The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Yeah I'm just giving general examples about EMI testing, of course there are textbooks that describe the details but that is entirely beyond this forum. "compliance testing" though can be very rigorous for things like 100Gbe, PCIe4/5/6 and DDR5/6 etc ... in those environments there really can't exist "jitter" and EMI really will muck it up...

 

e.g. real world issue: https://www.signalintegrityjournal.com/articles/1586-a-brave-new-world-simulating-ddr5

 

But to be clear I am saying that "normal" USB testing doesn't test for everything, nor EMI etc. So what is "B.S." exactly? using 3DSIV? measuring signals? That is all rather inconvenient, eh?

One thing that bother me is all this talk about RFI and EMI. I have looked at interconnects with oscilloscopes set to microvolt sensitivity and with time-base response out to 100 MHz, and I’ll be damned if I have ever seen anything resembling the level of interference induced into an interconnect that wasn’t so low that it simply could make no difference to any audio circuit. I know that a lot of cable sound aficionados play the RFI/EMI  card to justify expensive cables, but how does the super shielding that these advocates tout help when there is no appreciable interference even on the cheapest shielded cable?

 

Now, I don’t say that interconnects have no sound. I say that they “shouldn’t” have a sound. I also say that cables that change the sound are deleting something from the signal for the sake of sounding different from the competition. It also occurs to me, that believers in the importance of “cable sound” have no idea what they are buying when they spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a pair of interconnects. There is just as big a chance that these new cables will sound worse than what they already have rather than sound better. But I have the distinct impression that most audiophiles who buy expensive cables consider any change in sound from what they had before the new cables to be an improvement. Why do I say that? Two reasons. 1) I‘ve never heard ANYONE complain that their new “boutique” cables were a mistake, and their system SQ has suffered because of them. 2) This attitude:  “I just spent $800 for a 2 meter pair of interconnects. They damn better be an improvement over what I have now!”

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Well, I've bought boutique cables that I weren't happy with and then bought boutique cables that I was happy with 🤷‍♂️.

Congratulations. You’re the first I’ve heard say that they’ve bought boutique cables with which they weren’t happy!

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 They are possibly too damn embarrassed to admit it .

That thought has occurred to me.

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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, 😁.

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! (Don’t worry, I didn’t buy the AudioQuest USB cable, it’s on loan). Worse than that, there is no difference between the sound of the AudioQuest USB and the throw-away cable. But I must say that Schiit has improved the Yiggy so much, that it is now much better sounding than the highly touted Chord HUGO 2TT (which I found to be a revelation when I first heard it).

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, semente said:

 

George, when you compare S/PDIF and Toslink to USB, do you send the file "raw" or upsampled by the software player?

What software player are you using?

 

Good question. Normally, I use a stand-alone hardware up-sampler called the “Assemblage D2D” made by Sonic Frontiers of Canada. But, when comparing  USB to Toslink and Coax SPDIF, I remove the the 24/96 up-sampler completely from the circuit. It’s not a fair comparison, otherwise. The software player I use is Audirvana for Mac, and I don’t use their software up-sampler. That would be redundant, so it remains off. Through Audirvana, I access my iTunes rips, Tidal and Quobuz.

14 hours ago, semente said:

 

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Alan

 I agree that George is overgeneralizing.

However, USB Audio needs a lot more to get the best out of it than just a typical USB cable, and although more recent DACs are much better in this respect, even they can usually benefit further from the use of something like an Iso Regen and an improved low noise external PSU, preferably Battery derived.

I have found that USB Audio is very sensitive to any capacitive coupling to Mains Earth, even when using a low noise external Linear PSU.

 Even connecting the supplied shield wire on an R-Core transformer to mains earth can cause a very small amount of audible degradation .

Regards
Alex

You may have a point about USB needing extra care to sound its best, but I’m not overgeneralizing. I was being very specific when I said that *I* find USB to be inadequate for audio.
I have the latest iteration of the Schiit Yiggy. when I first connected it to the MacBook Pro that I use as a “music server” using the aforementioned Audioquest Diamond 2 meter USB cable, my Mac couldn’t see the Yiggy! It never even showed up in the audio preference panel. A call to Schiit answered the question. It turns out that their latest USB implementation is not backward compatible to Mac OSes before 10.13 and I was running 10.11.6! In fact the MacBook Pro I am using has an Intel Core 2 Duo processor operating at 2.3 GHz, and apple says that 10.11.6 is the highest level OS that this particular Mac can run. Luckily, someone here (I don’t recall who) put me onto a hack that allowed me to upgrade to 10.15. Now the Yiggy/AudioQuest combo works with USB. I still find that both Toslink and Coax SPDIF sound better than this fancy new USB setup, though.

