Jump to content
IGNORED

The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology


Recommended Posts

Have decided to create a blog on this issue. Will name it similar to the above and have the link on my posts. This will avoid, from my point of view, any further personal confrontation on the issue. And hopefully endless repetition and groundhog day type arguments. If I see a poster asking advice on cables/interconnects I will drop in and direct them to the blog and leave it at that. If it seems a cable discussion may be influencing other readers I may do the same. The link on my posts will also hopefully provide a counterbalance to the those who list their cables in their system setups.

 

Would appreciate other's contribution as well. What I hope is to be able to write a very succinct, under 2 page entry about how this whole issue evolved; how it started and what keeps it going.

If you are on the opposite side, I would request that you don't post on this thread please. Not because I don't want debate. Its just that I want ideas that will help with my blog and these will be best gotten from people on the skeptics side of the fence. I think it would be a good idea if others from the opposite side of the debate did something similar as well.

 

 

Basically my argument is this: the unique characteristics of audio have provided an environment where this phenomenon has been able to gain traction. You would not expect to, and will not find an analogy in photography for example. Due to current legislation the companies who peddle this expensive stuff are able to get away with not proving up their claims. Audiophile land is a bit of a backwater, so this is not surprising. It seems the con has gained enough momentum now for it to have reached the stage where the sheer number of believers has given it an elevated status.

 

Anyhow look forward to comments. Will likely need help getting the significance of the null testing right and other bits. Will write sections of it up here as I get time and ask for feedback.

However, other skeptics feel free to post your ideas anytime without waiting for me.

Link to comment

wgscott

 

I agree debate is good. However I am finding it is just going around in circles now, groundhog day style. Also, very hard for someone new to make head or tail of it I would think.

Agree it can have a recreational value, but there is a limit to the amount of times you can get laughs at the opposition's expense ;]

 

esldude

 

Yes, everyone has their 15 min of fame blog these days. I am hoping to keep mine very short. Maybe even only 1 page long. I personally followed closely all the null testing you did and read Mitcho's stuff as well. That will pretty much be the core or basis of my argument. Not everyone is willing or has the time for that amount of reading though. I hope to nail the issue in a short piece with a provocative title and a big picture point of view. Add the fact that the provocative title will constantly be on display when I post and I am hoping it will add up to at least providing some counterbalance. What is presently happening on the forum is that the opposition are getting airtime that is far in excess of their representation in the wider audio community.

 

Julf

 

I think I can guess at some of the issues. Just have to play it by ear on that one.

 

Paul

 

I wont be setting myself up as an authority at all. Will be clearly stating that I probably know less about audio than most people on the forum. Also will be stating that I have never actually personally tested one cable/interconnect against another. It will be very much the perspective of an outsider looking in.

Dont think it will be alienating. More the opposite really. Instead of continually repeating the same stuff in thread arguments, there will be a link to an opinion. People can then chose to read it or not.

Link to comment

Take it easy folks. The title is a necessary evil I'm afraid. I will be stated early on that this is not a swindle in the usual sense of the word. Nothing libelous being thrown around.

In general nobody is deliberately trying to fool anybody in audiophile land. And its no big deal anyhow if a sect of balding middle aged men want to sit around in tubelit surroundings playing with their cables. Although I don't believe that there would be a mother around who say that this is altogether "healthy" activity. I am sure Dame Edna would agree.

Link to comment
And what are the odds that they are allowed to do that without the threads getting clogged up with people ridiculing them?

 

 

 

I suggest another test that can be done easily - and provides answers that can be verified beyond individual listening rooms. What we need is someone who has a high-quality, high-res ADC/sound card to record the output of a good DAC playing a piece of music - and record it twice, once using a cheap, generic cable and once using a fancy, audiophile cable. Better yet, record the piece three times - picking one of the two cables randomly for the third recording. Then make all three recordings available online, and let CA members do a blind ABX. Do this with enough people and multiple music samples, and you should get a pretty reliable result. But what would we then argue about?

 

Seeing the other camp have come along anyway, what do you think of the suggestion above? Do you believe it would provide anything worthwhile in the great cable debate if it could be organised?

