The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[barrows]

Without any facts to support, statements such as this:

 

"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."

 

Are libelous.

 

As to the subject matter, I find it rather humourous that the OP is not interetsed in hearing from people who have actually heard the difference which some, high quality, and somewhat expensive, audiophile cables can make. So what we have here is a blog where flat earth folks can congregate, and make themselves feel better in their ignorance, laughable.

 

Even more amusing is that it is quite simple to test whether an audiophile cable actually improves performance, as The Cable Company maintains a rather extensive library of lending cables, which can be tested in one's system for very little cost. Additionally, many good dealers will allow for at home cable demos. The intellectual "excersize" of once again describing how cables "could not possibly make a difference" is moot considering the extensive evidence to the contrary.

 

If you do not believe that cables matter you have two choices: one, be happy in your ignorance, by ignoring a way to possibly improve your system's performance. Two: try some of the better cables out there, and if they do make a difference which matters to you, admit it, purchase them, and enjoy the improved performance. If they do not make a meaningful difference to you, then do not make a purchase, and at least you now know that you were "right", at least for your ears and system.

[barrows]

I suppose I don't have the lack of ethics that allow me to be a dentist or a high end cable maker. I can live with that.

 

The disgusting part is they can live with what they do. Unfair advantage, no problem. It simply is an opportunity. An opportunity to screw your fellow man, but hey like that is a wet dream for such people. Sorry, such people don't look like role models I approve of my friends.

 

 

Really, who are these wealthy money grabbing cable makers? Frankly, I am much more likely to take on this kind of thinking when it comes to people who amass fortunes in the hundreds of millions through the vampiric process of leveraged buyouts.

[barrows]

So, only a few million doesn't count anymore? Don't be ridiculous.

 

Els: please let me know the cable maker (individual) who is bringing home a few million a year? In any case, no, a cable maker making a living does not bother me relative to the real economic problems which are faced here in America, with a stock market and so called "banking" firms allowed to run amock and vampirically suck huge amounts of capitol out of the real economy, to fill their own coffers with obscene amounts of money. A couple of folks making a few cables, just not a big deal in the scheme of things, and hey, we might even get some better sound out of it.

Additionally, we must remember, that no one is forced to purchase expensive cables, (unlike going to the dentist, or getting reamed, indirectly, through the activities of unscrupulous "bankers"), so the suggestion that there is "swindling" going on just does not cut it.

[barrows]

Jud:

 

I can confirm that MIT cables' boxes contain circuits. Specifically they contain networks, usually RC based (resitor-capacitor) but some of their more sophisticated models also include inductors as part of the circuit. These networks can act as filters, and dampers of both cable, and amplifier resonances. As you go up the MIT line, the circuits get more complicated (the number of filters increases, a low end cable might have one R-C network, higher end ones ahve many at different values).

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.

In any case, the parts used are not expensive per se, but of course, they do add additional expense which cables without any networks do not share, and additional R & D costs to tune and test the networks to make them viable for many component/speaker combinations.

 

I do not know about Transparent, but I suspect they are doing something similar. But with the exception of some specific components, I have a hard time believing a one size fits all network is going to be an advantage for all combinations of amplifiers and speakers: typically a circuit like this will have to be tuned just right for the combination of amplifier and speakers, if it is not, it is just as likely to cause harmful resonances as it is to damp them...

 

BTW, Walker Audio "High Definition Links" are the same thing, just an RC network one adds across the speaker terminals-these are easy to DIY and try oneself for little expense. There are instructions available on the net, (google). A typical set of values would be a .01 uF film cap with a 10 ohm resistor. One would typically use a decent film cap here, and a 1 watt resistor is totally adequate.

[barrows]

mayhem: Apparently, you know little of amplifiers, cables, and speakers. Amplifier oscillation is a real, electrical, problem with some cable/speaker combinations-the amplifier output stage-cable-and speaker creates a circuit, and some combinations thereof can make an amplifier unstable (oscillation). This is not some audiophile myth. Many amplifiers have zobel networks across their outputs in an attempt to keep them stable even under very different load conditions ( a zobel is an RC network, like what we have in MIT cables). I am not an EE, but I am sure Julf can confirm.

