"AES E-Library » Cable Pathways Between Audio Components Can Affect Perceived Sound Quality" https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=21109
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.
337 responses Add your response
mijostyn .... because people do not understand scientific thinking and frankly do not want to. They would rather hold seances.That's mighty colorful writing, and a great way to avoid the issue. It is safe to assume the placebo effect as 50%. If I give 100 people with headaches a sugar pill 50 will tell you it made them better. This is why we always run controls.That's an amazing assumption, but now we're getting somewhere! Please tell us about the tests you and your team have conducted. The only tests I've seen regarding placebo and headaches merely concluded that the drug under test was not much more effective than placebo. But that raises as much question about the drug as it does the placebo, doesn't it? So I'm really interested in seeing your data and how the tests were conducted. I can PM you my email, if you like. Just let me know. |
The logic is unassailable. See if you can follow it. The choice of dielectric has a big effect on sound. Why? Because no dielectric is perfect. What does that mean? The perfect dielectric would neither absorb nor release any electrical energy. None of them are perfect. They all are energized to some extent by the electric field around the signal. Then after the signal peak passes some of this energy is released back into the wire. This results in audible smearing. Okay, so one solid fact everyone should know. Next one, that logically follows from the first, every dielectric holds some amount of charge. We don't want this, it isn't perfect, but it does. The amount varies with some being better than others. They all do this to some degree however, or else otherwise they would be perfect, see? Now imagine a brand new cable. Signal comes along, charges the dielectric, bleeds back in smearing the signal. Bleeds back in at different rates. Starts out fast but then falls off as the charge dissipates. Just like everything else you ever seen your whole life. Think of a rock or piece of metal. Hit it with a blow torch it gets hot. Take away the torch, at first it is real hot but then cools off real fast at first, but then stays fairly warm for quite some time after that. Now imagine the rock was cold to begin with. More heat would go to warming the inside of the rock, at least at first. After a while you keep hitting it with the torch, taking it away, hitting it again, eventually the rock reaches thermal equilibrium. From that point on the radiation you feel on the outside becomes a lot more stable and consistent. Same thing happens with the dielectric. Takes a while but eventually it becomes electrically saturated and then performs much more consistently. It is not so terribly hard to understand now, is it? |
I have so far noticed that no one on this thread has dared to step forward to explain how, or why, any audio cable could possibly require a "break in" period to achieve its optimum performance. Yet this is one of the widely held "myths" held by those who champion the virtues of "premium" or expensive audio-speaker cables. I maintain that there is simply no logical explanation for this purely subjective idea - and that the only plausible cause for this phenomenon is the very common occurrence of the "placebo effect" that can so easily alter the judgement of all of us - including myself!. I have fallen for a few "slick" sales pitches in my time! When I installed a device called the Judson Electronic Magneto on my vintage Volkswagen Beetle - I was utterly convinced that my car experienced a significant performance improvement, until it failed. I then later discovered, thru Consumer Reports, that this impressive looking gadget was nothing but an ordinary ignition coil encased in a fancy chrome plated case with a "phony" solid state chip mounted on the front. We can all be "suckered" into wasting our money - so "buyer beware"! That is why organizations like Consumer Reports exist, to help us avoid bad choices in our purchases. It's a virtual jungle out there - with proliferating scams of all stripes vying to dip into our pockets - to make lots of "easy money". In these strange times, you don't always "get what you pay for" - so "a word to the wise should be sufficient". Happy listening to all! |
guakus: ”…You’re using a broad judgemental [sic] opinion to simplify a complex discussion….” elegant design - whether, architectural, engineering, graphic design, etc - strips things down to its essentials in the service of clarity. If your argument relies on complexity, maybe it’s in the service of obfuscation, maybe you need a better argument. |
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." |
