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.




128x128guakus
@oldhymec
'It does get old people trying to save ME.
Like Master M said. "What if I don't want to be saved?"'

They're not trying to save you. They're trying to save the less knowledgeable people you may influence.
Gaukas, both VH Audio and Duelund sell bulk wire manufactured specifically designed and manufactured for audio use.
I use both in making diy Helix power cords, pretty complex cords, long thread here in reference to these cable. Also recipes for IC and speaker.
Best pc's I've tried, and believe me I've tried many up to and including multiples of $1k.
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.
This is called a 'suggestive question' and 5 mins in Psych 101 would tell you why any assumptions made based upon it are useless.
From bluejeanscable.com

It's not too hard to understand why a lot of discussion of quality cables focuses on the materials used in cable construction. Just as with any physical product, the materials cables are made out of influence their performance characteristics, and so people want to know that the cables they're buying are made from the best possible materials.

Many high-priced cables are made with materials for which special claims of high performance are made. The most common among these are silver instead of or in addition to copper, "oxygen-free" copper, and Teflon. We'll address each of these in turn and explain what they are, what their characteristics are, and whether they make sense for particular applications.

Initially, it's perhaps helpful to point out that professional cables of the highest quality are routinely made without resort to any strange, exotic or expensive materials. If you look inside a typical audio or video production facility, you won't find it wired with silver-plated cables, oxygen-free copper cables, or (except, as we'll explain, in limited circumstances) Teflon-insulated cables. Broadcast studio engineers--people whose livelihood depends on the signal getting through with the lowest possible distortion and losses--rely on cables from companies like Belden and Canare, made with ordinary high-quality materials. People who spend millions of dollars on high-definition studio gear rely on these cables not because they're out to save a buck at the cost of quality, but because they are looking for the best possible product.

Let's take a look at some of these materials and consider how they bear on quality cable construction.

Silver or Silver-Plated Cables

Broadcast-quality cables are generally made with copper conductors; but it's not uncommon, in the consumer a/v market, to run into cables made with silver, or silver-plated copper, conductors. Why is this?

There is one respect in which silver is a better material for cable construction than copper: it is slightly (about 5%) less resistive (that is, more conductive) than annealed copper. "Resistance" is the property of any material which causes some of the electricity that flows through it to be converted into heat, and it's fair to say that resistance, in cables, is a bad thing--the less the better. All else being equal, lower resistance ought to be a good thing, and therefore one might think that silver would make for a better cable than copper.

That would indeed be so, but there are some other factors to take into account. First, the resistive loss in high-quality copper cables is already extremely small, because copper, though marginally less conductive than silver, is an extremely conductive metal. For example, Belden 1694A's center conductor resistance is 6.4 ohms per thousand feet. In a very long home theater run of 50 feet, then, the resistance of the conductor is 0.32 ohms, representing a minuscule cause of signal loss in a 75 ohm impedance video circuit; a solid silver conductor would drop this resistance by about five percent, resulting in a truly infinitesimal improvement.

This infinitesimal improvement might be worth something under extreme circumstances, all else being equal--but all else is rarely equal. First, silver is a more brittle material than copper, compromising the cable's flex-life. To solve this problem, silver is often plated over a copper wire--diminishing the conductivity benefit. Second, the conductivity benefit, as often as not, is offset by a reduction in wire gauge. Going from an 18 AWG conductor to a 20 AWG conductor, for example, results in an increase in resistance of over 50%; this swamps the conductivity benefit of silver, so that an 18 AWG copper conductor is more conductive, not less, than a 20 AWG silver or silver-plated conductor. When the comparison is between full-sized copper cables and silver-plated mini-coax of tiny gauge, like those one sees in many popular silver cable products, there's no contest; full-sized copper cables are dramatically more conductive, silver or no silver.

Oxygen-Free Copper

Many cables today are advertised as using "oxygen-free copper." OFC is popular in audio cables, and has begun to make inroads into the video cable market as well.

We all know, of course, that oxygen is bad for things made from copper. Copper oxidizes and turns green and flaky; in so doing, it loses its high conductivity and begins to fall apart. But the amount of oxygen present in conventionally annealed, non-OFC copper is so tiny that it simply isn't a factor in cable quality. We have cut into pieces of Belden coaxial cable twenty-five years old that have been used in radio transmission applications--and found them clean and bright, completely lacking any sign of oxidation. Modern coax is better still, with nitrogen-injected foam dielectrics that keep oxygen entirely away from the center conductor.

As it is with silver, there's nothing wrong with OFC; but electrically speaking, OFC wire is indistinguishable in audio and video applications from ordinary annealed copper wire.

Teflon Dielectrics and Insulation

Teflon is a special case, in one interesting sense: while audio and video cables made with silver or OFC are seldom used by professionals, there are plenty of professional-quality cables made with Teflon, for reasons we'll get to in a moment.

