The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[mayhem13]

Even if they believe in what they are doing, they know the parts cost of their products. Taking a reasonable profit for knowledge, manufacture etc is fine. The kinds of profits these cable makers enjoy are obscene, ethically disgusting, and they cannot fail to know what their profit margins are. I would be tremendously ashamed to offer products with profit margins they have. I simply could not sleep were I to do what they do.

 

Dentists do it on an hourly basis, and the one's I know sleep very well.

[mayhem13]

Jud:

 

These networks can act as filters, and dampers of both cable, and amplifier resonances.

Spectral specs these cables because the networks act as damping, to keep the very high bandwidth output of the amplifier form oscillating out of control.

 

I don't who should be more ashamed here, the cable mfgr for making these statements or you for quoting them. "Damping cable resonance?".........Oscillating out of control?...are we talking cables or Doomsday prophecies? Seriously, if your intention is to defend cable mfgrs, stop posting this crap!

[mayhem13]

Els:

 

 

 

Longer term listening tests over multiple sessions are much more instructive as to sonic differences. Also making sure outside influences are minimized, and that the listener is well rested, not distracted, and under little pressure. Ultimately, when I take these precautions, and listen test multiple times over a longer term, I can be confident in my evaluations-and if this methodology does not reveal a true preference for one component over the other (despite a definite difference) then I would not make any change, or would choose the "simpler" solution, as to my belief that simple is better.

 

Well said, and if I might.....If one must go through such rigorous preperations and conditions control to discern the slightest bit of difference, is the slight performance gain of any value in a recreational listening session? An analogy......say there's two stacks of 1$ bills...one quantity is a 1000, the other 1001. One can only take a single stack. Does one count each stack and take the larger quantity or does one just simply pick up whichever and go? IT would seem to me that time is more valuable than a buck in tHis case........and given the amount of long term listening it takes to even consider a preference, the less the value of that preference.

 

Oh....and BTW I understand amplifiers, speakers and crossover networks and circuits pretty well. Unless the amplifier was basically broken or the speakers network considerably flawed would such proposed circuits in interconnects provide an appreciable change to the performance. And I submit that if these interconnects are intended as active eQ for systems, how does the designer determine what freq,Q, or slope to apply? Maybe the goal is 'trial and error'? From a marketing perspective, this would make perfect sense where tHe end user would have to try many different interconnects until there's a tonal improvement. That's what tweaks are all about...no?

 

I might now refer to interconnects as 'Cable Meth' for those that like to tweak......or suffer from OCD.

[mayhem13]

Given the rise in prices of semi precious metals these days, your compound interest theorem might just be valid from a scrapper's point of view. lol

[mayhem13]

Most reasonable people might conclude after reading this and other lengthy posts on this subject that there is NO absolute method of quantifying audio as it pertains to pleasurable listening.

The subjectivists contend that measurement quantifiers don't exist that analyze some of the things they hear. Usually we find these 'quantifiers' renamed with common adjectives or adverbs as there exists no science of sound to identify them. Maybe this is done to elude the measurement and validate their perceptions....who knows? Nobody. This is an unfortunate truth as there's no way of knowing what it is they hear.

Now before you might think I've jumped the fence and inherited the subjectivist point of view, consider the last statement. Since these 'perceptions' or 'abilities' cannot be measured, nor can the material be compared to a valid reference, by default, the conclusions of such must be considered invalid. Liken it to people who say they can see an Aura or ghosts. As such theirs is the burden of proof.

Now the objective side wields the tools of science. There's the accepted understanding f the science of human hearing, an extensive list of parameters and properties associated with these measurements as well as proven mathematical formula and physical laws associated with the properties of sound waves. But, somehow the objective front is still somehow presented with the burden of proof.......to devise measurements or methodology to quantify the subjectivists special perceptions.

The audio subjectivists get a bit of pass in this regard as unlike other fringe groups, theirs is based on sound and not on sight. Other groups associated with taste and smell, get the same pass. But those based on sight......they're shit out luck aren't they. But the current methodology and tools to measure sound is just as strong as optics. Why does the hall pass exist?

I place this burden on the subjective audiophile community if they wish to validate their position.....or should we accept it on faith?

[mayhem13]

Thanks to all who have responded to my post, as you have helped bolster it's content and summed in a nutshell.....Those that claim to hear these characteristics where others cannot or counter measurements do so only because there is no science to refute their abilities or claims. Cleverly, the business end of audio has created this community of Charlatans who gladly do their bidding and earn their livings for them. But not do be undone, but harboring a need to be a part of the game, the equipment reviewer is born, carrying the candle of audio prophecy, cheerfully fanning the flames of subjectivity. But as long as there still exists mysteries of faith, so must reason accept your existence as well......for now. It took a while, but Darwin finally won. After a while, even the most devout stop believing their own bullshit.