@gaukus It’s not an entirely different discussion. It’s the same discussion. I found for all intents and purposes that there is no, nunca, nada, zero, zilch difference. Ok, I’ll refrain from hyperbole. I can say that if there was a difference, it was certainly well within the margin of my audio system’s warm up time. These threads over cables are such a waste of time. I’m checking out now. Regards - |
@georgehifi " But you are, it's your pocket that will be hurt buy $200+ fuses that a 10c Bussman will do just as good. " Your pocket, last I checked, wasn't part of your physical being. If the cost hurts your pocketbook, then don't buy it; you can't afford it. No one has asked anyone to go bankrupt to get better sound. You're also basing your entire premise on fuses. That is an extremely narrow vision. There are other components being attacked, speaker cables, interconnects, power cables, power distributors, DACs, cable risers, RF diffusion devices, etc. |
@unreceiveddogma " I still found the cables simply to be not worth the money nor my effort. " Whether the audio gains are worth the price of admission is an ENTIRELY different discussion. This discussion is the quandary that better cables do NOT equal better sound. And for the record, if a person makes a poor assumption that, "it's all in your head" then I am welcome to respond with, "there must be something wrong with your ability to hear." |
@mijostyn
" "How can you have an opinion if you have not listened." I am really sick of that bail out. " Well, I am really sick of being told it is all in my head. That's also a monumental bail out as well as a personal attack. I find that trope to be offensive and truly it is the crux of the entire argument. Nay-sayers cannot conduct their discussion without the need for insulting people. Indeed that is the entire point of the nay-sayer argument, is it not? Those folks are suggesting that people who buy and invest in expensive cables are "fools" and those same folks feel the need to express that. Well, as it turns out, it is very easy to prove it isn't in anyone's head and follows electrical engineering. I mentioned this concept before in this thread. Remove your audio cable to your subwoofer (assuming it uses an RCA connection) and put in a component video cable and experience a complete loss of bass. Component cables are designed to filter out low frequency information. It's still copper, it still supports 75ohms, it has an RCA connector. It proves that cable geometry makes a definitive difference and golly gee whiz, if cable geometry can make that big a difference...then....the conclusion is better cables equal better sound. Here's another one, if cable geometry doesn't matter, then why does HDMI require such precise wire twists and specific intervals in order to maintain speed of transmission and synchronization between audio and video? Because geometry matters. "But it's ones and zeros!" No, no it isn't. It's an analog square-wave that is interpreted as a one or zero on the receiving end. That signal is 100% impacted by electrical flaws and interference. Also, you wouldn't connect your large speakers with 32 gauge telephone wire. At a minimum, you would connect a 12 gauge speaker wire. Why? According to you folks it shouldn't matter. Buying 12 gauge braided speaker wire is "Snake Oil." Oh wait, I forgot, if that wire is under $50 it magically becomes practical and not "Snake Oil." Give it up. You're welcome to your opinion and in general there is nothing wrong with that. It only becomes a problem when you feel the need to pass judgement on those who don't believe as you do. Why can't you accept that some people can hear the difference? Is it because you dislike the idea that you're being left out? |
@cleeds, because people do not understand scientific thinking and frankly do not want to. They would rather hold seances. vinylguy2016 is sharing a valid opinion and I'm sure like myself he collects some valuable information here. An engineering graduate can't be a hobbyist and enjoy conversation with others that share the same fascination? vinylguy2016, I started in exactly the same place, ST70 + PAS 3X kits. Got them with snow clearing money at Lechmere Sales in Dedham. I brought them home in a backpack. I was on a bicycle which I was not allowed to ride off the block:-) My parents had no idea what I was doing. Thank you for your eloquent statement. I get roasted all the time for expressing that opinion. Badge of honor. You might not get it as vigorously as you are far more polite than I am. It is safe to assume the placebo effect as 50%. If I give 100 people with headaches a sugar pill 50 will tell you it made them better. This is why we always run controls. It would be fun to run an experiment on appearance. Take two pair of the exact same cables, but dress one set up with covers and fake little boxes. Let the subjects see the cables. I'd bet 75% will tell you the dressed up cable sounded better. Marketers are not scientists either which is why reading most audio ads is such a trip into implausibility. "How can you have an opinion if you have not listened." I am really sick of that bail out. Do I have to see a bus to know it can't fly? Speakers and turntables operate under the rule of physics. No mystery to someone who understands those rules. There are many very smart people here but, none of us can be educated in everything. We follow certain paths. It astounds me that so many people have no concept of the plasticity of the human central nervous system. It was programmed by evolution to survive in a very dangerous environment. In most places that environment no longer exists. Thus many of our instincts and physiologies have become dysfunctional. Why do we go out of our way to anger someone who does not share our opinion? Seems so counterproductive. But, I just can't help myself when it comes to the tweakers. There's that darn male dominance instinct. |
