We need to keep the forum free
Totally agree.
We need to keep the forums free of the "snake oil" excrement talk, especially fuse ones
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
We may not have a precise definition of Snake Oil, but as one Supreme Court justice said, "I know it when I see it." https://youtu.be/hlOhlY7EoEU?t=17 |
@sns So much for scientific rigor. My last post’s questions as to cable naysayers cable purchasing decisions was not meant to be rhetorical. So it seems the objectivist cable purchases are actually subjective choices, based on whatever? They don’t in fact practice what they preach in regard to cable purchases, they didn’t use double blind testing in determining their purchase. You don’t have to if you understand how electricity works. It’s sort of like knowing that jumping off a bridge is a bad idea without having to actually do it. In both cases, the outcome is already well-established. |
And you claim to know all about electricity? Including stuff that is not known yet, right? Or you are saying humanity already knows everything that is to know, and science is done, complete? Because you are an electrician? Oh guess what the guy who finished last in class at a Law School is called. A lawyer! You don’t have to if you understand how electricity works. |
"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." So you are claiming cognitive bias exists in the people who are not fooled by BS and use instruments calibrated to measure signals much lower than any human can perceive, not in the minds of the people who are fooled by it. I am pretty sure you have defined cognitive bias. |
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. |
I can understand their argument we're all just hearing things we wish to hear. What I can't understand is when they claim double blind testing is gold standard, then when not used, go to this basic science argument. In this case they completely disregard the listening experience as valid, they are not even willing to listen for themselves! They invalidate themselves, I'd like to know what the hell they're hearing in their own systems, how can they trust what they're hearing! As for the basic science issue. Do they seriously believe the few measurements they offer tell us everything we need to know about how a certain cable, component will sound. They assume its all settled science, no future understanding, measurements will ever be discovered. They are in fact not using science in this argument. The scientific method builds upon past knowledge with present knowledge and allows for future knowledge. This is all settled law for these guys, they are the supreme court of audio. You can never overturn their interpretation of law, talk about the rule of man! Beyond this, who appointed them to this supreme court, I know it wasn't me and I presume it wasn't you. These guys not scientist, biased attorneys/politicians at best. Beyond all this, they don't like our freedom to believe in our own senses, the supreme court will dictate our senses for us. Man, this is beginning to sound like some dystopian future! Seems they're already living in it, not believing in their own senses, sad. |
@rufusluna " So you are claiming cognitive bias exists in the people who are not fooled by BS " Since their definition of "BS" is pure opinion and not based in any form of fact that they can prove...yes. " instruments calibrated to measure signals " Please show us all where any one of those instruments measure the quality of sound. I love how folks who run these tests, never seem to want to film themselves live running these tests. How were the cables connected? I want to see the software running live. I want to see the source signal they use. Instead, everything is after-the-fact or off screen. Then, when they are offered money to prove it...they silently disappear. It's pure punditry. Those folks are just pandering to their audience because there is a large enough audience to bamboozle. You accuse audio tweaks of "Snake Oil," then I accuse the nay-sayers of "Snake Oil" tests. |
@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? |
Snake oil is only useful if it's made of snakes - I don't like snakes so a live snake that is killed to make snake oil is a good thing to me. Otherwise, each persons is free to do what they want as long as they don't break the law or inhibit another persons right to do what they want within the bounds of the law. I like the sound of Kimber Kables over Audioquest and Blue Jean Cables and I used my money to buy the cables. I'm sure someone thinks I wasted my money and my money helped several companies provide employment to another person...so at least there's that! |
@three_easy_payments " Why do you even care if some people refer to them as "snake oil"? " Why do you care to comment about someone else’s purchase that wasn’t yours as "Snake Oil" in the first place? " Isn't it simply rewarding enough that you apply these tweaks and enjoy your system so much? Why all the rage? " Are you asking yourself these questions too? |
@millercarbon See it. Actual bona fide 100% pure snake oil. Nothing else even comes close. https://youtu.be/eA1FBghmr_A?t=47 |
@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. |
You guys are a riot. Flailing at the air trying desperately to improve the performance of your systems by spending money on (fill in the blank) instead of analyzing the weaknesses of your systems and finding solutions to those weaknesses. The end result is you travel around in circles going no where. Snake oil is an extreme understatement. |
