's dielectric field charged. So unplugging it while a signal is being passed through the cable wouldn't change anything. Therefore, the nay-sayer argument, in this instance, was nothing more than "Snake Oil" trying to prove "Snake Oil."
Another time, someone was given a premium XLR cable, but had no idea what an XLR cable was. They didn't recognize the connector format; a red flag straight away! Then goes on to claim all the different measurements they took from it and how it was no better than the free cables you get from manufacturers. Well, if that is true, how was this cable connected to the equipment? If he didn't know what the XLR format was, then it stands to reason they didn't have an XLR input on the equipment they used to test. Therefore, how in the world was this an equitable or viable test of the quality if the cable's conductors weren't all being used correctly during the test? Not once did this person connect it to an audio system to say how it sounded. How do electrical measurements translate into sound quality if one refuses to listen to it?
My final argument against the nay-sayers is one they all have the most trouble with. They don't use the Scientific Method. For example, where's the control in these tests? What system or cable do they universally *ALL* agree is perfect and that they test against? The systems and cables always change and are never consistent. Why is it that they argue for an A / B test, but aren't willing to set one up for themselves? As if it's someone else's responsibility because they refuse to be responsible for their conclusions. Why is it that they only test low end or middle grade cables, but never seem to run these tests on the highest levels? Why is it that the majority of nay-sayers never purchase any of this equipment to find out for themselves?
What I have discovered after 30+ years of arguing this topic, is that the nay-sayers just don't want to have to buy expensive cables. Instead they seek out any form of cognitive bias they can find to use as justification to not buy it. Then suddenly concern themselves with other people's purchase power and tell them not to purchase such cables, as if these people are spending their money. Or they claim that they should have spent all that money on better equipment. Touche', but if they bought better equipment, they'd still buy premium cables to push that better equipment. That's like saving your money to buy a Lamborghini, then deciding on buying 15 inch steel rims with narrow tires for it because wheels are wheels...they bought a better vehicle, so won't need premium tires...or premium gas because the engine is superior. *eye roll.* What it seems to boil down to is that they don't like the idea that just buying premium cables alone can surpass a high grade, well-engineered system. To borrow from my car analogy, buying premium tires for a 4-cylynder hatch back won't make it go any faster, but it will effect some performance, likely gas mileage and road grip. Using the same analogy, buying better cables is akin to buying a turbo kit, back-exhaust system, better suspension, better intake valves, better cold air filters, etc to make that 4-cylinder hatch back perform nearly as well as a stock Lamborghini.
Final thoughts, "Snake Oil" salesmen back in the day weren't just interested in defrauding their customers, they wanted to do it with the least amount of effort. They didn't try to get authentic, high quality ingredients to make the oil look or taste better. They used whatever was on-hand and as free as possible. Cable companies sure seem to go out of their way to acquire the best possible conductors and materials, and have R&D teams engineer complicated wire geometries and spend years finding ways to treat the cables, or develop active tech to impact the signal, just so they can make a few bucks. If the product had absolutely no impact on sound quality, at all, it wouldn't take long for well-engineered systems to reveal their faults and the industry would tank, almost over night. Clearly, they haven't and it's because it isn't "Snake Oil" no matter how many times that old trope is trotted out.
One of the serious problems in this entire discussion is that the perception of "quality" is 100% subjective to the listener, the state of the equipment, the room it is being conducted in, and health of the listener. After years of auditioning my system to people, I realized it isn't a simple matter of asking, "How did that sound to you." You have to be very specific. Ask, "Did you hear that specific sound?" 9 times out of 10, they'll say they didn't hear it. So you play it again and point it out. Then they light up and realize that no matter how many times they heard that song, they had never heard that particular sound. Then they go and compare it to the car radio or through their device's ear buds and realize they cannot hear it or couldn't hear it as clear. Then they come to respect what you're trying to achieve.
