The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[Allan F]

And a final note. Who would spend more on their speaker cables than they spent on their very expensive speakers?

 

George, you can rest assured that the Exhibitor didn't pay even a small fraction of $47,000 for the speaker cables, if he spent anything at all.

 

But, for the buying public, I totally agree with your logic. I was criticized when I wrote something similar about spending $9,000 for a USB cable, so I won't be surprised if the same thing happens here.

[Allan F]

Yes, I agree, but I would drop the words "strongly believes" and substitute "has experienced" because that word believe really belongs to the group who has read and accepted something, and not someone who has experienced something.

 

Aren't you describing a distinction without a difference? Speaking for myself and others who share this view, I would state that I have experienced differences in sound quality between cables and I therefore "strongly believe" those differences to be real, regardless of the demands for proof by certain objectivists, whose opinions are of no importance to me.

[Allan F]

Yes, Allan, I agree. You might have misunderstood what I was saying. I was trying to define the limitations of "belief," and suggesting that your experience is better than just believing in something because your read it somewhere.

 

I see what you are saying now, Richard. I note that you are a newbie and can appreciate that you find the topic fascinating. For my part, I have seen the topic debated over and over again in countless threads, with nary a meeting of the minds. So, I can let sleeping dogs lie for a very long time, if not forever.

[Allan F]

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Whether mass produced, bespoke, or boutique ; cheap or expensive, I can't be the only one that likes one product over another. If your point is that expensive boutique cables are only appreciated because of confirmation bias, then what applies if you replace them with equally expensive boutique cables?

 

Or, better still, if you replace them with less expensive boutique cables that sound better?

[Allan F]

Years ago, I bought some well reviewed interconnect cables from a boutique online manufacturer/seller that who offered a 30 home trial. For reasons I am at loss to explain, in my system they seemed to push everything up the frequency scale, i.e. exaggerated highs and weak bass. I returned them for a full refund, describing my experience to the seller.

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

P.S. IMHO The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology would be a great name for a book or a movie.

 

Perhaps, but likely a title offering far more promise than the content, much like this thread. 🙂

[Allan F]

17 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I find USB to be inadequate for audio under any circumstances. I have a brand-new, latest mod Yggdrasil DAC and the AudioQuest Black USB cable. You know, the one with the bias battery? There is absolutely no difference between that expensive AudioQuest USB cable and one out of my catch-all “wire box” in the closet! And neither sound as good as either Toslink or coaxial SPDIF!

 

George, I believe that you are overgeneralizing when you state that USB is "inadequate for audio under any circumstances". While you have described your experience with your system, many including myself are delighted with the sound obtained via the USB interface. Like many aspects of digital audio, the implementation of the technology as opposed to the technology itself is what is most important. I don't know what accounts for our different experiences, but I have tried many USB cables and heard noticeable differences between them with both my current T+A DAC and my previous Luxman DAC.

[Allan F]

18 hours ago, sandyk said:

 George

 Although I find that USB Audio can be markedly improved, I still prefer well implemented Coax SPDIF.

 It's a shame that they didn't further develop Coax SPDIF using more recent technology , as it's capable of far better.

 

Regards

Alex

 

Isn't SPDIF limited to DSD256? Many are upsampling to DSD512 via HQPlayer and USB.

[Allan F]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

Allan

For some time now there have been tiny chips with a Bandwidth of >250MHZ and 2 x gain, capable of driving a terminated 75 ohm line.

Recent devices have even higher bandwidths . 

They could have easily extended Coax SPDIF bandwidth using these kind of techniques at low cost.

 

 

Alex,

Correct me if I am wrong but what I take from your post is that, while there are now chips available that could extend SPDIF bandwidth capability beyond DSD256, they have not been implemented in the standard. So, in practical terms, SPDIF is still limited to DSD256.

[Allan F]

23 hours ago, sandyk said:

Why do so many members need to use expensive aftermarket USB cables such as Peter's Lush Cable, and way more expensive types ?

 

One could just as well ask why some people spend $US1995 for a Berkeley Alpha USB to SPDIF converter.

[Allan F]

39 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 IOW is the objection to the $ involved or based on the assertion that none of these things make a difference, or both? On either count, I know what my answer is, and really there is only one person I need to please in this hobby .....,

 

As to your concluding phrase, I couldn't agree with you more!