[mayhem13]

On the fringes...

 

In this it all starts with: Things sound the different, but measure the same. We need better measurements...

 

But who is qualified to say they hear the difference?.....or validate such a proclamation? By all accounts, there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to validate what one claims to hear. This works both ways as there's no way to invalidate the claim either.

 

Is someone going to rise to this challenge?..........good luck. Until then, it's all acts of faith. Just ask Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Alla, Budda, Vishnu,etc..............These guys understood the power of faith

[mayhem13]

I may regret engaging you, but who said anyone needs to validate anything? I do agree that it is all faith. One can choose the faith that we know and understand everything that could possibly apply and that our perceptions are wrong; or that we have begun down a road that has bumps and pitfalls that we do not understand yet.

 

For myself, it is clear that the approximations and reductions that are so often used in engineering have lead us to erroneous results. For heavens sake, the simple act of attaching a test probe effects the circuit, and that is engineering 101. Bear in mind that the math involved to fully understand the waveform interactions in music are incredibly complex. Much more so than some of the objectivists are typically presenting here.

 

Think what you will, but to me it is a bigger stretch to think that this is all perception bias... Faith it is!

 

Aaaaah but faith bears a price.......a terrible price more often than not as faith is often placed in the unknown. I place my faith in measurements and science.......it's just a safer way to fly. lol

 

One could make arguement for faith with various forms of religion, but a modern humanist would contend that these are simply a byproduct of the human condition. Ninety percent of the world's population isn't wrong to express such faiths. The 'need' to believe in something speaks magnitudes about what drives us.

[mayhem13]

50k, thanks for posting that, anyone who has ever done any DIY audio is well aware of the differences in the sound of capacitors, resistors as well.

 

Sorry but this simply isn't accurate at all. Most DIY speaker builders have accepted there's no sonic advantage to one type do cap over another. What IS accepetd is that some types

retain their electrical value longer than others. Maybe the amp building crowd has a different opinion, but for passive networks....not so.

[mayhem13]

It's rather easy to do experiments for oneself and at least settle what one can personally perceive in one's own system (not saying one should extrapolate findings to all systems).

 

It's less easy to make actual and proper measurements (some need very expensive equipment, and sometimes even more expensive facilities).

 

For some changes in construction of cables, I have at least settle it by doing my own explorations (with no expectations that they should work), and I was surprised three times already. First were the speaker cables, then I told myself that a DIY USB cable should make no difference at all (not only it did, but my cable 'sounds' rather fantastic). Then I told myself that there's simply no way that a new power cord should make a difference, and here again, I had a big difference with my DIY power cable.

 

So, for me personally, it's settled for me (us here) and for our system. The differences are rather obvious.

 

This, of course, doesn't mean that if other components were engineered differently we would have found the same results, so that's why I can't be in a position to extrapolate to all (there are way too many variables and too many ways of building a system to do that with small means), but I think that now I have a fairly good handle of why changes can occur, and moreover I would never dismiss someone's feedback of hearing a change in their system, since I've lived through that myself.

 

I've stopped listening to people who say 'you can't hear' this or that a long time ago. Wasn't it exactly what they said with MP3?

 

You can do your own experiment today yourself and further your own knowledge of how things work without being drowned in the sea of opposing views.

 

Impressive that you were able to remove all bias including expectation and visual from your home experiments with enough confidence to determine a real and audible difference exists where well implemented and controlled scientific testing has yet to succeed. You should publish your methodology in one of the scientific journals of merit.

[mayhem13]

I am fairly certain you are far overstating their abilities of discernment. Otherwise why does anyone release a non-hit song? Why do most models fail in modeling as a career? Why are all wines not top notch? I am not disputing top people in their field have better discernment than most. I don't think their discernment is so superbly excellent across the board however.

 

Agreed.........the baby doesn't always get tossed with the bath water.

 

But yet again, it's an odd sort of logic that leads to these viewpoints that trend towards the obvious.....if someone makes it and sells it for more money, it must be an improvement. Not unlike the majority who believe nearly every thing they read.

 

Audiophiles are FAR from the baseline with many possessing varying degrees of higher education. Why they still trip the trap is beyond me. Put these cable swindlers to the test in a zero noise floor lab environment with a proper ABX test and they will fail, EVERY TIME. The only more ludicrous speculation is burn in. Burnt out i say.