 

In no way am I recommending MIT cables, I am just pointing out that their "boxes" do have real circuitry inside, and the nature of that circuitry is grounded in sound electronic principles. Whether or not this makes the cables sound better in a given system is up to you to decide, as stated, I personally think it is wrong to expect a one size fits all network tuning to work for many different amplifier/speaker combinations-or to be necessary for a properly designed amplifier/speaker combination.

 

"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?"

 

I have no interest in doing this kind of test, as it can only prove if their is a measureable difference, it cannot prove if their is a significant sonic difference that is not measurable by this test. Additionally, a sound card is woefully inadequate for testing high end audio systems, an AP2 is needed, and few folks have access to this equipment. And, in any case, what matters is what the system sounds like. Ultimately, we are going to enjoy our systems by listening to music, and that means system changes should be evaluated by listening to music. If one hears a difference, then that difference is relevant to that listener on that system, it is as simple as that. There is no need to "prove" anything any further than that. This is why I suggest that people listen for themselves, and, if you do not trust what you hear, then there is no reason for you to pursue high end audio reproduction anyway, get another hobby.

[barrows]

In the end, anyone can try to sell you anything they want for any amount they like:

 

Coconut-Audio Rattlesnake Grim Reaper power 10m US Extreme Reference | AC Cables | AudiogoN - The High-end Audio Community

 

(make sure to see their other products)

 

So, if I wanted to I could try to sell a "modified" soda can for $500, call it a resonator or some %$#@ and wait for a buyer. If you bite then I'm happy about the sale. Heck, I'm trying to make money. But you don't have to bite.

 

All that said, it can be disheartening on some moral level (to me at least). But then again, $40,000 and $50,000 tube amplifiers seem pretty obscene to me as well.

 

I have to say, I just do not understand why folks would be "bothered" by the availability of such products? Does a half million dollar Bentley bother you, how about multi million dollar yachts? Expensive homes? No one is forced to purchase such things, so who cares. If the existence of such things bothers one, perhaps there is something more to consider...

[barrows]

Els:

 

"After all if you go from trust your hearing to I don't think I can always trust my hearing it can lead to some doubt about a good many perceptions."

 

Thanks for that! I do not always trust my perceptions, and that is a good thing. But, 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. It is easy, for instance, to sometimes "get it wrong" in short term A/B type comparisons. 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.

[barrows]

Of course you are entitled to say whatever you would like:

 

"This is a common and recurring theme from those in your camp I have noticed. However, I would say your confidence is misplaced."

 

But the above statement is in error. I have been paid in the past to listen test various components and prototypes, and I took this work quite seriously. I took precautions to make sure I was not "fooled", and developed a specific methodology which worked for me. Statements such as the above reveal more about your own experiences than they do about mine.

 

I have noticed that many human beings seem to have a noted problem when it comes to expectations, and there seems to be a lack in the ability to operate, when necessary, outside of expectations. The ability to be objective seems to be almost a lost art in our society at large, hence we seem to have an entire culture where people often base their views and life, not on their own, individual, experiences, but based on some kind of perception of how they are viewed by others, and where they might, "fit in". It appears now that this way of living has gotten so bad, that we have people who can no longer even think, or act, for themselves, such a shame. I am not in a "camp", I report on my (considerable) experiences, not based on a "doctrine", but if and when there is a doctrine which does mesh with my experiences, I am not reluctant to agree with it.

[barrows]

Well, thanks Julf... As far as listeining goes, I suspect that each of us may find things we can do differently, that is, what works for me, may not be the same for you. But a few things: blinded does not work for me, it just introduces stress which makes it harder to remain objective. Stress is really one of the main problems, along with expectations. If one is tired, dealing with work/relationship stress, or not having a good day, forget about listening for evaluation. Listen alone, I find things like group "shootouts" really distracting, and the presence of others and their opinions in the listening area is distracting at best.