Teflon, of course, is familiar to us all as a coating on cookware; but it has certain interesting electrical properties as well which account for its use in cables. Insulating materials like Teflon vary in their ability to isolate conductors electrically from one another, and this property is characterized mathematically as the "dielectric constant." The best dielectric, from a purely electrical standpoint, is a vacuum; air is very nearly as good. But of course, when we're making coaxial cable, it's hard to use pure air as a dielectric because we need something relatively solid to keep the center conductor from coming into contact with, and shorting out to, the shield. A good dielectric for cable manufacture needs to be physically stable as well as having a good dielectric constant. Two materials that meet these criteria are polyethylene, used in the vast majority of precision video cables, and Teflon.

If we look at the characteristics of Teflon and polyethylene side-by-side, what becomes apparent is that Teflon has a lower dielectric constant; it is, in that sense, simply a "better" dielectric than polyethylene. If we were to make two coaxial cables, otherwise identical to one another, but produce one with polyethylene foam dielectric and the other with Teflon foam dielectric, the Teflon cable would have lower capacitance. Low capacitance being good, that'd be a good thing--right?

It would indeed; but there's a problem. The dielectric constant, capacitance, and the cable's characteristic impedance are all tied up together. If, in our example, the polyethylene cable had a 75 ohm characteristic impedance, for use in video, the Teflon cable would have a higher impedance, and would present an impedance mismatch if used in a video circuit. In order to correct the problem, we need to make the dielectric and shield smaller. When we get to 75 ohms impedance, we wind up with the same capacitance we had in the polyethylene cable. In other words, just because the Teflon is a "better" dielectric doesn't mean we get a "better" cable; it just means we don't need quite as much Teflon to achieve the same cable characteristics that we get using polyethylene.

Teflon's much more expensive, but a video cable with Teflon offers no performance enhancement over one made with polyethylene--so why the heck does anybody buy Teflon cables, anyhow? The answer has nothing at all to do with electrical performance, and everything to do with fire safety. Polyethylene, when exposed to fire, burns and gives off toxic fumes. This becomes an enormous hazard in a modern office building, where huge bundles of telephone and data cables are run through spaces which are also used for ventilation, because a fire in one part of a building can rapidly spread toxic fumes to the whole building. Teflon, by contrast, is highly fire-resistant and does not give off toxic fumes as easily. Because of this fire safety issue, cables which are routed through a plenum--that is, a dropped-ceiling area used as a ventilation return--are required to have a "plenum" rating, and Teflon, being both highly fire resistant and an excellent dielectric, is used in most plenum-rated cables.

Perhaps partly because of the higher cost of Teflon cables, some people believe that plenum versions of precision video cables perform better than their non-plenum counterparts. For example, one will sometimes see Belden 1695A, the plenum version of 1694A, recommended as a performance upgrade from 1694A. In fact, however, the performance specs on these two cables are virtually identical (and when they're different, 1694A is the better of the two!), and there is no reason to favor 1695A--unless, of course, you need that plenum fire rating.

We sell Teflon-dielectric cables, like Belden 1695A, alongside our polyethylene-dielectric offerings. If we thought that there were performance advantages to, say, Belden 1695A over Belden 1694A, we'd be the first to recommend it--but our experience has been that the two are, as the specs would suggest, completely indistinguishable. Teflon-based cables can be superb, but no more so than their less expensive, polyethylene equivalents; our recommendation is to use them if you need a plenum fire rating, but to save your money if you don't.

So if Materials don't Make the Difference, What Does?

All right--if fancy and expensive materials aren't what distinguish bad cable from good cable, what does make the difference? The answer is that cable manufacture is all about consistency and tolerances. Is that surprising? Consider that all automobiles are made out of basically the same raw materials--mostly steel and plastics. The difference between a Yugo and a Ferrari has a lot more to do with what one does with the steel and plastic than with how good the raw steel and plastic were before anyone made them into engines, components, and body panels. With cable, it's all about controlling dimensions and consistencies. How consistent is the size of a wire from point to point? Are the nitrogen bubbles in the foamed dielectric of even size and distribution? Is the outer dimension of the dielectric different from point to point? Is the tightness of the foil and braid the same from point to point? The electrical characteristics of cable are intimately bound up with these fiddly little questions of controlling manufacturing tolerances. Somewhere, someone is scratching his head right now over just how to center a wire inside an extruded dielectric just a little bit better--perhaps by a ten-thousandth of an inch--than is currently possible. Questions like that, for those who don't need to deal with them for a living, are exquisitely boring. But attention to these questions is what makes the difference between American broadcast-quality cable and the cheap Chinese stuff which is so very common on the consumer audio/video market.

In Conclusion...

Fine materials and quality manufacturing practices make the best cables; but the best materials for cable manufacture aren't always the most exotic or fancy-sounding. Not only are quality copper wire and nitrogen-injected PE foam dielectric great materials for building a precision video cable, but manufacturers like Belden make the best use of these excellent materials by employing them in well-engineered manufacturing processes, with tight tolerances. The result: cables of the highest quality, relied upon worldwide by professional broadcast engineers when the quality of the signal is of the utmost importance.



@jerryrocks   There is also a link feature that can be used instead of the massive cut & paste.  Not being snarky - I just noticed you're a newer member so was pointing out the feature.