I'm wondering how the objectivists came to make their purchasing decisions? Did you do double blind tests on cables you purchased, or was it a subjective decision? I've seen very few double blind tests in regard to cables or audio equipment over many years. The few I've seen have been from audiophile associations, clubs or just a few guys getting together. Always see varied judgements, sometimes a modicum of consensus, other times not. Evidence for correlation in some cases, this is not good enough for concrete conclusions. As for running the double blind tests, why do you need the manufacturer of cable to participate? You guys should be running these on regular basis, get the subjectivists amongst us to participate. One side says you need to experience a variety of cables at all price points to gain knowledge, the other, you need to participate in double blind tests to gain knowledge. Well, certainly easy to experience a variety of cables in our free market capitalist system. Not so easy to participate in double blind tests. We subjectivist have provided many entry points to ascertain for yourself whether cables make a difference or not. Isn't it up to you guys to provide us with opportunities to participate in rigorous scientific double blind tests? The subjectivists are fine with the status quo, you guys seem to not like so much. We subjectivists absolutely need to hear for ourselves your particular chosen cable vs. our chosen cable in double blind test. I can't just take your testimony as proof, talk about snake oil salesmen! |
vinylguy2016 What is so odd about asking for an solid explanation as well as doing a listening test?What's odd is that as a self-described "engineering graduate," you come to a hobbyist's group seeking proof from others. ... I do care about the current proliferation of unscientific thinking in the audio field ...Take a look around. The world is filled with unscientific thinking. |
guakus: You have failed to respond to my position. I am not calling anyone snake oil salesmen. I have tried about a dozen cable interconnects and speaker cables over the decades that are attached to what I regard as hefty prices. You insist that this is the "price of entry", pardon the pun, to have a respectable position in this debate. I still found the cables simply to be not worth the money nor my effort. Instead of simply saying that we are each entitled to our views, you arrogate unto yourself the position that I cannot hear. This is a condescending attack and as you are not privy to the medical records of my ear, nose and throat doctor, you have absolutely zero empirical data to support it and I find it hard to believe that you should think that I should take it seriously: it is yet another arrogant condescension on your part. The burden is on you, not me, to prove you are correct. I won’t wait for a nether region to freeze over. Best regards - |
No one is asking anyone to hurt themselves physically. But you are, it's your pocket that will be hurt buy $200+ fuses that a 10c Bussman will do just as good. cerberus79To those non technical thinking of purchasing these $$$ fuses. Just save your $150+ and do this instead. A fuse: 1: two end caps 2: short piece of fuse wire connecting the two end caps through a glass tube (that’s all she wrote). To those "non technical" members that are interested in "maybe" wasting their money, do not listen to the non-technical, listen to the technicians of this industry that design the audio products you have and listen to. AND YOU WON"T SEE THEM ON THREADS LIKE THIS AGREEING WITH WHAT SAID HERE ABOUT THE SOUND IMPROVMENT DETAILS AND AC FUSE PLACEMENT DIRECTION, EVER!!! Just clean and tighten your fuse holder and re-new your fuse (if old) with a good quality 50cent Bussman, Littlefuse or similar.As with "many switch-on surges" they do deteriorate, bend, stretch and get crusty with electrolysis formations on their fusible wire elements before they give out, as these pics show of a fuse wire element ageing over time show. https://ibb.co/9NbTwqK (even the $$$ boutique ones will age just as much also) Cheers George |