Showing 21 responses by three_easy_payments
My views on tweaks and products that could fall under the category of "snake oil" are based solely on my own experience. I have tried many and most don't make a material difference in my system - certainly not at a price-to-performance basis. Cabling hasn't made a huge difference but is worth paying attention to. Isolation does work but it's not worth going crazy on cost and implementation. Fuses...can't hear the difference. My focus is on finding great recordings in any format and listening to them through really good primary components. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze on all these tweaks - and this isn't based on any school of thought, just my own personal experiences. Who wants to waste money? Finding amp/speaker combos with gorgeous synergy - now that's worth focusing on in spades! |
Yeah I know, a controversial topic, but after 30+ years of hearing both sides and seeing how the argument has evolved over the years, I want to say my piece. This is the first sentence of your OP. The whole point is that there aren't just two sides - apparently you have chosen one and have crafted an argument to support your "side" (your word, not mine). My "side" is that there is definitely snake oil products out there while other tweaks likely have some benefit. The world doesn't have to be as polarizing as you'd like it to be. I choose not to focus on the tweaks only because they just don't move the needle much from my own personal experience. I wear no label. |
@gaukus BTW, never once in my ENTIRE OP, or this thread, have I stated *I* was better than anyone, or my system was better than anyone's. I invite you to prove it, copy paste the precise words Ummmm....ok But hey, kudos for recognizing that I did provide supporting arguments for my superior position. That was a ridiculously simple. |
@guakas This is the definition of confusion of thought and inability to make a reasoned argument. I couldn’t have made this up if I tried. Simply cutting and pasting your entire post in its entirety. Wow. https://i.postimg.cc/zfMTps9N/Guakas.jpg |
@guakus This wasn't your assertion in the original post. Your entire narrative is about "arguments against the naysayers", and never did you state "to each his own - which I would totally agree with. In fact how do you reconcile writing this: when you originally wrote this? What I have discovered after 30+ years of arguing this topic, is that the nay-sayers just don't want to have to buy expensive cables. Instead they seek out any form of cognitive bias they can find to use as justification to not buy it. This is total assertion of a superior position! I'm not a naysayer, I'm just saying tweaks haven't done much for my system and are easily eclipsed in value by focusing on the primary components, recordings, and overall room acoustics. No cognitive bias as you assert but rather experiences that didn't have a positive outcome. There are many just like me....many of us try things and then move on. |
I think Roger Modjeski summed it up perfectly in terms of relative value and how to set one’s audio priorities: "...makers of tweaks will certainly get no admiration from me. What gets me is why so many people want to play with tweaks rather than make real improvements in their system like bi-amping, adding a good subwoofer and simplifying the signal path." |
Being right or wrong on this topic doesn’t matter - only sales do. At the end of the day if consumers don’t recognize a benefit from buying audio products that are promoted as improving sound then this will be reflected in poor sales. Regardless of how many arguments MC tries making with contrived analogies to rocks and metal to prove he is right the only thing that matters is the market - the ultimate arbiter. Other than an egocentric exercise, there is absolutely zero to gain by trying to "prove" based on argument that your position is correct. This isn’t debate club. People either hear it or they don’t and this is reflected in sales. I highly doubt many people have ever gotten wildly wealthy selling an audio tweak. |
My dad can’t tell the difference between a $4 bottle of wine and a $400 bottle - so he thinks anything more than $4 is a waste - a total ripoff. I could care less. He’s not offending me in the least just because I believe that I can tell the difference. The only type of person would who care (or would be highly sensitive to the issue) is one who has some stake in the high-dollar wine business - or audio tweak business. |
@guakus Here's your introductory premise for this thread: First, I want to debunk the idea of ever using the term, "Snake Oil" because it has been incorrectly appropriated and is not being applied genuinely. Why do you care so much how others characterize certain audio tweaks? They obviously make a wonderful difference in your setup so just enjoy. How are you being harmed by other's perception of audio tweaks? Why do you even care if some people refer to them as "snake oil"? Other than someone who is in the audio tweak business with reputational exposure or branding sensitivity could one possibly care so much what others think. Isn't it simply rewarding enough that you apply these tweaks and enjoy your system so much? Why all the rage? |
@guakus @three_easy_payments I'm glad you asked because I'm happy to answer these questions. 1. Why do you even care if some people refer to them as "snake oil"? Answer: I don't care. Doesn't bother me in the least. 2. Why do you care to comment about someone else’s purchase that wasn’t yours as "Snake Oil" in the first place? (your question not mine). Answer: I comment only as inquiry of prioritization of audio tweaks because I'm curious if other's experiences matches or differs from mine in terms of the impact of tweaks. I don't find more than 10% impact from things like wires and footers and I'm just curious of other's experiences. I don't claim I'm "correct" since this is very subjective. I have a thread where I'm soliciting input from all. It's too bad we don't have a poll feature in this forum. 3. Isn't it simply rewarding enough that you apply these tweaks and enjoy your system so much? Why all the rage? Answer: Absolutely! And there is no rage here. I look forward to your responses to the same questions. Thanks. |
What intrigues me is that a person can claim to hear the difference between speakers and amps, but magically can't hear the difference between cables? It's just tribal nonsense. I definitely can hear differences between speakers and amps, and only sometimes hear differences in cables. And when I do hear differences in cables there's a much lower impact to overall sound than amp/speaker pairing. Because this is what I hear doesn't make my view "correct" - it's just how I perceive things and it certainly isn't "magic". The fact that you and others do hear much more substantial differences in cables and their impact to overall sound is great...and I don't dismiss it as tribal nonsense. Hopefully the fact that I'm perceiving the impact of gear on sound differently certainly doesn't warrant the categorization of "tribal nonsense". Let's just all put our priorities towards where they make us happy. Hopefully we agree on that - everyone's views based on their own experiences is valid - none of it is nonsense. |
@guakus It's nice to see we are finding common ground to agree on. You are exactly correct in that what I have heard only applies to gear in my system...as well as through my ears. How your system and gear swaps within would sound to me (let alone you) are things I couldn't possibly comment on. And I certainly do not deny that cables can make a difference...I have heard differences for sure. But I also believe some people don't hear differences and I don't think they belong to a "tribe" simply because they haven't heard the differences. Where I do think they belong to a "tribe" is if they deny that it's possible for audible differences to exist between cables. I've had interesting experiences in power distribution equipment - mainly conditioners. I've discovered (to my ears and within my systems) that while linear conditioners and power regenerators may substantially reduce noise and lower the noise floor, they tend to degrade the dynamics. The only products that I've used that both reduce noise (RFI/EMI/DC on the line) while not killing dynamics have been the isolation transformers. I have not had much success in gaining SQ from power cords except in one notable instance with my Sugden A21SE. For whatever reason just upgrading to a $200 cord makes a substantial improvement. So once again - I agree that these things make a difference and perhaps our experiential differences are a matter of degree. |