The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[fas42]

For me, cables are a  pretty simple concept ... they are merely a circuit path external to the boxes which allow all the components to form the overall circuit of the playback system; they either do this job, which is no different from that done by a 1mm long trace on a circuit board in concept, correctly - or they don't. The latter is what we don't want - which is why I hardwire, or equivalent, my cables ... this is now much closer to a robust version of a circuit link.

 

IME, the construction of a cable, the materials used to make it, its ability to reject interference from any environmental electrical noise, etc, combined with the relatively poor electrical integrity of the typical plug in, or tighten down, connection all combine to give each external link a "sound". Which I don't want. The finished cable link should work identically, in every audio significant measurable way, over many years of never being touched, or disturbed, to an extremely short, soldered link - that should be the goal; anything else will always be a compromise.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is an objective only thread in the Objective-Fi sub-forum.

 

I would have thought that saying

 

Quote

The finished cable link should work identically, in every audio significant measurable way, over many years of never being touched, or disturbed, to an extremely short, soldered link - that should be the goal; anything else will always be a compromise

 

is a fairly reasonably objective thing to post ...

[fas42]

48 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

 

In respect to the definition you posted, fair enough.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, CG said:

One more thing:  Please overlook some of the obvious editing and proofreading errors in the posts above.  My mind was trying to put information out far faster than I could compose and type it.  (I also learned the statute of limitations on being able to edit one's own postings...)

 

So, if I look like a complete boob, have a laugh.  It's on me.

 

My hope is that everybody who wants to can investigate this and other topics for themselves.  That way you don't need to wade through the dogma and personal beliefs that everybody has.  At least everybody who likes to post on the internet.  So, teach yourself to fish.

 

Agree with anyone wanting to understand the subtleties of circuitry behaviour investing time in learning how to play with LTspice - I've been using this for more than a decade, and in particular analysing some of Cordell's designs - of note, was very easy to see how weak an example design was in rejecting noise on the the voltage rails; distortion levels went up by a factor of 100 if realistic, rather than ideal voltage sources were modelled.

 

If one intends to use simulation software to try and find out what "really happens", then all assumptions have to be off the table - no ideal anything in the circuit; it's the little gremlins of electrical behaviour that make all the difference in what counts - which is, getting close to zero glitches from the circuitry behaving in ways not intended. One fascinating aspect is that one can drive some audio circuit just a bit harder, and see the operating conditions collapse - the circuit is now chaotic, and effectively non-functional, for its intended purpose, for a split second; a tiny glitch at the output as the circuit fights to restore normal operating behaviour ... the cause of some of those "so hard to measure" audible anomalies, perhaps? 🙂

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

The “dig” at Aussies was mostly a joke, Alex. There was a component of seriousness in my quip, but it was meant in a lighthearted manner. Both you and Frank make extraordinary claims sometimes, and all I’m doing is to re-iterate the old axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I was specifically referring to your statement that the anomalies that many hear in cables are cumulative across all the cables in a system.  I would think that this might possibly happen if all the cables in a system were the same make and models, but even so, most paths, phono, CD, streamer, etc. are just a few interconnects. I.E. phono>preamp>amp>speakers. But if one’s interconnects are a mix of types, I would expect that these cable anomalies would average-out, but maybe not.

 

I doubt that they would average out ... if there are a number of weaknesses in the various cables then the overall result would be a loss of detail, resolution - in the subjective sense. What I find happens as each cable area is resolved is that more can be heard, discerned on the recording, but that an underlying 'edge' to the the SQ becomes more distinct - and to many, more disturbing. Until the very last cable anomaly is finally knocked off - and the SQ then fully "blooms" ... the distortion anomalies, when they are many, "average out", blur to some degree - but when there is only a single cable distortion element in the picture, it sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

 

Not objective, yes, but I'm going through this very process right now - got Bev dancing in the kitchen while she's trying to make soup, as classic juke box era hits are being pumped out, 😁 ... headin' in the right direction ... 🙂

[fas42]

2 hours ago, PYP said:

 

At least one well-known audio company initially used minimal shielding since they claimed more shielding = dead sound (I found the placement of their power cable to be tricky).  They evolved beyond that to a design that was well-shielded but, they said, didn't suck the life out of the music (at a price point I decided I couldn't afford).  

 

Turns out that you have to be very careful with what materials are used, that are adjacent to other material types - this is relevant to areas inside components, so it would also be the case within the construction of the cable. "Sucking the life out of the music" would be a very good subjective description of how the distortion from this, presumably, static behaviour manifests in systems - there seems to be no study available that describes what's going on - so, it's experiment, experiment, experiment ...  which one as a consumer must pay for ...