These speaker cables set you back some $20,000. https://in-akustik.de/de/kabel-zubehoer/referenz-air/air-technologie/ They probably sound very ... eh ... transparent? (You can try them for free btw). Now open up your loudspeaker cabinet and look inside ... chances are from the terminals to the filter standard 18 AWM copper wire is being used. If you’re lucky 14 AWM. Same from filter to speaker. All and all probably 3 - 6 feet depending on your speaker cabinet size. |
I have bought many tweaks over the last three years. Some have made noticeable improvements to my music, and some have not. When posting here, I was lambasted by many - George deserving a slap for his vitriol (sorry George for using big words). Best solution I found? Disappearing. And listening to music. That solved all problems. |
Hi All: If I heard a logical, rational explanation of the widely held claim amongst the "super" cable lovers that audio cables need to "break in" to sound their best - then I might reassess my skepticism regarding cables priced in the thousands! As an engineering graduate, I cannot fathom how a low voltage audio signal could improve the metallurgical, or physical characteristics of any audio cable - no matter how long that cable has been in service. I challenge any contributor to this thread to explain how this "magical" improvement to audio performance can happen over time. This particular claim in not a "complex discussion"! What is so odd about asking for an solid explanation as well as doing a listening test? I have not noticed any such improvement over time in my system. You may ask, "why do I care what others spend for their system"? - and my answer is that I don't. But I do care about the current proliferation of unscientific thinking in the audio field that was largely absent in the earlier days of audio. |
@adasdad
" Well have you tried it I asked. No. " ^^^^ Therein lies the true quandary. How can they assert with confidence that they are correct when they themselves haven't even attempted to experience it? I want to state for the record that a common excuse being used in this thread by the nay-sayers, is the concept that $50 is the fine line between "nothing can be better than this" and anything above is "Snake Oil." If I asked my wife, she'd say, "$50 is still too much!" Witness the hypocrisy that they quantify $50 being the epitome of perfect, but can turn around and say that if you didn't spend over $1000 on your stereo equipment, it couldn't possibly be any good. LoL!!!! |
Right on femoore12. I think this whole discussion about snake oil is based upon one guy wanting to exert control over others because he possibly lacks control in other areas of his own life. I unfortunately went through this same tawdry pooh party on another forum when I expressed my satisfaction that putting a network switch and an Ethernet filter between my router and music server was making the music sound a little better. And OMG did the cable and upgrade deniers attack like a school of piranhas after a piece of bloody red meat thrown into a river. Well have you tried it I asked. No. Don’t need to was the choruses reply. Of course they say that they’re engineers of some sort, been in the business forever, and are DIY people who know all about 1’s and 0’s, and that I’m just another dupe who’s been conned. Man it gets tedious and altogether excessively annoying. What happened to the days when you could just describe the system that you had put together, say whether you liked what you heard or not, and ask other folks if they had had a similar or different experience without being personally attacked for the choices that you’ve made using your own money? |
Why do you care what I spend my money on for my system? Why does it get you so worked up that you have to tell me that I don't really hear what I am hearing? If I feel like buying goofy looking cables, or anti-gravity isolation bases, or applying some high tech goop onto the connectors, or fuses named after colors in the rainbow, why do you care? And you don't get to use the excuse "I am just trying to keep people from wasting their money....blah blah blah..." Cheers! |
@vinylguy2016 You’re using a broad judgemental opinion to simplify a complex discussion. That’s also a typical human psychological trait. This concept where humans feel the need to label and compartmentalize everything in order to simplify one’s surroundings because it’s easier. Also, if you’re going to wax psychological human traits, there is plenty of studies that qualify the idea that some humans simply can’t hear certain sounds. Their brain isn’t wired in a way that allows them to hear differences between certain vowel sounds. Your overly generalized argument can be just as easily turned against you. I posit that nay-sayers lack the brain processes required to articulate any changes and nuance in sound quality. Thus they aren’t able to "hear" the difference and they immediately assume the opposing argument is flawed. They seek any evidence they can find to support their opinion; even if that evidence isn’t acquired through scientific method, peer reviewed or contain any control to cross-reference