[Allan F]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Can you install a Soundcard in a Mac Mini? Does a Mac Mini have Coax SPDIF Out , or does it only have onboard Toslink ?

 IIRC, USB Audio mainly evolved due to the demands of Mac Mini and affordable Laptop owners.

 

A USB to SPDIF converter is/was a requirement to operate certain DACs, e.g. Berkeley, original Bricasti, etc. that have/had no USB input.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

What makes a USB to SPDIF converter so expensive? That converter costs almost as much as my entire audio / video / computer system.

 

While it doesn't answer your question of why Berkeley's USB to SPDIF converter costs $1995, perhaps the fact that their DAC sells for $22,000 provides some context.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Extraordinary claims are those that lead to a conclusion that's in conflict with existing objective, well-confirmed findings and facts.

 

Except that far too often what is presented as "existing objective well-confirmed findings and facts" is nothing of the kind and is really no more than opinion based on a biased interpretation of scientific facts.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

The good thing about scientific method is that opinions can be challenged and proven wrong in exactly the same, objective way. 

 

But the bad thing is that too often objectivists offer their opinions as statements of fact, which is both misleading and disingenuous.

[Allan F]

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

Do you mean because subjectivists don’t know what facts are? Or because objectivists are better able to clearly articulate the vais y for their opinions? Or what is it? ***
 

*** actually I find quite the opposite, many sentences bjectivists seem to have heard something on one occasion and espouse whatever they heard as a global eternal truth. This goes equally both ways if you are able to see both sides  

 

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you are getting at in your first paragraph. However, the simple answer to both questions is "No".

[Allan F]

49 minutes ago, jabbr said:

To summarise: both groups seem to equally pronounce that they have the only "truth"

 

I would agree that both groups believe that they are right. But, there is generally a difference in approach between the two groups. Many objectivists do speak in universal terms of an "only truth", e.g. "The laws of physics dictate that, If you can't measure a difference, there can be no audible difference". Regarding the current topic that translates to, "All USB cables that measure according to the standard must sound the same".

 

Most subjectivists, by definition, speak in terms of their experiences as opposed to universal "truths" , e.g "Different USB cables may (not will) sound different". They tend to be far are less concerned with the reasons for those differences than they are about the practical results of their experiences. That approach is not acceptable to most objectivists, who require objective proof. Some even appear to be on a mission to "convert" subjectivists to their view of the world. And there are some people who don't fit neatly into either camp.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

I personally believe that if one went to reasonable effort, and using the best measurement equipment in the very best way, and differences between USB cables that correlate to SQ can indeed be measured. No 2 USB cables ever measure the same, so its not an issue of being able to measure a difference, its knowing what measured differences are relevant, and that's not always easy.

 

It may not be easy, but that does not explain why it hasn't been done after all this time. At seminars, I have heard designers such as John Curl state that they have found that electrical components that measure the same do not necessarily sound the same. As a consequence the fine tuning of their final designs, including the selection of components, is the result of listening as opposed to measuring.

 

Quote

That is your own impression, and not a truth either. I hear many subjectivists having heard a difference with two different cables on one occasion generalizing this to all cables connecting any equipment. Or having heard a difference using X cable connecting Y computer to Z DAC and concluding that X cable will have the same effect on any computer connected to any DAC.

 

Curiously, I can't recall a single instance where I have read this type of generalization. Almost Invariably, in my experience, subjectivists emphasize that what they describe is limited to their own systems and that the same effect may or may not occur in another one.

 

Quote

Fair enough but why should your own experience predict anything about what my experience would be? Why should I care about your experience and why should you want to tell me?

 

The implication seems to be that your experience ought predict what my experience will be. Subjectivists may not care about the accuracy of predictions but generally people with a more scientific or engineering bent are more concerned with these things: good theories make useful predictions

 

Herein lies the crux of the matter. You apparently have a closed mind. Subjectivists mainly share experiences, both positive and negative, so that others may choose to use those as a guide as to what they may wish to experiment with in their own systems. The implication is not that my experience ought to predict your experience but rather that  it may be an indication of what you experience. BTW, it may surprise you to learn that many years ago I earned a university degree in engineering.

