The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[esldude]

Could be messy of course, but then again it already is messy. I certainly support your efforts.

 

Can one not provide truth without being an authority? The next comment by someone would be if your truth is good without you being an authority then my truth is just as good when I say the opposite.

 

I guess my other thought is that I don't think very many read the blogs. I put one up and intended to follow with many more. I had in mind some of the same things you are thinking here. But then by the time several dozen people had blogs I think most people's eyes just gloss over. It does have value though, I think Mitchco's are very well done, and he quite often will drop in with a short comment and link to his blogs. Saves him time arguing over the same old stuff. Convinces some doesn't others. At least it is out there. I guess one thing we never know is how many it may influence. As often cited less than 1% of readers here post.

[esldude]

One complicating problem is that sub-standard cables do exist, so you have to draw a line somewhere. That, too, becomes problematic.

 

Yeah they do, but I guess the take home message would be RCL properties are what matter. Maybe you have an odd pairing of equipment or strange cable properties. The fix isn't exotic super expensive cable. It is either better equipment design or affordable change in cable that will work with equipment properly considering what you have.

[esldude]

Another suggestion for those who also want properly credentialed authorities for reference. You could include links to articles on the topic. The Audio Critic has some of those on the web. The Audio Critic has an EE do some modeling and testing btw, not just that he is someone people have heard of through his past publications. There are few others. I have a couple more I have used before one is basic testing by an MIT grad student. People who at least used good measuring equipment and had the background to know what they are doing.

[esldude]

I have read of an early dissection of an MIT network cable by the Audio Critic. The first box, potted with epoxy had nothing, the cable just ran through it. The second had a 1 kohm resistor across the cable leads. In no way does that justify the extremely high cost. That is before one even decides if these measures make an audible difference. Swindle is appropriate.

 

Then I read a Swedish translation of a fairly recent dissection of a Transparent cable. It had a Dale resistor and a small polystyrene capacitor across the leads. Plus a length of extra cable wrapped around it all apparently for inductance. Again disregarding whether such construction does anything audible these parts are something less than $5. Considering the obscene pricing of Transparent cable what else than swindle is appropriate?

 

Call a spade a spade. Call a swindle a swindle. Let the chips fall where they may. Karen Sumner's lifestyle disgusts me because it is built on fraud. Even if the things they do make a cable better it is fraud because they charge an unreasonable premium vs the parts cost.

[esldude]

The problem with "swindle" is it implies that manufacturers are deliberately trying to rip-off consumers. Some probably are, but most believe in the merits of their products. So the problem, if indeed there is one, is that enthusiasts -- including most of the cable manufacturers -- in this hobby hear differences that may or may not be there and they act on them with their pocketbooks. That's part and parcel of most hobbies of connoisseurship, I think. It's part of the fun. Some don't hear those differences, or don't accept them, and don't put their energies and funds into cables. Fine. Why do you care? If your mission is blow the whistle on dishonest swindlers, I think you're off base. If it's to disabuse weak-minded audiophiles of their delusions -- well, good luck with that.

 

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.

[esldude]

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.

[esldude]

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.

 

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

[esldude]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CHoQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbgK87tmRVeY&ei=OTflT8OoN4OQ9gTIsaCnAQ&usg=AFQjCNGfNEhsEkyn1Ey-d-b9hsNOjRTQlA&sig2=0srFMq1AakzytmKa4hSV4A

 

 

Jud,

 

This is BS. Plain and simple. PLAIN and SIMPLE. IF they have a way of measuring such stuff come clean. This is BS.

[esldude]

It appears that the cable debate simply moved to a new thread.

 

elsdude- Why do you insist on continually presenting your opinions as fact. The fact is, you don't know whether cables sound different, or not. If it were fact, then there would be no debate. Please present your factual, definitive evidence, or stop the attacks.

 

Read my null testing thread. Their is not a difference that is audible between the interconnects I tested interconnects. That is a fact. I am not the only one who has done such things. I can provide them if you wish. One I have linked to is an MIT grad student measuring audio performance of cables for his thesis. He found nothing to explain how they could sound different. In other words, my opinion has been informed by facts.

[esldude]

Yeah, to those who think I am implying MIT cables have nothing in the boxes I am not. Early on some may have had nothing in one end. Even when they had something it wasn't much. And yes some now have quite a bit in the boxes. There is even some DIY threads where they show you have to make similar boxes for your own making of your own cables.

 

However, their top speaker cable with "80 poles" is $29,999 for an 8 foot pair. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the parts cost is appropriate. I also know it is typical in smaller production for parts cost to be about 10% of what something sells for as there is also labor costs, other overhead, advertising etc. A company making a 10% profit after expenses and having 10% of sales cost be in parts is not at all unreasonable. I just wonder if a $30K 8 foot pair of cables with two or four little boxes of caps, resisters and inductors have $3000 parts cost. Seems unlikely there is more parts cost in passive parts in a cable than say active components.