the results, and without any real tools to properly test for the quality of sound. Your side keeps asking for proof, but your side is just as incapable of providing proof. IN fact, I don’t see where it’s our side that has to prove anything. If I say, "This plate of tacos is delicious and must be the best taco ever made!" I would not be held to account to prove that it is the most delicious because "delicious" is subjective. There is no test that can be performed to determine whether that taco is "delicious." The only way anyone can "test" for it, is to have a control. An EQUALLY agreed upon control. So, a taco that *ALL* sides agrees is delicious and thus any new taco tested will be tested against the agreed upon control. Then those results will be peer reviewed. Then you would have a solid decision. This is the significant issue nay-sayers have. They lack the drive and resources to commit to a true test. There has to be a control system. An agreed upon system that ALL sides accept as the control. So anyone who wants to decide whether cables make a difference, or burn in is real, has to HAVE that exact system. You can make use of all that electrical testing equipment by verifying that the power requirements of any socket, power distributor, or power strip meets the same control variables set forth and agreed upon. Care to do that? Somehow, I doubt it. I find it amusing that ANY TIME this idea is brought up and folks are willing to PAY for it and support it, document it, and willing to settle this argument...the nay-sayers offer up a defensive excuse and leave the table. It’s almost as if they NEED this argument to continue. They don’t want it settled; it’s too much fun for them. Not to poke the hornets nest, but a certain nay-sayer "audiophile" was offered such a chance from a reputable "Snake Oil" brand and he turned it down. They would have shipped all his equipment to a neutral location, paid all expenses, rent and pay for a camera crew, and actually pay this person cash for their consulting. That person still offered up excuses and thus the ultimate test was washed. |
@unreceivedogma https://www.theaudioatticvinylsundays.com/aboutBy far, the best thing I got from this thread is that album list….nicely done. |
@vinylguy2016Do you believe you could hear difference between $3 cheapo aluminum conductor, tin plated connector cable and your $50 cable in double blind test? And did you in fact conduct such a test? Assuming you did and $50 cable came out ahead, what aspect of this cable's design or materials caused this sound improvement? And assuming you do credit design or materials or both as causing this sound improvement, why would you assume your $50 cable couldn't be improved upon by another cable's different design and/or materials used? Have you actually done double blind testing of your cable vs. any number of other cables? As for cognitive bias, you certainly seem to have plenty, must feel good to know $50 cables sound as good or better than all the high priced illusions or delusions we buy into. By the way, I don't proscribe to the pricier the better belief system. I make my own cables, and they deliver quality sound. I don't rate them on some simplified, objectified linear scale of best to worse. To believe our mind/ear complexity can be measured by presently available equipment designed by today's limited knowledge is laughable. Cognitive bias and placebo effects barely touch on the complexity of our sense of hearing and evaluations of sound quality. Double blind testing for audio quality using short segments of music is liable to so many variables, very insubstantial evidence. |
vinylguy2016 ... lets not talk about using "snake oil" to describe this subjective phenomenon - but use the scientifically correct term of "placebo effect"...This is circular reasoning a.k.a. "begging the question." You don’t know if this "subjective phenomenon" is "placebo effect" or something else. In fact, it is almost certainly not "placebo effect." Just as placebo effect will not cure cancer, neither will it provide lasting results in an audio system. The notion that placebo effect results because of the higher price of a cable is also a misguided argument. Many an audiophile believed cables could make no sonic difference - until they actually listened and heard it for themselves. In those instances, placebo effect would have resulted in hearing no difference at all. Many of us started of as skeptics and had to be convinced through listening that some things make a difference. Others simply cling to their beliefs and incomplete knowledge. |
The significant impact of the "placebo effect" on human reactions has been thoroughly studied and documented. This has nothing to do with "measurement tools" - but on the anticipatory changes to the brain that affect the nature of subjective judgements a person may make. The common audiophile belief that audio cables are improved by a "break in" period is an example of subjective judgements that have no scientific or logical basis whatsoever. Pointing this out is a matter of pure fact, not "cognitive bias"! |