I generally use some trusted tracks at first, but this just gets a baseline on overt differences. Longer term listening with a wide variety of music ultimately tells me more about how something sounds. Not to get all "groovy", but letting the music come to you really helps me, rather than trying to define the exact boundaries of the soundstage or get super analytical about what the differences are. One should accept that their system will sound different at different times, due to room temperature and humidity levels, not to mention AC quality variations, and temperature stability of components, and consider that these factors may be influencing the results. Of course, keep a reference system as constant as possible, and only change one variable at once.

I find it easier to evaluate the generalities first (does it sound "better", ie, do I get drawn into the musical interplay and the emotional power of the music more easily) before trying to decide what specific playback qualities might have changed.

More and more as I listen for pleasure, I find I move away from the analytical "wow, that soundstage is really precise" and more towards getting the gestalt of the music. I know things are really good when I find my mind engaged in feeling how two musicians are reacting to the subtle nature of the emphasis of their playing.

 

1. do not be stressed

2. be alone

3. empty away expectations

4. do not be hungry

5. do not be drunk

6. be well rested

7. darken room

8. close eyes (but only if it does not make you nervous)

9. listen to a wide variety of music over a long term when possible

 

When I worked at PS Audio I evaluated things both in PS' listening room, and at home. But I waited 'til after business hours to use the listening room when no one was around to avoid the distractions of "work". Using two systems I was familar with also helped me to have some additional perspective-I kind of miss that now.

[barrows]

Mayhem: it appears that you think I endorse the MIT cabling approach. If you read my posts carefully, you should find that this is not the case, all I am saying in their defense is that the networks they use are electrically relevant to such a circuit, once agin then: whether or not these networks make a difference is up to the listener to decide.

There have been amplifier/speaker combinations over the years which would oscillate, If you aware of audio history, I am sure that you are aware of this. Spectral, to the best of my knowledge still requires that there customers use either Spectral (made by MIT) or MIT cables with their amplifiers in order to insure that the output stage stays stable: this is due to the ultra wide bandwidth design of their amps, which they think is an advantage.

 

Els: Stereophile rarely reviews cables, probably because of the controversial nature of the subject as addressed here. Unfortunately, doing in depth measurements costs money and takes a lot of time... We can at least be happy that Stereophile does measure the audio electronics which they test, most do not.

[barrows]

Julf:

 

"You have a good point about the stress, and I totally agree with it. But if you can't resort to blinded tests, how do you protect yourself from perceptual biases?"

 

At some point I have to accept that some bias may creep in, but my experience shows that is (usually at least) not the case. Considering that the additional stress from being blinded generally makes the results moot, that is not an option. I find that short term tests are unreliable, and most subject to the kinds of bias that folks here talk about, but multiple longer term listening, in my experience, eliminates bias as a problem for me. Many times I will go into a test, where my expectation is that something will be one way, but my listening results are counter to my expectations-this happens often enough that I gain confidence in my ability to hear difference without biases affecting me.

Like anything, this kind of listening is a skill which is developed purposefully over time-I would not expect random subjects picked off the street to be able to do as well.

When I first started working at PS Audio, I took it upon myself to do critical listening for at least an hour every single day, as part of my job, often testing different components, cables, power conditioners. After about a year of this, I had developed skills which I did not posess previously, despite being an audiophile before working there.

Now, I prefer to listen for pleasure, and keep my analytical hat off most of the time, but every once in awhile I am called upon to test something new, and I find my skills remain pretty sharp (but not as good as they were when I was doing critical listening every day).

[barrows]

What a bunch of bollocks. Over the last three years or so, Nordost, with the help of an independent defense contractor in the UK (which specialized in the development and testing of SONAR systems) developed a new and different testing protocal for audio components/systems. The main basis of this trsting which differentiated it from typical audio testing is that it used actual music signals, and then did comparisons, using quite complex analysis and mathematical models developed by the SONAR experts. This testing protocal analyized both amplitude and time domain perfromance.