[gmgraves]

14 minutes 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

I have wondered that myself. Thanks, Alex.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

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

It might be, but since the Yggdrasil don’t do DSD, it’s a moot point as far as I’m concerned. I use the Delta-Sigma SabreDACs in my Oppo 205 to play DSD, and those are in the form of SACDs of which I have hundreds! I have no DSD files, but if I did, I’d use the Oppo for those as well! Since the SACD disc player is internal to the Oppo, I don’t need any interconnect to play those!😏

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The way I see it the "point about USB needing extra care to sound its best" is no different to any other implementation, just different challenges.

 

The fact that there continues to be incremental improvements in USB audio, and not spdif, relates to USB's popularity and ubiquity and maybe a recognition of inherent spdif limitations. As JS once said "the perils spdif are well known" (2004). Spdif has been seen by many as a flawed audio interface dating back to last century technology.The USB technology seen in more expensive DACS is filtering down into everyday priced DACS and DIY implementations.

 

I would in fact be wary of any DAC that cannot produce at least as good a sound from its USB implementation compared to its spdif connection. A quick google of the Yiggy found comments that USB sounded better than spdif, of course not a statement of fact, just what I would expect.

 

Neither spdif or usb interface is arguably best suited for audio. That said, I have never heard spdif or AES/EBU produce anywhere near the current levels of stunningly awesome sound reproduction from high end USB DACS. YMMV.

 

 

Obviously MMDoesV!

[gmgraves]

19 minutes 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.

There is something wrong with that power supply circuit shown at the bottom of that reproduced page you show above.  it shows an input of 9 volts AC, feeding a half-wave rectifier and then a 7809 and outputting 9 volts DC. How can the 7809 regulate 9 VDC from an input of 8.4 volts (0.6 V diode drop across the half-wave rectifier) much less - 9V DC from the 7909? Shouldn’t the AC input (presumably from a wall wart) be more like 12 volts?

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 George

 There must have been ERRATA published in a later issue as I successfully constructed the top part ONLY and still have the small PCB laying around here. You are of course correct that it would have needed 12VAC.

Mine was on a small separate PCB complete with the 7805 and 7905 and the MAX497, and powered from a separate + and -12V Regulated PCB. I also had relay controlled input switching for several devices

Regards

Alex

There’s nothing wrong with the circuit, it’s fine. It’s just the 9 Volts AC that’s wrong. Input AC must be, rule of thumb, about roughly 25% higher than the regulated output or the regulator chips won’t work.

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, Summit said:

I use S/PDIF and a DDC because with my DAC it sound best. I know that it’s not a universal truth and believe that it depends both on implementation, accompanying gear, preference and format which we like the most. What I object to is the description of a way of transfer a digital signal as being flawed. It is almost humours then it is stated by the all-cables-sound-the-same-brigade.

That’s just it. All cables don’t sound the same, but if all cables were pure conductors (as I maintain the goal should be) instead of acting as very subtle fixed filters, THEY WOULD all sound the same. When one chooses (if, indeed, the average audiophile actually does choose by listing first, which I doubt) a boutique interconnect cable, for instance, one is choosing which part of the audio spectrum one wants to suppress! Spending hundreds and even thousands on a fixed filter of some kind that minutely attenuates some portion of a signal that one is trying to reproduce as flawlessly as possible, is, to me, elementary purpose defeating.
 

For years I dismissed the notion that cables could have a sound, because in the lengths that are typical for an audio system, the maths say that a coaxial cable, a couple of meters long at the most, simply cannot have enough resistance, capacitance, and inductance to alter the frequency response of an audio signal. Then I heard it in a friends system when he replaced some generic interconnect cable with one of the same length from Kimber. I clearly heard a difference! I thought that the Kimber slightly recessed the presence region and didn’t like the change, as subtle as it was. The system’s owner thought it was an immense improvement. Well, he paid several hundred dollars for the cable, he wasn’t going to admit (even to himself, probably) otherwise.

 

The reason why I had never heard cable sound before, is that I don’t willy-nilly swap-out cables. I cable-up my system, and then I leave it be. When I swap-out equipment, I don’t swap-out the cables. I guess one would say, that if you don’t go down that particular rabbit hole, you won’t develop that particular strain of audiophilia nervosa!