OK, lets not talk about using "snake oil" to describe this subjective phenomenon - but use the scientifically correct term of "placebo effect". I maintain that placebo controlled double blind studies on these expensive cables are the only way to truly verify their superiority over ordinary quality cables. If I spent more than $2000 on a set of "expensive" speaker cables - would I really be able to properly assess their superiority over my previous $50 set of 12 gauge, copper cables that sounded just fine to me - until I succumbed to a slick "sales pitch" on audiogon? Scientific studies of the placebo effect verify that such subjective comparisons are often futile. Allowing for the "placebo effect" is most often utilized in the medical field - but the exact same principles can apply to other comparative areas, when subjectivity plays a commanding role. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-placebo-effect-2795466 So, "feeling good" about an expensive, great looking, beautifully packaged cable purchase has a high probability of affecting our final judgement of the sound quality resulting from that purchase. Furthermore, the comments of some audiogon contributors to this discussion about sound "improvements" resulting from expensive cable "break in" are further evidence of the "placebo effect" at work here. Rigorous science tells us that low voltage current flowing thru any audio cable cannot change any of the physical or metallurgical characteristics of that cable over time. No one who spent $2000 on a set of "glitzy" cables would want to admit that they spent $1950 more than they needed to for this purchase! Let logic, science and engineering knowledge guide us in making choices about our audio purchases and other important life decisions! |
Hello guakus: I’ve been at this audio thing for 53 years, since I built a Dyna70 and a Dyna PAS from kits at the age of 14, when I was a member of that lumpen proletariat that the apply named dadork rather too readily and self-revealingly takes comfort in mocking and sneering at. To him I say no, you are wrong, there are mountains of studies about how the structure of our economic system has increasingly constrained mobility in the U.S., some studies even from conservative think tanks (though I highly recommend that he read Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, and Capital and Ideology), but I suspect he will demonstrate the same inertia towards educating himself on the issue that he accuses the proletariat of displaying with regard to upward mobility. But I digress. Since I was 14, I have made improvements to the system. They are few and far between, chosen to enhance a system that is specifically committed to analog tube sound, with economy in mind. Few and far between does not mean that I haven’t taken the time to audition many, many components, some costing far more than what I finally ended up with. I went through auditioning exercises with cables that cost up to $2K. Go to https://www.theaudioatticvinylsundays.com/about to see a listing of the components in my current setup. By far, the biggest improvement to my system was the one I made 3 years ago: building a room with a gabled ceiling that is covered with 6” to 17” of rockwool and burlap, and finally figuring out where that sub belongs. By far, the components with the least impact were speaker cables and interconnects. Note that I don’t even bother to include mention of them on the About page. And I don’t really care, at the end, what kind of science went into the cables. I worked in Pharma advertising for over two decades, and in doing so I got to see how tens of millions of dollars can be poured into products that ultimately don’t perform as well as designed, or that fail altogether. I think somebody said show me the beef. I now finally have my system pretty much where I have wanted it for these 53 years (sadly, when my hearing goes up only to 13 or 14Khz instead of 17 or 18Khz, 😢). No, I’m just not gonna pay a lotta money for that cable. I don’t need to call them snake oil to guild the lilly around my decision (not that there’s anything wrong with that, and not that the folks doing so shouldn’t be taken seriously), the decision still stands, and speaks for itself, as it has for decades. Until when or if we evolve beyond our capitalist society, people are free to spend the dollars that they acquire as they wish. Full stop. regards all. |
I have been use a pair of Shunyata Anaconda Zitron XLR 1.5 m between phono amp to preamp and because they were almost twice the price of my transparent Super MM 1.OM and at that time the Transparent was to short but after moving the phono amp closer I was able to compare the two and to my surprise the Transparent sound stage was much wider and a few LP's that sounded a little to shrill on cymbals were much cleaner and making the LP enjoyable again after some mods to my LP12 was a big improvement over stock LP12,after hearing the improvement over the Shunyata I bought a pair of Transparent Ultra Gen 5 XLR which did everything that the Super did but better, so cables do make a difference and I will stick with Transparent because I know going up the ladder there will be a worthwhile improvement.With my ARC equipment the Shunyata was just to bright and closed in.People who say they all sound the same have either crappy equipment or bad hearing. |