Link to comment

Gee, talk about gatecrashing a persons thread. All I wanted was a little quiet time in skeptics corner with listeners who hold a similar view on this particular subject.

 

Still no response to this suggestion of Julf's though:

 

"I suggest another test that can be done easily - and provides answers that can be verified beyond individual listening rooms. What we need is someone who has a high-quality, high-res ADC/sound card to record the output of a good DAC playing a piece of music - and record it twice, once using a cheap, generic cable and once using a fancy, audiophile cable. Better yet, record the piece three times - picking one of the two cables randomly for the third recording. Then make all three recordings available online, and let CA members do a blind ABX. Do this with enough people and multiple music samples, and you should get a pretty reliable result."

 

What do you reckon?

Link to comment

 

The "swindle theory" is an extraordinary claim in and of itself, and requires extraordinary proof. Moreso in fact, than the idea that different cables sound different.

 

-Paul

 

The proposed blog title "The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle" is simply an eye catching headline to get people onto the blog page, that's all. Make it boring and no one will go there or read it. I don't actually think there is much, if any commercial/retail swindling going on at all. Even in the cable companies, those developing these products probably themselves believe the stuff they put out.

The real and fascinating swindle is how our brains con us via the various systems that operate under our conscious awareness. These aren't gratuitous cons though, as they nearly always have a survival value factor or an evolutionary advantage factor somewhere in there. The confusion arises because they are automatic processes that we have no control over or even knowledge of.

Link to comment
Els:

 

I have trained myself to be able to listen and evaluate audio components, and to take the necessary precautions to avoid being "fooled" by my own perceptions.

 

I am sure you know quite a bit about audio. And I can understand how you would feel confident that this expertise will prevent you from being "fooled' by your own perceptions. This is a common and recurring theme from those in your camp I have noticed. However, I would say your confidence is misplaced. You are far less in control of what is going on than you imagine.

 

Who would have thought that 54 of Bordeaux's eminent wine experts would not be able to tell that the red wine they thought they were drinking was actually white wine with some red colouring added?

 

Wine "experts" are frauds

Link to comment

 

:-) When I'm in a *very* occasional tweaking mood, something relatively cheap and safe like a cable is a good way to satisfy my jones. (E.g., just bought an "audiophile" Firewire cable to connect the external hard drive that holds my music. I think it makes a slight difference, but for less than $30 I wouldn't be too perturbed if it didn't.)

 

Retail therapy. Well spotted mate. Will use that one if you don't mind. Hadn't really though of that point till now. But cables and interconnects slot in nicely there don't they, a la: all the main gear nicely setup, but we liked fiddling so much on that part, that we want more. Another fix so to speak. So we can either swap the amp worth a grand or play it safe and "try" an exotic looking new interconnect that's marked down from $1599 a metre to $299. An affordable loss. I hate shopping but I do something similar. I buy stuff that is no better but 3 times the price. But that's a different point.

I think your point is valid. Get out there girls and do some shopping. Nothing stupid. Just the bargains.

Link to comment
Interesting line of thought. Let me throw one out for comparison; I think both may be valid.

 

I'd bet I've owned some cables longer than some readers of this forum have been alive. Still using an S/PDIF digital cable I bought more than 20 years ago, a couple of 20-year-old analog cables, and recently replaced 20+ year old speaker cables. So think of two piles of $1 bills, one with $20,000, one with $20,100. That's a .5% initial difference. Maybe not worth spending the time counting. But now let's say the offer is of one or the other pile invested at compound interest over 20 years. Maybe now it's worthwhile? So the fact that at least some of us look at even cables as long-term parts of our systems affects the effort we are willing to put into listening. We know this may well affect our enjoyment, even if by a small amount, for a good portion of our lives.

 

 

I agree that spending extra on cables could positively affect our long term enjoyment. That is the strategy I use, and I am coming at it from the angle of - spend a bit more and hopefully get a decently constructed item. You know, good quality UV resistant plastic coatings, proper shielding, strongly constructed ends etc. If I have to replace cables at my place I have to venture under the floorspace. Its a lousy job, so I want cables that will last and that are built will quality control looking on. I don't want to be sitting on my butt listening to music and have thoughts of the plastic rotting off my cables coming into my head. I hope that by spending more I will have the above considerations covered.