 

Maybe Bruce Brisson has been more forthcoming I haven't looked for extremely recent information. Early on his explanation of articulation poles was vague and non-specific. Sounded like the typical spiel that attempts to sound technical and advanced yet there never was enough told about what this articulation measurement is exactly. If it were true and most cables does miserably at it why not show precisely what it is? Two possible reasons come to mind. One is that it is misdirection to justify their products. Another is it is proprietary knowledge and he doesn't want other people to know it so they could make their own equally good cables.

 

If anyone can point to where he really describes what he measures I would take a look at it.

[esldude]

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!

 

 

You know I am not one defending cable makers sometimes goofy explanations. I have owned some Spectral gear, and while it doesn't seem an extremely common problem, their equipment is very wide bandwidth. Most of it near a megahertz and some 2 megahertz. Some cabling or speaker loads could let it oscillate if ultrasonic garbage got into the system. MIT with what I would call a restricted bandwidth cable would roll off things so that didn't happen.

 

One example I had a Meridian DAC that had a steady 1.1 megahertz idle tone. Used with more restricted bandwidth pre-amps or with a passive volume control it was fine. With 1/2 meter interconnects directly connected to the amp that idle tone would eat up some of the power as the amp could and did amplify that. It didn't go into oscillation and the tone wasn't high enough to continually clip the amp. But it altered the sound apparently through some intermodulation garbage. That one was a tricky one to track down. Had I used MIT cable it wouldn't have happened.

[esldude]

I started such a poll on one musical selection which had gone through an DA/AD stage with cheap and good interconnect.

 

In the end, there were problems with some of my set up which goldsdad caught and pointed out. I have now corrected that and could do it again.

 

But it didn't appear we would receive too many taking part in the poll. Even though anonymous, I received about as many direct responses from those not wanting to use the poll as those who voted. Plus people didn't like the two choice variety of testing I used. I suppose a 3 choice version like Julf proposed would find more acceptance though analyzing the statistics of that are messier. But I haven't been motivated to attempt that again.

[esldude]

Don't want to turn this into a different topic. But in terms of fair play and hearing the other side of the story here is an interview where Bruce Brisson describes what MIT cable does and a bit more about what is articulation measures are though I note he won't quite answer all the questions put to him.

 

The Bruce Brisson Interview: on Music Interface Technologies Cables' Oracle Series, MA Series and Z Powerbar, Part 1 of 2 - The Columns - Dagogo

 

The Bruce Brisson Interview: on Music Interface Technologies Cables' Oracle Series, MA Series and Z Powerbar, Part 2 of 2 - The Columns - Dagogo

 

Also how you can use the same idea to make your own interface boxes.

 

6moons audio reviews: Bruce Brisson's DIY Giant Killer Project

 

And finally some measurements of stuff by MIT with explanations in a white paper.

 

http://ww2.mitcables.com/pdf/wp101.pdf

[esldude]

I remembered I do have an MIT cable. Digital AVT3 in this case. Admittedly not one of their expensive offerings. It has and I am quoting MIT:

 

MIT's patented Digital Terminator Technology—Eliminates jitter-based distortions found in all other cables, delivering natural timbre & precise imaging.? New micro-componentry networks located in RCA housing eliminate need for network box.

 

Here is a link to their site:

AVt 3 Digital Interconnect | Audio Interconnects | Available in Stores | MIT Cables

 

And attached is a picture of those patented micro-components in the RCA housing. Click to enlarge.

 

That is a one ohm resistor in series with the center lead. There is nothing in the other end nor along the cable. It measured 250 microfarads in capacitance which is about what you expect for a coax cable like this. It looks the same as metal film resistors RS sells for like $4 for 20 if I recall correctly. Admittedly this is a sub $100 cable. But at a minimum the patented network is very hyped here. I think purchasers would imagine more involved in a patented network than this.

 

Maybe it helps though I am not sure what articulation would relate to SPDIF. I think it is a matter of having invested in the idea of MIT networked cables and they just want it to include digital too. At the very least, all you DIY folks can go get the one ohm resistor and do a networked up grade if you are using simple 75 ohm cables of one sort or another.

[esldude]

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.

 

Yes, that is the real fascination to me as well.

 

I have said I hear these things other people describe myself. Cannot fail to hear them. I just don't believe myself without question. I think this thought ends up scaring some people. 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.

[esldude]

Gosh, is that light red, or do I jut think it is red? Perhaps it only looks red to me but if I run a blind test on it, people might not be able to tell the difference between it and that other light, which is green I think.

 

If I only think it is red, perhaps I had best ignore it. I don't need to stop for it because my mind is just tricking me into thinking it is red.

 

(Crash!)