| Post removed |
@thelotusgroup You are suggesting that people act with courtesy and regard when having discourse on this subject. The "Snake Oil" trope doesn't lend itself to polite conversation. The entire term is an intended blight upon those who have made their choice for how they wish to tweak their system. It's a blatant attack. Nothing more. There is generally no middle or common ground, except that a sound system has to have power cables, interconnects and speaker cable in order to function. The "Snake Oil" argument isn't too dissimilar to politics or religion. How many times has that discussion ever been met with civility? ;) There will forever be someone who feels compelled to shame an audiophile for spending their money on expensive cables instead of just buying a better system. |
Not sure I agree that anyone who wants to raise their circumstances can, though some may be able. I think that is a story we like to tell ourselves, but I wholeheartedly agree with your contention, “I guarantee you if you a reader of this forum no matter how rock bottom your gear is you are rich to someone.” I think we can safely argue that no two systems are identical. Even if all the cabling and equipment are essentially the same brand and model there is always the difference of the room acoustics and house wiring, variations in the product, etc. This means it becomes very difficult to assign universality to any product. Context matters greatly. We can learn by placing the same piece of equipment in multiple systems to see what qualities remain constant and which ones are altered depending on the circumstance. The best we can do is to report our own experience, never to dictate to another what their experience is, has been or should be. If I report my experience, it is certainly the readers’ right to accept or deny. The best I can do is report honestly. In my experience with highly evolved systems, once having achieved a certain critical mass in performance, smaller and smaller changes can yield increasingly larger benefits as the level of resolution improves, each improvement leveraging the next. Also in my experience, everything matters, every part, every material, everything the components rest on or touch, even everything in their vicinity, matters. The level of interactions between materials, circuits, generated fields and vibrations that contribute to or detract from the performance of a system is enormously complex. Even a small change such as the composition of a wire in one location in a circuit can alter the character of the component and therefore the whole system. There is usually no measurement that will register this kind difference that we can nevertheless hear clearly. It simply means that our ears are extremely sensitive instruments. Somewhere I have read that if our hearing were only very slightly more acute we would be besieged by the sound of Brownian motion. Rather than falling prey to any ill conceived ideology, we should honor and respect the crown of evolution that the human brain and ears represent in each one of us. |
@guakus, Duelund makes a bulk cable devoid of dialectic, and both VH Audio and Duelund (as do many other manufacturers) has a variety of bulk cable with dialectic. Now if you are talking about creating your own wire from ingot you are correct. And yes, I am constructing my own cables using varied metallurgy and different construction techniques. I doubt very much you could get a wire manufacturer to make a particular wire to your exact specification without larger quantity order. And I trust far more in experienced audio manufacturer to spec quality bulk wire than myself. |
@sns I checked out Duelund and VH Audio. They make pre-made speaker and interconnect cables. They sell bulk wire that THEY have made and the application is audio. This is no different than buying spools of Audioquest wire or any other premium aduio brand. I was speaking to buying bulk spools of copper, silver, etc and literally constructing your own cable. |
I agree with a lot of your points. Additionally, there are a lot of audio enthusiasts out there who will gaslight others, belying their perceptions and observations, ignoring the fact that audio is perceived. There is also those that ridicule the quest for subjective beauty over accuracy. Hardliners Its gotten pretty ugly. Ive resorted to avoiding the negative sites and reviewers and just sticking with those who have casual, friendly and positive views. Im in this for enjoyment. Not interested in the audio taliban. |