@three_easy_payments " I don't care. Doesn't bother me in the least. " So that's why you continue comment on this thread, because you don't care? " And there is no rage here. " Ok, let's not call it "rage" and call it insults and belittling sarcasm: " Totally unethical behavior by one bad actor and this forum is once again getting played. " " This is total assertion of a superior position! " " 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. " " 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. " " Of course you couldn't. Because between the two of you there is only one human being actually typing. " " If you have joined Audiogon for the sole purpose of winning arguments you have sadly missed the point of the forum. " " What a lovely thread. " Yeah, you cannot assume a position of innocence and lay the fault at other people's feet. You actively participated. |
Its been a long time since I've been flailing trying to better performance of my system. Every listening session over past few years has been pure musical ecstasy. I ended my cable auditioning quite a few years ago, present cables (and likely last cables I'll ever purchase) are combo of off the shelf and diy, total expenditure likely somewhere less than 5% of total system cost. I arrived here by listening to many cables over many years, all price ranges. So, we who believe cables sound different are not all flailing around falling for hype, fancy packaging, etc. To assume we're all stooges of some cable conspiracy is a false generalization meant to demean us and elevate oneself. My bottom line for the skeptical will remain, use double blind testing if you must, to validate your beliefs and/or purchases. Or just listen and judge, trust your senses. I don't presume to judge your skepticism as unwarranted, just as you shouldn't judge my experience and purchasing choices. For those who've made up their minds on either side of the issue, why the need to denigrate the other? Only shows personal weakness, need to have opponents agree with you. Are you really that insecure? |
What intrigues me most is why many in the mid fi/DIY sector equate cost and sonic performance on equal terms? An example is a $50K amp has to sound 20x better then a $2.5K amp, where did this nonsense come from? This hobby is about subtlety and nuances not about whether or not a 3D soundstage or perfect note decay is worth X amount of dollars. Unfortunately there will always be DIY(snake oil worshipers) guys that think they can beat the system like putting lipstick on a pig! |
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. |
@Three_Easy_Payments " And when I do hear differences in cables there’s a much lower impact to overall sound than amp/speaker pairing. " But that’s your system, yes? Those are your speakers, and your amp(s). It’s your experience. I don’t have your system. I don’t have your speakers. Likewise, you most likely haven’t purchased the cables I have purchased, or the power systems I have used. There is absolutely no way to equate our experiences; correct? However, you also aren’t denying that cables make a difference. Ergo, you don’t belong in the tribe I am speaking to. ;) With that said, I agree that back in the day, when I only ever changed the speaker cables, and nothing else, there were not drastic improvements in sound quality. The same was true with interconnects. The advances were minimal, but they were present; enough for me to believe that cables do matter. Additionally, that was also back when I spent no more than $100 for cables. Not because I was skeptical. It was because I couldn’t afford more than that 25+ years ago. As time progressed, my pocketbook and budget progressed. I was able to go up the cable ladder to $300 and $500 cables and eventually $1000+ cables. As you go up the chain the changes start to get more drastic. As if the manufacturers are holding WAY back on their lower end. It’s not too dissimilar to other marketing campaigns in other industries, where you create an impossibly expensive product in order to sell more of the product that sits just below it because the profit margin is higher. Then I got into power sources and power cables. Then everything changed. I realized that power was far more important than the speaker cables or the interconnects, regardless of price point. They make the most drastic changes over all. So I would say that if you invested in only speaker cables and interconnects, take a chance on power sockets, power distributors and power cables. |
@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. |
@three_easy-Payments Yeah, I skipped the "re-generator" products. I had heard that it kills dynamics and for the cost, that wasn't worth the risk. Instead, I went with a power distributor that uses heavy gauge copper and uses internal power conditioning. The Shunyata Venom V16 along with their Reference Delta v2 XC. Since I previously used Audioquest's Powerquest 3 distributor and linear filter, I can tell you that the Shunyata setup surpasses Audioquest's by leaps and bounds. I became disillusioned with Audioquest's NRG power cables. For the price, their impact on audio applications awere severely limited. For TVs and monitors on the other hand, they have much better impact. I had the NRG Z2, their highest model with an IEC C7 connection, attached to my Audioengine A2+. It was "ok." It really didn't have much of a noticeable impact over the NRG Y3 running through