 

Never chasing interconnects gives me a kind of homeostasis in my system. All my interconnect cables are different lengths from the same supplier and I buy in bulk from mycablemart.com. I have a box full of unopened bags of 1/2 meter, 1 meter, and 2 meter lengths. Their “premium interconnects” are all RG59U (it’s printed on the cables’ jackets) and are well made with gold plated RCAs, and good quality molded strain reliefs. I find these interconnects to be very similar to BlueJeans brand, but much less expensive. My speaker cable is Sewell Direct’s “Silverback” 12 Ga, OFC, 259 strand cable terminated in very high quality banana plugs - www.sewelldirect.com. In my present setup, my amp is halfway between both speakers and each run is a mere 6ft. 

 

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

With all due respect, I don't think this is the whole story:  there are ICs that provide a more live-music experience without accentuating specific frequencies (and such cables definitely don't soften or homogenize).  I know this is purely subjective, but ears are very sensitive to frequencies that are "out of place."  The pushed frequencies of capacitors breaking-in is a familiar, unpleasant experience.  

 

Just mentioning another (subjective) perspective and not trying to change any opinions/experiences/preferences. 

I don’t disagree, but you are trying to compare an active component, one that can amplify and introduce various distortions with a purely passive component which cannot amplify, nor introduce distortions unless there’s a bad or corroded connection. And finally, to reiterate, cables cannot add anything to a signal because they are not active components. Cables can only subtract. So if two cables sound different from one another, it’s because they are subtracting different things in differing amounts. Really, It’s that simple. What is not so simple, in fact, it’s downright elusive, is how to measure and quantify those differences in any way other than by listening. Make no mistake, my friend, boutique cables are “snake oil” and the fact that there is no way to quantify the differences in cables, or to characterize how a specific cable will act in a specific application is used by the marketing departments of these boutique cable manufacturers to their advantage in selling their wares.

[gmgraves]

20 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

What if they modulate how other things may or may not be added such as RFI/EMI

How can they do that? Cables are passive. All they can do is conduct to a greater or lesser extent.

Quote

 

Evidence or assumption based on theory ? What if they 'add' distortion
 

As I said before, cables can’t add distortion (they can’t ADD anything) but poor or corroded connections at the interface between cable and connector can introduce distortion via the “diode” effect. Of course, dirty RCAs can do the same thing between the male and female connector. That’s why I advocate some kind of connector cleaner followed by an application of a connection enhancer like Stabilant 22. But that has nothing really to do with the cable itself, and what company would stay in business if they made interconnects with a poor connection between the cable and the connector? And none of this is an assumption, it’s as incontrovertible as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Quote

Your hypothesis and a possibility
 

No sir. It’s not a hypothesis. Since wire, by definition, can’t have gain, any differences between cables must be the result of differing losses. Again it’s just common sense. If somebody discovered wire that amplified the signal passing through it, it would be the greatest discovery in the history of electricity!

Quote

not to everyone
 

Well, some people believe in astrology, ghosts, and flying saucers, to name a few. Believing in something doesn’t make it true if it isn’t, and won’t make it false if it is true. The fact that you wish to believe that boutique cables have magical powers and do things that are impossible, is no one’s business but yours. In other words, believe what you will. You are certainly free to do so.

Quote

the great audio debate in a nutshell. Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.

That’s true generally in life as well as audio.

Quote

A conspiracy theory .....based on, well,  theory. bah humbug!.......I say listen and enjoy your cables😁😜

I don’t advocate otherwise. But the reason why different cables sound different is clear. Wire can’t add anything to a signal passing through it. Therefore it’s simple common sense. That if two cable sound different, it can only be the difference between the losses between them. Even a fraction of a dB, in direct comparison, can make two cables sound significantly different enough for a listener to prefer one over another. The only thing that I find amusing about this fact is that practically no one actually compares cables! They read a review, or see an advertising blurb or simply buy on price (as in “I want the best, and the best is always the most expensive”). 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Just speaking for myself: When I say I only replace components if they die or need repair that is too expensive to fix, this applies to cables as well. None of my cables so far have worn out. I do unplug the cables and clean their connectors once a year.  
 

Good practice. RCA connectors aren’t gas-tight (but obviously some are tighter than others), so, cleaning them once a year is a very good idea.

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

I agree with this, however are there cables that exist which are 100% efficient at all audible frequencies?

Interesting question, but the answer is self apparent if you think about it. Is anything perfect? Is any car engine 100% efficient? Any electrical appliance, any transmission line for mains current? Power generating stations send out thousands of volts along their transmission lines and step them down to house mains voltage in increments along the way, because so much power is lost along the way. So, the answer is no. No cables are anywhere near 100% efficient, but they work in this application because at the lengths audiophiles use, the losses are minuscule. Again, the losses also differ from design to design, and that’s why different cables sound different from one another.

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

RFI/EMI and distortion are not part of the music signal, so wouldn't these also be considered subtractions?