Nordost did not do the testing themselves, they paid the independent third party to do it, and they did not let the third party know what they were testing.

The results of these tests were clearly able to show objective differences in playback using different cables, including power cabling. Additionally they tested for differences using various methods of vibration control, these tests also showed objective differences.

 

What was the result of all this development and testing when Nordost presented the work to the audio public: The subjectivists, knowing that they hear these differences accepted the results, and the so called objectivists, denied that the testing could be valid, claiming that their must be something wrong with the testing methodology!

 

It appears to me that the so called objectivists will only accept the results of objective testing when these results support their belief system, so it may not even be worth bothering.

[barrows]

Els: I have seen two presentations by Nordost on the topic of these meaurements. In the second presentation they also had the mathematician present from the research institution which did the testing. After their presentation was complete they took questions from the audience. They were forthcoming, and answered all questions directly, with no attempt to obfuscate the details of the analysis. There were plenty of skeptical questions, and they answered them all, as clearly as was possible given the time constraints and the limited technical understanding of many of the questioners.

They were entirely genuine in their enthusiasm for this testing protocal to not only objectively demonstrate differences in their products, but also to use this testing methodology to improve their product development process.

The online information available is certainly incomplete, anyone who has participated in one of the demostrations and Q & A sessions will have a much more complete understanding of the testing methodology and results.

 

Their is some info on this testing here:

 

http://nordost.com/downloads

[barrows]

Certainly:

 

"I guess it's possible in some cases, but my cable agnosticism is firmly rooted in an extremely limited capacity to take things on faith."

 

I would never expect anyone to purchase expensive cabling on "faith". Unfortunately, I do believe their are some suspect products out there in the vast array of high end cables, which are well over priced for what they really offer in terms of performance. I always recommend that people try cables in their system. I would have never purchased the speaker cables which I use without the option of returning them. In fact, I mostly expected to return them, as, at the time, I was rather skeptical that they would offer a sonic improvement commensurate with their cost, and I really would have rather not spent the money. But once I had heard them, it was clear to me that I would not be returning them, as the improvement was clear and valuable to me.

[barrows]

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. It does seem tiresome that the effect of the dialetric on cable sound is not accepted by many skeptics...

 

Els: I cannot speak for Nordost, or any other cable company. But I can say, that getting good, or better information on products available to the public at a website is often problematic for audio companies. My experience in the industry is that these companies are run on relatively low budgets, with employees who are overworked and underpayed, and often not that well versed in business, marketing, sales, or communications: that is they are often somewhat inept and overburdoned.

Additionally, my experience is that there are also conflicting beliefs on how much actual information is too much information to the public at a large amongst the folks who make decisions regarding what to publish in "white papers": there is often the belief that the consumer will just get more confused if the information presented is too technical and precise, and therefore things of a technical nature are usually dumbed down for publication. Unfortunately, this approach can remove all the actual meaning out of the relevant technical information.

 

I can assure this was not apparent at the presentaions, which were precise, and clear.

[barrows]

"Sorry, he talks about capacitors. What does it have to do with cables?"

 

Julf: a cable is a capacitor: two conductors, separated by a dialectric.

 

On the Nordost Quantum boxes, there is a whole thread on this site about those, and how they might work. Some pretty heady audio EEs weigh in with some quite interesting speculative theories. If one is open minded and willing to learn something I would suggest checking it out. I have never tried them, so have no opinion on whether they work or not. Clearly the tech is proprietary, and as such Nordost/Quantum are not going to explain exactly what they do, hence the "marketing speak" descriptions.

[barrows]

Cable Distortion and Dielectric Biasing Debunked

 

Too bad this was published at a site with "A/V" in its title, that is always a non-starter for me. Good that Bruno admits to hearing the differences in cables though, even though he cannot seem to measure them. Do note that his company is now offering high end cables for sale ;-)

[barrows]

delete

[barrows]

Actually I trust Bruno Putzeys quite a bit, he is a very bright guy. Here is a quote from his article linked by julf:

 

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

 

Additionally, in this article he measures difference in phase between cables, and admits that the dialetric effect is a real issue for cables. What the article "debunks" is that active dialetric biasing is a cure for dialectric effects-in fact, in his opinion, actvie biasing actually causes more problems than it solves.