[fas42]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

The most perplexing thing to me is not audio interconnects (I tend to use well made XLR and be done with it), rather USB cables where it really ought not matter yet there are so many people who find it does, and this is specifically where I am suggesting that EMI/RF transmission might be the "x" variable ... in an alternate world the SPDIF interface could have been done better e.g. better electronics, enabled DSD, higher rates and then good optical cables could have been used and this issue would be moot.

 

It's not perplexing if one changes one's thinking from "every product or tweak I buy will make my system sound better!" to, "what needs to be done to improve the overall integrity of the current setup?" ... if USB happens to be where the "the weakest link" is, then that's where one's attention should be directed, and the greatest value for money and effort will be returned.

 

Lucky me, I've managed to keep away from the "hideous" USB, so far ... 😜. ... Currently noting that a bog standard optical cable into digital active speakers does mighty fine for the money - it's the ol' "eliminate all unnecessary cables!" solution - which certainly bypasses most of the mess people seem to get themselves in, 😁.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, thotdoc said:

That argument doesn't make sense to me....work with any systems engineer and they will tell you that the real work in systems engineering is selecting and tuning the components of the system so the components create the sought after throughput and output...They will tell you: Every component of the system makes a difference.

 

Exactly. I take that to its logical conclusion, and for that "misdemeanour" I'm considered somewhat mad by many in the audio community, 😝. Of course, one is always fighting people's need to hang on to cherished ideas, that they've hung onto for a long time; which then attain an almost unassailable status - 'tis difficult to made progress in those sort of headwinds ... such is life, 😉.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, PYP said:

 

I'm not qualified to answer (but that never stopped anyone and it won't stop me), but I do wonder how RFI/EMI affects components:  is the effect always the same and can it be measured?

 

IME, the RFI/EMI impact, along with a variety of parasitic material behaviours, cause the SQ to degrade in the sense that the sound is both subjectively duller, and treble content is more disturbing; the lifelike quality that reproduction is capable of presenting is lost, and there is a desire to "turn the volume down!" - I find these effects are essentially universal.

 

Can it be measured? I'm certain that it could, but the right test conditions are almost never set up to catch this happening; so it is, also essentially universally, not detected.

 

7 hours ago, PYP said:

 

As a younger audiophile, I preferred a much more in-your-face presentation (perhaps because I lived in NYC?).  And now in my dotage, when, theoretically, I'm losing some of the HF to age, I prefer realistic but not biting HF (that is, I don't compensate for the loss with a gain in the HF presentation).  

 

I find that one can 'tolerate' extreme levels of HF - but it has to be very low in audible distortion ... if you can enjoy, say, a live trumpet being played enthusiastically, then competent playback will never be a problem as regards dealing with intense HF on the recording.

 

7 hours ago, PYP said:

I'm not positing that the cable isn't a filter.  Whether it is an IC, SP or power cable, I believe that it is.  Filters can be beneficial to the subjective reaction to sound.  If the title of this thread had been "Cables as filters are too expensive and you should spend your hard-earned money elsewhere," I think it would have been a very different, and perhaps more helpful, discussion.  

 

The cable is not a filter of the audio frequencies - but it is, can be a filter of the above audio frequency noise, rubbish that the cable can transmit, or pick up. Which means the downline components may behave differently. But it's far smarter to introduce some specific electrical parts to the circuit somewhere, to do this job - rather than rely on an expensive assembly of connecting conductors to possibly do this for you.

[fas42]

What people need to remember is that the cable, and the link that it forms part of, can only do the job of being an effectively zero length, "perfect" connection between a number of nodes of the overall circuit of the audio system - that's "as good as it gets" ... so it will always be a game of diminishing returns.

 

... unless one wants cables, etc, to be one part of the armoury for "toning" the system, of course ... 😜.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

I’ve already said that all cables seem to alter the sound, that the results of switching cables is unpredictable, and depending on the source and load characteristics, any given interconnect will sound different in different applications.

 

 

If every cable alters the sound, then the system has weaknesses - the best cable is no-cable, so a simple answer as to which is the best, is the one which matches the sound when a cable eliminated situation is set up, for the particular rig.

 

Every recording has a 'sound', baked into its making - the ideal is when a cable, and the system, imposes the least variation on that which is unchangeable... unless you want to play, sound engineer, 😉.

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Not exactly, every component has different output and input characteristics. These are what determine the way that the transmission medium interacts with both the source and the destination components.

 

I would see it differently, George. It's up to the designers of the gear "to get it right" - they should work with the premise that a buyer will plug in a variety of what's available, sold to do the job - otherwise, they are throwing in a mechanism for the consumer to customise the SQ, as a freebie. Now, that might appeal to some people 🙂 ... but, I don't see it as being good engineering ...

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

Frank, have you ever thought, ah hell with it, I'll make my own audio gear and sell it, then people will know I am preaching the truth here...