 

But then my brain does goes into one of its unusual little modes. I would give the cable guys say a 1 in a 1000 chance of being right and hearing something the null tests don't indicate. That's pretty much the same as saying they are wrong. Yet as I have mentioned above, I usually spend around 3 times what I need to. Part of that is to hopefully secure good quality. But you don't have to spend that much more to achieve that. So what is going on here? Why do I admit I think its rubbish but then not back up my belief in my choice of purchase?

I think what has happened here I am being influenced by cable guys in ways I cannot prevent. If I had backed myself and bought what I almost certainly know will do the job, I may still have had lingering doubts - caused simply by their numbers, advertising and the general momentum of the "movement." So what my brain has done is to perhaps recognize I cannot overcome these forces and it has performed a "trick" of sorts to help me cope with the dissonance. In reality I have joined the opposition to a degree by buying irrationally.

Sorry, etiology can get a bit dull.

Link to comment
"OK, so your objection to the test is that downloading the files will change their sound, while transferring them on an USB stick won't? "

As per what Cookie Marenco has found , the files on the USB memory stick would be best saved to it as Uncompressed Zips.

Yes, there is still a smalll degradation, but not as bad as going through several servers and perhaps 100s of optical repeaters.

 

Sandy, can we stick around this point for a while so I am sure of what is being talked about. I don't have the tech knowledge here, so need it slowed down. When you say you down want it downloaded, it that because you are saying bits can get lost? Or are you saying something else may get lost (something the EE's haven't the tools to measure yet?)

Link to comment
I am completely with Jud on this. WTF? I wanted to stay off this thread out of respect, but I have a hard time respecting a premise based on second hand knowledge with little or no experience to back it up.

 

I guess you are referring to the fact that I have never actually compared cables myself. And as a consequence you think my opinion/analysis is of little value. However it also means I have no baggage or axe to grind either way. If they do make a difference I will accept that and buy what I have to accordingly. If not, same deal.

If I don't base my stance on my own personal listening, (or yours), what then? Well nothing extraordinary really. Just the usual perusal of the literature and some research. Pretty much the same as what you would do for any similar issue. It tells me your opinion is very much on the fringe and has virtually no support in pro audio circles. It seems to a phenomenon confined to a small group in audiophile land. I find it interesting nonetheless as my starting this thread would indicate. Stick around as we trace the etiology. You may find it interesting.

Link to comment

 

But it is even easier to just go listen for ourself- and far more reliable than the test you propose.

 

If you have been following this debate fairly closely to date, you will recognise the comment above as being a recurrent theme. Trust your ears. They do not lie.

Link to comment
Retail therapy. Well spotted mate. Will use that one if you don't mind. Hadn't really though of that point till now. But cables and interconnects slot in nicely there don't they, a la: all the main gear nicely setup, but we liked fiddling so much on that part, that we want more. Another fix so to speak. So we can either swap the amp worth a grand or play it safe and "try" an exotic looking new interconnect that's marked down from $1599 a metre to $299. An affordable loss. I hate shopping but I do something similar. I buy stuff that is no better but 3 times the price. But that's a different point.

I think your point is valid. Get out there girls and do some shopping. Nothing stupid. Just the bargains.

 

The more you think about this aspect, the more it looks to be an essential building block in the whole process. Although music is centre stage, the gear part is also very central to this hobby for a lot of people. Fiddling and tweaking are interesting and fun. Most audiophiles are men and they seem hardwired to revel in this aspect.

Once all the main gear, speakers amps etc, are setup, cables/interconnects are sitting pretty as vehicles to keep the hobby alive. They are cheaper than other components and at least in the case of interconnects, easy to remove, transport and replace.

Link to comment
The more you think about this aspect, the more it looks to be an essential building block in the whole process. Although music is centre stage, the gear part is also very central to this hobby for a lot of people. Fiddling and tweaking are interesting and fun. Most audiophiles are men and they seem hardwired to revel in this aspect.