Shunyata's C13 to C7 converter that preceded it. The NRG Z2 is a $200 cable. Then I got the Kimber Kable Ascent P14 using Wattgate's Audiophile-grade IEC C7 connector; a $450 cable. That was a drastic change in sound quality. The speakers sort of "awoke" with a much broader (wider) sound stage. By the time I upgraded to the Kimber Kable Palladian P14, a $1400 cable, it improved the entire over all dynamics. The beginnings of a holographic sound stage, with extended depth to sustain, decay and more punch to note attacks. More realistic vocals. When I finally acquired the Venom V16 with the Delta cable, it was transcendent for me. Songs that sounded completely flat across the board, suddenly became more engaging. For example, Herb Albert's Tijuana Brass, "Whipped Cream and Other Delights." It's a very old recording and I used to blame that on how flat sounding the recording is. Apparently, you have to have a very high resolving system to play those recordings back. They finally sounded musical with fantastic imaging and high definition resolving sound, like the reverberation in the trumpets and the sustain of the cymbals, and overall clarity. The layering and timing just seemed perfect and I have been listening to that album since it was only available on vinyl (showing my age now.) It was as if you were live in the studio hearing the track being recorded from the mixing table. At present, I removed all the Audioquest cables out and replaced them with Synergistic's Foundation line. Currently, the sound quality for me is phenomenal and likely far beyond what Audioengine's engineers ever expected an end user to push them to. :) It was worth it. |
I've always heard differences between cables, even when I had relatively lower resolution systems. I auditioned tons of cables through lending library at Cable Company over a period of years. Minimum price was around $1k for any cable up to max price around $5k for any cable (this mid 2000's, these mid 2000 prices, adjust today's price for inflation). My take away was not always direct correlation between price/performance. And then, of course, some cables more sympathetic with one's system than another, this may also impact price/performance ratio. I most clearly heard differences based on metallurgy of cable, I can't imagine anyone not hearing difference between copper and silver cables! I also tried mixtures of metallurgy such as gold/silver and silver plated copper, slightly less difference here. I also tried variety of cable geometries and dielectrics, heard differences here as well, although not to same degree as metallurgy. In degree of difference, in general I heard greatest from power cords, then speaker cables, last IC and digital. And so, now to today. One would think I'd be using extremely high priced cables after having heard and/or owned so many at all price points. On the contrary, I now exlusively use relatively low priced diy power cords, a Helix design made with Vh Audio Airlock hot cable, various others for neutral and ground. These around $350 to $500 each to make. I use Cardas Golden Reference or DIY Helix with Vh Audio or Duelund IC and speaker cables. Not top of line or highest cost cables by any means. So, what does this all mean in the end for me? While I hear differences between cables, I'm agnostic as to price. I've previously owned much higher priced cables such as Kimber Cable Trifocal XL, Purist Audio Dominus, close to top of line Synergistics, Shunyata Anaconda, Nordost Valhala, Siltech forget the model, Revelation Audio Labs silver, and some others I"m forgetting. All were nice, have no complaints, but they're all gone, what does that say? I'm not going to say the Helix is the greatest, I'd likely be happy with any of above. I will say the fact I've owned higher priced cables points to my having heard improvements vs lower priced cables. In general, the best highest price cables had greater resolution, transparency, frequency extension than best medium price. Keep in mind I heard a lot of high priced cables that didn't outperform lower priced. I culled my purchases from many more high priced cables auditioned I didn't find impressive, at least in my system. I don't recommend any particular cable, or any price level of cable, none is the best for all situations. In the end, all I can say is cables sound different. Don't take my word for it, nothing can take the place of personal experience. You don't need to enrich cable manufacturers, diy on the cheap, bypass what you consider snake oil salesmen. And if you still refuse to hear, I don't care, its fine to not believe they don't sound different, its not my place or need to inform you otherwise. Just as I don't speak for you, you shouldn't speak for me. |