 

Taking you seriously ... yes. But my latest acquisition, an all-in-one solution, does so much right in the first place - simply because it's an all-in-one box, and there are only so many things you can get wrong, with the current parts to build with - what's the point of me doing that ... now? Economy of scale, built by a labour force with lower wages - there's no way one individual can compete with that. But, what's available now, more than ever, is adding the final touches to make sure it does perform as it should - that makes sense.

 

People who want to manipulate the sound they hear won't be interested; that's the hobby side of the thing, and they should have all the fun in the world in that arena - I don't want to take away that pleasure ... 😉. But those who want to experience what the recording intrinsically holds, get that at full force ... that's the "truth" I'm interested in ... others who are likewise inclined might be interested in what I'm 'preaching', 😜.

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

Well, you can yell and holler from the tops of the hills till you're old and gray and it wouldn't have the same effect as if you made it happen and showed us all what's up. 

 

Well, the key thing there is the "showed us all" ... how does one do that? In previous years the gear in raw state needed too much work to bring it up to scratch, and then still needed lots of TLC in terms of sorting the electrical environment, in order for it to shine - it was all too hard ... I'm not enough of a business man to be able to drive through on all that sort of thing ... but, the latest beast might just be good enough to make it happen ... who knows ... ?! 😁

[fas42]

3 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

Rather than type... build...

 

 

 

Note, 95% is already built - what remains is tidying up, and making the setup robust  - once done, how are you going to be convinced it delivers? ...

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I predict that when it's done you will tell us all just how good it makes bad recordings sound.😜It should sell like hotcakes !

 

Which is what the problem is going to be, in selling to audiophiles - they know some recordings are intrinsically "bad" - and unless it delivers the standard recipe of making their audiophile recordings sound so much better than the "other stuff" - well, obviously Frank has it wrong ... 🤣. I've come across this attitude over and over again ... the bedrock belief of the classic audiophile is that there is a pecking order in the "specialness" of recordings - and therefore anything that challenges that must be BS ... if I do get around to selling some gear I think I can be quite safe in thinking that nary an audiophile would touch the stuff; only lovers of music itself need apply, 😁.

 

It already does everyday compilations of 60's pop hits nicely - brings out the character and verve of the musicians contributing very well ... this is a huge no-no for anything that aspires to audio enthusiast territory, "proves" it must be severely limited - so you're quite safe, David ... don't have to take it seriously at all, 😉.

[fas42]

Again, there is an extremely simple process in action here ... the normal manner in which audio systems are constructed and assembled introduces a whole range of weaknesses which the enthusiast may then spend years trying to 'debug' - cable swapping is just part of the great universe of options on the table, for fiddling with this. No breaking of the laws of physics is necessary to explain that various workarounds for trying to compensate for the lack of integrity in the original design are always going to have some effects - this is Engineering 101 ...

 

Luckily, the world has moved forward. It turns out one can buy remarkably good value for money, nicely engineered solutions, right now, that eliminate a whole range of issues; in a simple snap of the fingers. Persevering with under engineered, blingy items may be a pleasurable pastime - but is a relatively inefficient method of getting closer to what's on the recordings .

[fas42]

50 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

Wish list:  a diagnostic tool that measures your hearing, factors in such issues as tinnitus or asymmetrical hearing loss (as two examples), as well as measuring the gear interaction (and interaction with the room), and then suggests cables (at various price points) that would work well.  Assuming that cables do attenuate/accentuate the signal, one could imagine that attenuation of certain HF might work better for folks with tinnitus and that someone with asymmetrical hearing loss wouldn't spend money on a cable that excels at imaging or soundstage.    Once you have that sorted out, I will be your sales representative at no charge.  

 

What happens is that the distortion content that you hear changes, nothing to do with the FR altering - the way to think of the situation is that there is a pure representation of what's on the recording, in the room, mixed in with the added distortion of the playback chain - the goal is to entirely eliminate the latter. If parts of the signal are accentuated, then it's because your ears are reacting to the balance between the pure signal and the playback distortion, in the particular passage - change the type and level of distortion, and the same passage will sound very different; in the crazy world of audiophilia, this is considered a good thing, 🙄.

 

50 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

There is an interesting (longish) discussion with the Editor-in-chief of Positive Feedback.  He makes the point that a bad recording can lead you down false paths trying to compensate.  He is a big fan of DSD and thinks such recordings (if well done) are good enough that you then start to realize what you are doing with balancing your system.  

 

 

 

Ummm, pointless to try and balance the distortion qualities, so that it suits some recordings and not others. The real trick is to entirely eliminate every audible playback anomaly, so that only the recording comes through - it turns out the latter is good enough to always work as a listening experience; this is the world where each album and track is like changing the set and lighting on the stage for the actors, who remain the same throughout, but have their environment adjusted to create a different mood, to suit the intent.