[barrows]

Appreciate and admire your open-minded intellectual curiosity.

 

Hey, I still read the complete article. Do you know how much Bruno charges for his cables?

[barrows]

Mayhem: Please report on the last component which you built, and what different capacitors you tried which you did not hear the differences of? Personally, my DAC is presently capacitor coupled, and I can assure you there are big differences in the sound depending on the type of capacitors used. I have also seen the crossovers being built, of quite a few high end speaker brands, eventhough they usually do not reveal the type or brand of capacitor used (therefore they are not using these caps for marketing purposes) most good sounding high end speakers use capacitors which cost a great deal compared to a typical electrolytic cap, 100s of times more in fact. They would not go this added expense if it did not matter to the sonics.

 

Julf:

 

""Micro phase shifts": The AP2's resolution is so good you can read the length of a cable to within a few inches by measuring the phase difference between input and output. Apart from this, nothing turned up."

 

now, consider that these micro phase shifts are also frequency dependent: now what we have are not just an equal delay, but differing delays dependent on frequency: the signal is smeared in time.

 

Right: if all the source components audiophiles used had output impedances below 1 ohm, and if everyone used balanced circuitry and connections, then, Bruno postulates that cables would not matter. I might agree with this, but not until I listen tested some different cables in this type of system. But, the entire statement is irrelevant at the moment, alomost all source components feature output impedances well above 1 ohm, typically, they are 40 ohms, or much more, and many, many designs do not use balanced connections either, so, according to Bruno Putzeys, cables will matter.

[barrows]

You are not the only one to wonder that!

 

Thanks guys, that is classic. I must go now to build some power supplies...

 

and, heaven forbid, it is also time to plan an IC opamp based output stage (sacrilige) for my DAC to satisfy my curiosity...

[barrows]

Els: Bruno's conclusion was, again:

 

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

 

It is clear from this statement that he does believe, and earlier in the article he states that he hears, differences in different cables. Apparently, Mr. Putzeys thinks the differences are justified.

 

It was (and is) my contention, that the phase shift (can with some cables) varies with frequency (and perhaps amplitude). My firm belief that some of the differences we hear in cables are almost certainly attributable to these varying TDs. In fact, some TDR measurements I have seen of the speed of propogation at different frequencies support this view, but, unfortunately, these measurements are not in the public domain.

 

I ask again: Does anybody know the cost of Bruno Putzey's cables (Grimm Audio)? perhaps these are some reasonable priced cables which will perform "perfectly"?

[barrows]

"and, heaven forbid, it is also time to plan an IC opamp based output stage (sacrilige) for my DAC to satisfy my curiosity... "

 

Metal can, or DIP8, or SOIC ? They all sound the same , don't they ? (grin)

 

HaHaHa... It is just a TPA IVYIII, so OPA1632s, they only come SOIC. I generally prefer discrete circuits, but I have heard other components using these parts and they sound really good for an IC, plus they have super specs, which everyone reading here will appreciate, and they have more current drive capability, which may give them an advantage driving the input stage of my Pass amp directly...

[barrows]

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

 

It is clear from this statement that he does believe, and earlier in the article he states that he hears, differences in different cables. Apparently, Mr. Putzeys thinks the differences are justified.

 

Yeah, and it also worth noting as did the article the he concentrates his efforts toward microphone use in studio's. That is one reason you aren't coming up with Grimm pricing. They cater to studios. Big difference in the needs of long microphone cables versus a meter or two in home audio. Maybe someone can find Bruno's comments on that specific area of home audio. Obviously signal roll off and noise pick up over a 20 meter mic cable is far higher than a couple meters at line level.

 

els: if you look on the Grimm website the cables which I am refering to are listed under their audiophile line rather than their pro line. Short lengths are shown, and they do not seem to be designating these cables for mic use...