 

Yes, I do agree with you about questioning what we perceive. But there is a point where you need to learn to trust your perceptions more than doubt them. Otherwise you wind up making poor choices.

 

Paul

 

 

And trusting them too much can lead to poor decisions as well. So?

[esldude]

Found MIT's description of the patent on that digital cable. Not surprisingly it doesn't say series a small resistor.

 

Digital interface cable - United States Patent 5,412,356

 

A single-ended digital interface cable and a balanced digital interface cable having a source end and a load end for propagating audio frequency signals in a digital format is disclosed. Each of the cables comprises a fixed capacitor or a capacitor and switch network which is coupled at or near the load end of the cables for providing a fixed bandwidth or for use in selectively controlling the bandwidth of the cables and a series resistance at each end thereof to dampen ringing.

[esldude]

Yes, Mayhem13, you have a point. Actually at one time MIT designed some cable just for Spectral systems. Also since then they have network boxes for interconnects that you choose settings based upon impedance and bandwidth of your equipment.

 

But then I do wonder, wouldn't be better to digitally prepare a signal for what happens, and pre-process it like happens for room correction? Of course to do that, you need something to measure and then correct for don't you. Which is where it all seems to breakdown.

 

I do wonder why stereophile and others don't do at least some modicum of simple measurements on cables and interconnects. They do it for SS equipment that really doesn't point up much unless it is broken. I would like to see that applied to cabling too. Now I think I know the reason why. Would be too much to hope I guess that years of measurements all turning out identically for all practical purposes might begin to get mainstream audiophiles attention.

[esldude]

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,

 

I think your listening methodology is sound. It also will enhance your ability to perceive real differences as far as human senses can go. I would also mention if someone had asked me how to go about listening carefully for comparative purposes my instructions would have been identical to yours. Not just very similar, but identical. That is how I have done such listening for some number of years.

 

While you might be able to avoid bias better than most, and I do think repeated experience helps in that regard, you still are subject to it. Human minds and perceptions have certain common ways of processing things we are all subject to those. Somewhere around the edges of the perceivable or beyond bias would affect you or any of us.

 

You have written:

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.

 

Quite a bit of careful work has shown this statement is common, and nevertheless people's senses usually get biased much more than they think it does. Again this is where the fascination of the issue is for me. I have accepted the idea no matter how careful and unbiased I think I have been, no matter how certain I am of my perceptions they can be wrong. They aren't always wrong, and there have been a number of situations where I was getting a niggling nagging idea something was up and eventually figured out why. Found a reason for it and determined it was true. That rightly reinforces the idea you trust your ears. But with interconnects there simply appears to be no reason that anything audible is happening and that should reinforce the idea you also doubt your ears. It bears investigating and it might be someone will come up with something. My best idea now is there is nothing there beyond my ears getting fooled.

 

So the murky, messy, in-between area is fascinating and requires some different practical or philosophical way to deal with it. If you assume all hearing abilities are completely understood it makes it simple, but in fact we know that isn't the case. On the other hand much is understood and shouldn't be dismissed either. We can say the same for technical considerations. Much is understood, but not everything. Then there are the psychological aspects of it. While we understand quite a bit more than nothing, we probably are on shakier ground here than the other two areas.

 

So you have interactions in at least three broad areas of knowledge. Even 3 sets of interaction get much too messy to keep straight in people's minds without some extra effort and care in applying that knowledge. That doesn't leave this area hopeless. Much of science deals quite effectively with much more than 3 variables and incomplete information.

 

A friend always warns me about reasoning by analogy. He is right and the more he points it out the clearer it is he is right. Still I will give in to the temptation here.

 

Ever see someone try to adjust a color television when they don't have any real knowledge of what the controls do? Or do you have a memory of doing that yourself? You know what stuff looks like, and there are only a few controls. So how could it be so hard to at least get close? Well you can end up with quite the colorful psychedelic result. I have seen people work and work and finally be satisfied with the adjustments. Then argue when you point out how far from right they are. After staring long enough they really don't see the green skin tint or the blue-greenish skies. If you finally get some reference (once used a white piece of paper held up to fluffy white clouds on screen that had a cyan tint), then it will flick something and they see it. Usually at that point they get disgusted and shake their heads at how hard this has been.

 

But with just a bit of extra understanding you can make it work pretty well. The brightness is a black level control, wait for dark scenes and adjust. Contrast is a white level control wait for the white dress or fluffy clouds to adjust. The color balance is tougher as magenta and cyan are harder to get in TV scenes. Skin tone can stand in. One can do a pretty decent job that way. All you have is a bit of extra understanding at how it works, and know which of the controls to adjust in which order. Only takes a handful of minutes to do what someone else might spend hours on and not get right and be convinced they have. Yet, even more technical methods give even better results. Would be foolish to claim only using your eye and viewing over time can one get truly good results. Yes, an experienced person can improve on the results with the eye, but not at the level of instrumentation. And yet like hearing the eye is the final arbiter. Without the human visual perception the rest has no point.