 

Here, so called bad recordings work just as well as antiseptically pure and simple ones - and often are far more interesting, 😉.

 

[fas42]

In the real world, it's all a little bit more complicated ... https://towardsdatascience.com/i-dont-believe-in-electrons-8f1b59adc1ec

🙂.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

 

 

And the simple reason for this is that every electrical part has a huge range of parasitic behaviours - an easy example of such is that there is no such thing as a perfect capacitor; they have a multitude of characteristics that vary per any and everything; if you look at a full examination of the eccentricities of these items, one ends up almost being surprised that they work as well as they do! Which then leads to there likely being one particular part number which will a slightly better job in the needed position in the circuit than all the others.

 

The principle of diminishing returns doesn't apply in audio, I find - one keeps getting returns until the last niggling audible anomaly is eliminated; and the dumbest of dumb things might have to be done to achieve that. Of course, what was done wasn't actually dumb - it simply means one didn't understand at the time what sort of interference, noise, distortion mechanism was being circumvented by what one did - it may be a long, painful process then trying to understand why it had the particular audible impact.

 

 

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

For a long time, I followed the "wisdom" of using two dedicated circuits - one for amps and one for "everything else."  I also followed the advice of the manufacturer that power conditioning was generally not needed.  I eventually did use a power conditioner for the "everything else" equipment and continued to plug the amps into the wall.  Realizing bad weather was on the way (including lots of lightning), I plugged the amps in the conditioner while figured out what to do long-term.  It took all of one minute for me to realize that there was a significant improvement in the sound (deeper, more defined bass).   One circuit = less noise???  As with many things, learned by doing.  

 

Strong chance that an earth loop that was generating noise had just been eliminated - but, the dedicated circuits attenuated the cross interference from current draws on the mains - a plus step, combined with a minus step, either way ... which version gives the best results - the nasty answer? Depends on the equipment!

 

Every scenario will be unique - part of the optimising is to work out which configuration is best ,,, which will be worked out using one's ears ... describe the measurement procedure which will guarantee you get it right, 😝.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, PYP said:

 

 

I know we don't want to go there, but wanted to note that my issue with ABX is not the test itself, but with short-term impressions in general -- blind or otherwise -- vs. living with a system for a month.  My brain and ear get quickly fatigued by switching back and forth (no matter the SQ) and pretty soon I don't know what I'm hearing.  Perhaps that is just me, but I don't think so.  Long-term listening sometimes reveal that changes that sounded good in the short-term were actually exaggerations in frequencies.  Being new and different, that can sound "better," whereas over a longer period of time, it becomes obvious that it is an exaggeration.  So, a great first date might just be no more than that (if I remember correctly  ).  

 

Once one gets used to the method, the easiest way to pick whether there's a genuine improvement is to put on a "really difficult" recording - within seconds it's obvious whether the playback of that has got worse, or better; or sometimes nothing has changed; in the last case go through one's collection of "bad" recordings; usually at least one will point out how things are travelling ... 🙂.

[fas42]

Difficult recordings are those which sometimes sound bad on your, and other's systems, but which you know from experience can sound perfectly acceptable, or even exceptional.

 

Bad recordings are difficult recordings for which you haven't yet managed get the latter experience.

 

😉 ...

[fas42]

Just refreshing my memory banks about what has come before ... well, how about that? A topic on the very subject, by our comrade here,

 

where yours truly contributed some thoughts ... indeed there are techniques for 'fixing' tracks - John is very active right now with his FeralA remastering; and one can use straightforward decompression methods, as I mentioned in that thread.

 

However, I prefer to let the original recordings do the talking if they can - say, Adele's 21 does work very nicely if the rig has been evolved sufficiently; the NAD and Sharp combo handled this one well.

 

At the moment using early 60's pop compilations to finesse the mains feed to the new active speakers - get it wrong, and one has "bad" tracks galore; get it better, and the sound starts to snap into shape.

 

Are we there yet? ... Nope - but the journey has some way to go ... it's far more interesting making "bad" recordings slip into precise focus, than reinforcing a set of beliefs about the nature of past recordings, 😉.

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The risk is you color the sound to suit the recording type or otherwise gravitate to recordings that suit your colored system.If the goal is transparency, true transparency then bad recordings should be heard for what they are, not with sonic sunglasses.

 

Of course there's a risk ... the goal is to be able to put on any recording, and for it to show of its best - this is where experience comes in ... if one has done this sort of thing long enough, then one knows what most of the traps are - and what is possible.

 

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

only if you like seeing "bad" well focused 🙄

 

Back into old territory, now ... the argument about whether if enough detail is revealed, with minimal added playback distortion, that the mind can discard what it knows doesn't belong - you believe it can't; I believe it can.