 

Quote

Agreed. I think that when subjectivists (painting with a broad brush here) use pseudo-scientific terminology and talk about physical properties of electronic devices, that it gets irritating.

 

For me, it does appear that a large number of people seem to hear differences in USB cables on many occasions and it would he very useful to better understand why (curiosity on my part) and I don't blindly accept the reasoning of USB cable vendors.

 

Here we do agree. I fully understand why use of "pseudo-scientific terminology" is irritating to you. There is a lot of meaningless drivel expounded by both individuals and manufacturers that I don't accept either. And that is why the reasons for what I hear are far less important than what listening tells me. Snake oil salesmen are alive and well in the audio industry.

 

Quote

I have posted my own *impressions* about what might be some likely differences between USB cables and equipment that affect SQ so I guess that makes me neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist. Oh well.

 

There is no shame in that. And, of course I have my own bias. In any case, it has been an interesting exchange of views but we should probably not monopolize this thread any further.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, semente said:

There is also another concern. If I apply double-blind ABX tests to cables and thereby eliminate all cables from the review schedule of the magazine, a cable manufacturer can potentially call this special pleading for cables and insist I perform the same test on sources and amplifiers. That would likely lead to the conclusion that all CD players and amplifiers sound the same under double-blind ABX conditions. I would imagine that would cut pretty deeply into the perceived credibility of the magazine by its readers.

 

I would imagine that such a conclusion would cut pretty deeply into the perceived credibility of the tests.

[Allan F]

15 hours ago, sandyk said:

 By including their cables in the list of credits, they are implying that the use of their own cables helped to achieve the great sounding results.Otherwise, why bother to mention this ?

 

AudioQuest is stating, as a fact, that their cables were part of the recording equipment chain that produced those results. In this context, there is no more obligation on their part to provide objective measurements of their cables than there is on Sony to provide objective measurements of the Sony DSD workstations that are used to produce SACD's. "The proof is in the pudding."

[Allan F]

33 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

And how about when audiophiles use the cable in the wrong direction (against the arrow indicated on the cable)?  Can you imagine what that does to a little electron?  I hope that your interest in this subject leads to a white paper.  

 

I would expect that to lead to head on collisions between electrons, which could lead to splitting headaches..

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, PYP said:

 

seems there is enough interest for a separate thread.  How about:  Electron Health in Today's Modern World.  

 

Would the empty space between electrons and the nucleus qualify as social distancing?

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Smooth ride and great road holding are pretty much diametrically opposed concepts, Frank (although modern computer modeling has allowed for some compromises between performance and ride for road cars, no such concessions exist on the track).

 

For some time, BMW road cars were considered to have achieved perhaps the best balance between these two competing objectives. Dunno about current models.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

The thing about BMW, is that they have different models that have different road manners. A normal 3 Series may have a modicum of road holding while giving a fairly comfortable ride, but on the other hand, a 3 Series “M” models are more hard-core and they eschew the softer ride. They also are much faster on road or track when driven for performance. Porsche does something similar. A 911 S spec is a good handling, fairly comfortable road car, a 911 GT 2, and 3, are not comfortable, they are race cars in various states of tune and cost as much as a Ferrari or Lamborghini,

 

O.T. Dunno if you remember the BMW 2002Ti introduced in the late 60's, a remarkable vehicle for its price. Car and Driver rated it the best sports sedan in the world for under $5,000.

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, PYP said:

 

That the manufacturer allowed this to end as it did, tells me everything I need to know about them.  I've never heard AR or Valhalla, but the usual critique is that they are on the bright side.  Using both and getting a dark sound is surprising (although confirms you point about crap shoot).   Clearly, a free demo is the only way to try cables.  

 

I suspect it had more to do with the dealer than the manufacturer as Nordost is not know to sell direct. The time to be assured that a dealer will take back cables if you are not satisfied is before you buy them. George will disagree, but most people who believe cables make a difference also believe that cables must be burned in for at least 100 hrs or more to reveal how they sound. Making a judgment on how a new cable sounds fresh out of the box is not recommended. Ironically, a used cable in very good condition actually provides the advantage of already having gone through the process.