 

I think the thread is well named if it left out swindle. The etiology of how these differing opinions about cable come about with the overlapping, incomplete knowledge from three broad areas of knowledge is where progress can be made. If only we can get agreement such is the case, and people quit picking just one of the three areas while claiming it to have near religious-like infallibility. Then progress could be made on reliable methods to work around all this.

[esldude]

What test would you perform to determine that, Julf? You're merely restating the problem.

 

I think that does not make ABX testing invalid. It just means you want to use the best listeners you can find. While someone, somewhere is the best hearing person in the world it is statistically possible to get pretty good answers on those limits.

 

Another way to handle that problem is to test near the audible limit. If you get some that score very well, retest only using those high scoring individuals. In such testing one does sometimes just guess lucky. Highly unlikely to guess lucky twice. So if those high scores repeat the score they hear something others don't. One could then lower whatever quality they are listening for and see how much lower these selected high performers can hear things. While there is always the chance there is a person out there that hears even better with a goodly number of participants you can get an idea of what becomes inaudible to virtually everyone.

[esldude]

esl, how does one determine if a person is a "best listener"? The best listener will by definition be the person who hears something none of the other listeners can. His or her listening report will be statistically anomalous, no?

 

Very simple. Repeat the test or use several test tracks to make sure they are really hearing it.

 

Lets just use a simple level difference. Generally people will no longer hear level differences less than about .2 db. If someone can pick the louder track out of say 15 attempts with levels different by no more than .05 dB they are reliably showing they indeed hear it the differences smaller than other people.

 

So yes, this one listener among lesser listeners might be missed. Which is where picking only the ones scoring better and retesting comes in. Its nothing complicated about that.

[esldude]

Allow me to add one further observation here. Measurements, for their part, depend on and are shaped by the prior theoretical understanding within which those measurements gain some sort of meaningful traction and reference. To get a measurement regime properly oriented, one's theoretical perspective must be comprehensive. But who can claim to possess comprehensive theoretical understanding?

 

I could respond to much in this post. But the first little bit is probably enough. Quite simply it is wrong and doesn't make any sense. To get a measurement regime properly oriented, one's theoretical perspective must be comprehensive......really,.....I mean REALLY!? Where did this idea come from?

 

This is very much in the direction of we can know nothing till we know everything kind of thinking. Since we don't know everything we don't know nothing. That is not at all correct.

 

Since you mentioned rogue waves, well satellites have been used to detect and measure them. From your statement without comprehensive theory we couldn't do that. Plus, while not fully understood people are working on it. One group seem to find Schordinger wave equations seem to describe how such could occur with the right conditions. Yet to be proven, but hey you don't need comprehensive theory to nibble away at problems. In time lots of nibbling has good results. Not every worthwhile theory is all encompassing the way perhaps Einstein's relativity seems to you. And quantum theory has been somewhat ad-hoc build a block at a time from the early days.

[esldude]

esldude, you've misunderstood me. The claim that measurements comprehensively describe audible phenomena assumes that one's understanding is comprehensive. Measurement never exists simply "in the air" absent a grounding frame of reference, but is always a tool of some or another theory or idea.

 

Nor am I saying we cannot know anything until we know everything. Again, for measurements to comprehensively cover the audio field, there must by necessity exist a comprehensive understanding. If you think this through, you will see that I'm saying the opposite of what you're claiming I'm saying.

 

You are right that I don't understand you. Unfortunately I get the idea you don't really understand you either. Wonderful words I just don't get much in the way of concepts to back them up when I read them.

[esldude]

Nor I. Well said 50000.

 

 

CHG and 5000 you guys are having a wonderful roll in the straw men you are attacking. If only it had some relevance.

 

5000 your understanding of objectivity is truly astounding.

[esldude]

":-) 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.

 

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.

 

I have read the suggestion a few times to budget 20% for wire. That might not sound excessive. Modern systems may have 4 or 5 things to connect or fewer. When each wire is 4-5% of the total doesn't sound bad. Yet none of your components may be more than 20% other than speakers. So really for cost of all your wire is the wire going to help more than doubling down on any one of your components other than speakers. And with speakers maybe you could upgrade to some costing 50% more. Does wire do more for your system than such upgrades. When looked at this way I think wire doesn't look like such a good investment. My opinion would be opting out of even cheap wire in audiophile terms going with truly basic gold plated wire from Radio Shack instead then spending the left over amount on better speakers would get much more improvement. Of course buying one wire now and another later on impulse to satisfy your jonesing for a fix is not something you can do with one big upgrade on speakers for example. And that is not unusual. It is part of the psychology of it.