Once all the main gear, speakers amps etc, are setup, cables/interconnects are sitting pretty as vehicles to keep the hobby alive. They are cheaper than other components and at least in the case of interconnects, easy to remove, transport and replace.

 

 

":-) When I'm in a *very* occasional tweaking mood, something relatively cheap and safe like a cable is a good way to satisfy my jones. (E.g., just bought an "audiophile" Firewire cable to connect the external hard drive that holds my music. I think it makes a slight difference, but for less than $30 I wouldn't be too perturbed if it didn't.)"

 

This was a comment of Juds a few posts back. I replied with the stuff above. Anyone see this as NOT being a significant factor. Because to me it looks like part of the puzzle. Get enough of these helpers along the way and bingo.

Link to comment
Yes, I think that is one of the biggest parts of it. What is interesting is the rise of even thinking this about wire. There was a time when it simply wasn't considered. You might go buy some Telefunken tubes for such urges or some JAN tubes or you might get a new cartridge for the TT, as all of these might help without being extremely expensive. Wire just wasn't on anyone's mind.

 

Any ideas on what got it going initially.

Link to comment
The military, probably. Nordost cables, for instance, were manufactured for military and commercial airplanes to, get this, reduce noise, the kind that can drop an airplane from the sky. What noise? Dielectric noise. Nasty stuff that.

 

Not getting much on dielectric noise. Synopsis possible?

Link to comment
Dielectrics absorb electrical energy and release it non-linearly in a context of dynamic voltage fluctuations (this is technically called dielectric absorption). Surprisingly little has been done to actually measure audible, dielectric-induced distortions, Cyril Bateman excepted. The working rule is this: the magnitude of dielectric-induced distortions decreases with a decrease of the dielectric constant, k. Air has a k of just over 1 and creates close to zero dielectric effects. The best solid, teflon, has a k of 2 thereabouts. Nordost cables reduce k, and thus distortion, by combining the k of teflon filaments with that of air to render an overall k of about 1.3, which is close to air. A cleaner signal pass-through results.

 

Cheers. With the aircraft mentioned above, in what way did the "dynamic voltage fluctuations" affect their systems?

Link to comment
First I heard of special cable was Fulton speaker cable.

 

I suppose Monster cable was most responsible for getting it going in a big way. They started in 1979 I think. Bruce Brisson designed some of Monster's early cables and shortly thereafter started MIT though he may have been making cables before that. I think Audioquest also started in 1980 or so.

 

Some early Monster cable was nothing special other than larger. It was twisted copper in a 12 gauge cable with clear insulation. It did have Monster Cable on the jacket, and had plus and minus marked on each lead. They also would be nicely terminated.

 

Why did it start then? I don't know that anyone knows. Once the idea got out it took off.

 

Can you remember if the advertising was hype in the early days, i.e suggestions of sonic improvement etc. Or were they just advertising well made cables?

Link to comment
Here is a little info on how Noel Lee started Monster cable.

 

How Monster Cable got wired for growth: Noel Lee's story - Apr. 30, 2009

 

Thought to be a $100 million per year business according to this article in 2009.

 

http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/uhf_mit.pdf

 

And the above describes MIT's start.

 

Liked this quote from the Lee article: " Listening to wire is a learned process, like wine tasting."

 

Nuance of elderberries again.

Link to comment

I have been onto a few audiophile cable manufacturers websites now, and I am stumped as to how they can get away with this stuff. It must be due to lack of legal challenges. I guess they always accept returns if the customer changes their mind so they never have people who are really dirty on them. Or is it that the little disclaimers they include are enough to keep them safe?

Link to comment
AudioQuest has a history page on their site. Kind of interesting ... has their take on how the expesnive-cable thing got started. No aircraft, though.

 

--David

 

From the article:

 

"By the end of 1980, AudioQuest was selling to forty-two outlets in southern California and one dealer in Denver. In January of 1981, AudioQuest exhibited for the first time at the CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas. A month later, AudioQuest was selling in Europe, Asia and most of the US."

 

The start of the eighties certainly seems to be tipping point. I guess this manufacturer/dealer/customer dynamic is the major piece of the puzzle.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...