@sns I wouldn't dare to say that price always dictates quality. "Quality" is subjective anyway. However, I feel confident in saying that most, if not all companies charge more for their best products. It's just standard economics. I am equally confident that it doesn't cost near the amount to make that they charge for it. So much more goes into that cost than just the metallurgy and geometry. The labor, the advertising, packaging and not to put a fine point on it, a profit margin. Why not? I don't know anyone who would be willing to build a stranger a DIY cable for just the cost and shipping. An inflation in cost will be applied for profit for the time and effort spent (and parts if other materials have to be used to build it.) So sure, DIY will save money, but you're still providing a profit for a manufacturer or two or three. They aren't providing their product at cost; they are increasing the price for profit. If one buys Cardas cable, they are giving Cardas their money. Same with whomever they pay for their connectors. So, take Kimber Kable for example. They don't make connectors. They buy 3rd party; in this case Wattgate. The top connector they use is about $100 a connector. So, that's $200 to start with before a cable is chosen. Their Ascent line uses the same power cable as the one below it and the one above it. The power cable itself is probably $100-$200. Then there is the labor in building it. So paying $450 doesn't seem that much of a stretch. For example, I have an Audioquest NRG Y2 sitting unused. It's 2m and about $130. The biggest problem this cable has, are its connectors; they're terrible. I had thought about clipping the connectors and buying Wattgate connectors to replace them. That would bring the value of this cable to $330 minimum, plus the shipping costs of the connectors. Labor is free, since I would be putting it together. So, how much did I really save against buying the Kimber Kable Ascent? $50? $100? The question becomes whether I would rather pay for the convenience of having a professional crimp/solder the connections and pay for a pretty box for it to come in. I agree that it is inadvisable to state that someone buy x, y, or z cable because there is no way to know for sure if that cable would make any difference in their system...unless....you happen to have that exact system. With that said, I can say with confidence that buying the Kimber Kable Ascent or Palladian in conjunction with the Audioengine A2+, is exceptional sound quality over the provided free cable, or the Audioquest NRG Y2 or Z2. |
It’s all about perception. If a cable consistently creates a perception in your mind of better sound quality in your listening situation, who cares why? Did it really change the sound? Who cares! If the perception is consistent for you and you like that perception then that’s all that matters. No need to accuse others of not knowing how to listen or being half deaf. That’s not the point. The point is that for whatever reason you perceive it as sounding better. What more could you ask for? I guess cheaper cables that sound as good would be nice. But who knows, maybe the price is a necessary component of the perception. |
@asctim Saying it is only "perception" is a very narrow description. The concept that sound is either good or bad is rooted in the frame of reference of the listener. At some point in a human's life, they heard sound and enjoyed it. From that point forward, that is their reference for "good sound." So anytime they hear 'sound' they can make the determination that it is "good" or "bad." So, perceiving sound is different. That's more an acknowledgment that there is sound versus no sound. One is no longer allowed to say, "who cares" and have this discussion. The very nature of the discussion is a direct reflection that people care. Whether it is to justify their position, troll people, or testimonials on experience. Price is only indicative of profiteering, not perception. The foundation being, "if you're good at something, don't do it for free" in accordance with, "I need money to survive and buy stuff I don't need but want." Sure, it would be nice if better cables cost less. Heck, it would be nice if Revel floor standing speakers were under $100. ;) I will say it again. I give as I get. If anyone tells me that the sound difference in cables in all in my head, I will tell them they are deaf. Eye for an eye. |
Having built a number of audio systems over the years, I've experienced and observed why cables are perceived the way they are. I start builds by first choosing speakers and amps as a package. This is both the most critical stage of building system and the most important equipment within the system. Especially the speaker, start off with wrong choice and you'll invariably end up at dead end. Next, in my case, linestage, since I always run both analog and digital, then comes source equipment. I'll add the above is built upon two fundamentals, both AC delivery and room could be thought as critical components, both were taken care of very early in this process. I've been in same dedicated listening room for over twenty years, so these two things have been fairly static since I found a satisfying solution. So then we come to fine tuning the system, this includes things like equipment racks, footers, cables. During fine tuning stage what may seem like undue attention is paid to individual aspects such as footers on any piece of equipment, individual cables. One may perceive this one particular cable as being the cause of some perceived sound quality anomalie, therefore, any number of cables may be auditioned. Perhaps they discover a particular cable that cures this anomalie, in the moment that cable may be perceived as an extremely important component. This particular cable and all cables for that matter now become far more important than their actual contribution to the entire system. I presume this is the point when you see people extolling the virtues of some particular cable. Some may remain fixated upon the moment this cable or cables took their system 'over the top'. They then go on to misjudge the true percentage of contribution this cable or cables made to the entire system. Having gone through this same process any number of times over many years, I now have what I think is a more accurate perception of cable's value to the entire system. I no longer hear cable changes that take my system 'over the top'. My present system has reached the most pleasurable state ever experienced without the most expensive cables I previously owned. I segued out of them because over time they weren't this perfect solution I may have previously perceived them being. Its somewhat counterintuitive, but my experience has been the more my systems improved the less cables mattered. All the top of line cables I've auditioned or owned have had relatively strong particular flavorings which didn't turn out to work in long run. My take is these strong flavorings were chosen to make them stand out against others. Once your system is well balanced and natural sans cables you don't want or need the strong flavorings. I now perceive cables as workmanlike in nature, just get out the way, let the equipment create the sound signature. |
@guakus Perception of sound is more than just detecting that there is a sound. It's all the qualities we perceive in that sound, including our perception of it being good. If perceiving good sound isn't the goal for your stereo system that's fine. The perception of good sound is what I'm after, and I'm willing to explore any and all means of achieving that, assuming they are legal and safe, including things that have nothing to do with actually changing the sonic waves that reach my ears. The question about caring is if you care about the nature of what it is that is causing the pleasing perception. Sound is a word that describes both the perception of hearing and the actual mechanical waves that radiate through the air and reach our ears. I am interested in knowing more about how the sonic perceptions that I desire occur. Were they inspired wholly through my ears, or did other previous and current experience coming through other senses change my perception of the sound as well? Ways to care about this are to use controlled listening tests and instrument measurements. If both are inconclusive, then you can't say you know for sure what's causing the perception of good sound. Insisting that the sound waves actually changed in some way to create your perception of hearing good sound really makes no sense if you can't provide the evidence. Why not just enjoy the pleasing perception? Price may be part of what's creating the perception. The person making the profit may have done the hard work in presentation and proper pricing to create the intended effect. They may realize that the perception of good sound from a stereo component involves multiple sensory input and priming with information and a back story. What's wrong with that? |
Once again https://youtu.be/5FELdBsixGg?t=111 |
@sns Who defines what is and what isn't "good sound?" How much money was spent? Tech? Experience? Comfort? Realism? It's all subjective. This entire thread started largely as a complaint against using the term "Snake Oil" as it applies to audio cables; It simply doesn't apply. That's my firm opinion and no one on this thread has presented a case that even comes close to convincing me to change my mind. Someone's rhetorical "perception" that their experience with premium cables weren't good doesn't automatically supplant my "experience" and "perception" that premium cables were good. Since no one is capable or willing to use the Scientific Method to prove either case, it's pure opinion that is split into two camps. There really is no other way to "perceive" it. Again, in all the time that I have delved into this conversation, the same tropes always apply. It was never a simple matter of difference of opinion. It was opinion vs insult. This thread has traversed no differently. |
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm surely not saying cable are snake oil, or am I saying all premium cables are not deserving of premium price. I've only been continually making the point cables sound different from one another in my experience, this is making the point cables are not snake oil. Certainly, its not my prerogative to tell someone else what they hear, if they don't hear difference, fine with me. On the other hand, they also don't have the prerogative to tell me I'm delusional when I claim to hear differences, they don't and can't know what I hear. I also never said the premium cables I previously owned were not fine sounding. I simply found cables I preferred and moved on. And I do use higher cost digital cables, specifically AQ Vodka and Diamond. I hear definite advantage to these cables vs. lower cost I purchased and/or auditioned. Bottom line, is agree no room for insults, strong opinions fine. Keeping it at opinion one is mindful there are other opinions. Opinions segueing into belief is when the insults start flying. And if I'm understanding you correctly, don't be so defensive when someone like myself is actually agreeing with you, just not on board with the idea you need to spend a lot of money to get superb sound quality. |
@sns " just not on board with the idea you need to spend a lot of money to get superb sound quality. " I agree. I wish they didn't charge so much for "premium." Bulk cable bundles of Teflon coated silver is about $1.75 a foot. A far cry from the $1000.00 plus a meter that is typically charged for silver cables or copper with Teflon (FEP). I suppose that is why I went with Synergistic Foundation series. It was silver cables for under $1000. Albeit with air as a dielectric instead of Teflon or FEP. |