No. These are additions to the signal, but the cable didn’t add them. It merely allowed the interference to get into the cable. It’s much like your phono cartridge. It doesn’t cause ticks and pops on your records, but if they’re there, it will dutifully pick them up and turn them to an electrical signal.

5 hours 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.

That one, Teresa, I can’t answer. Maybe it’s because they aren’t in much demand and thus are made in smaller quantities, and the economics of scale dictate a higher production cost. I just don’t know.

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

Doesn’t iFI make one that’s reasonable? Seems to me that I have one around here somewhere. Don’t remember what I paid for it, but I don’t think it was very expensive.

[gmgraves]

5 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?
 

Yes, it can be measured, in fact it can be separated from the audio by “nulling” the audio. Take the audio + RFI/EMI signal, and then take the same audio signal without the interference and invert it. Sum the two audio signals together at the exact same level, and they cancel each other out leaving only that which was different from the original audio signal, I.E., the interference.

5 hours ago, PYP said:

 Similarly, if I accept the premise that a cables are filters, I wonder what some objectivists think about the idea that RFI/EMI is what is filtered out by some cables and that the absence of such distortion is pleasing to some ears and heard as a loss of definition by others.  There do seem to be studies in which folks prefer the kind of distortion that subjectively increases the level of detail (leading edge transient in particular).   And this preference can obviously change over time.  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).  

Interesting hypothesis. It’s possible, but the flaw that I see is the assumption that RFI/EMI is very common and universally pernicious in amounts than can color the sound. Over the short distances that audiophiles need to run cables to connect their gear together, I just don’t see any RFI/EMI in any quantity to worry about. Even with no signal, and the oscilloscope set to it’s highest sensitivity (microvolts) and stretching the time-base out to resolve a 100 MHz waveform, this interference, especially in one or two meter runs, simply is not there. Now, if one lived in close proximity to high-tension power lines, or a broadcast station (even a neighbor who’s a ham radio enthusiast), or had a faulty ‘fridge, or AC unit, then one might see enough RFI/EMI to be concerned about, but it’s easy enough to check. With 100 MHz ‘scopes being so cheap these days, (less than US$100). There is no reason not to have one and to check your interconnects for interference as well as bandwidth, waveform integrity, etc.

5 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.  

Well obviously all cables alter the signals passing through them at a greater or lesser degree. That’s just physics. From that standpoint, all interconnect cables are going to sound different. It’s the effect that these differences have on the person listening as to what they consider an “improvement” over what they had before. 

[gmgraves]

19 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Not being a Mac user , I dunno. The only hits I got on google was re mac Mini dropping spdif as "obsolete".

Yes, the headphone jack on Macs is no longer also a coaxial Toslink SPDIF jack. Sorry to see it go. For me, it just makes used Macs more valuable.

 

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

George, just because you don't understand how, doesn't mean it cannot exist.

You know, I’m pretty thick skinned, but I consider that statement an insult. Believe me, I do understand “how”.

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So, "poor or corroded connections at the interface between cable and connector can introduce distortion via the “diode” effect". Ergo, there is a least one mechanism that YOU know of that permits, in your world, the addition of something. You have provided the single counter-example that rejects your own hypothesis about cables that, "they can’t ADD anything"

Ridiculous. As ridiculous as saying that if the shield on an interconnect is broken, the cable adds hum. It’s called grasping at straws, and if this is the level to which you are willing to stoop in order to “be right”, then there’s no way to have a conversation with you.

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

No one is arguing against the first law of thermodynamics George or even how it might support your hypothesis, but hypothesis it is, until such time as you can show results of your experiment which supports or rejects it.

 

As you so rightly assert, there is currently no reliable way to measure these effects, and as such they are untestable. Until such time you and I and everyone else is spruiking theory based on some factual evidence.

 

So, scientifically and objectively speaking, we agree that a piece of wire cannot add *energy* in the usual way we think of it such as "amplification" of this or that part of the frequency response. That does not mean that it cannot modulate or influence how external energy may enter the system. I think we also might be vaguely in agreement here, and as you say, it is not the wire adding energy.

 

Although not advocating it as plausible, I guess there is also a possibility that "added" energy may result from energy release via  the interaction between cable substrate and the electrical energy applied. A chemical or electro-mechanical interaction that releases energy. Granted far fetched but who would have thought you could split a tiny atom and end up with an atomic bomb. There is energy inside the system that can be released with the right circumstances, just sayin.

 

We agree in principle. What appears to be lost on you is that said principle equally applies to you ie your beliefs and continuing to repeat them, as you say, "doesn't make it true". Condescending remarks comparing legitimate scientific curiosity backed by (many?) thousands of observational reports to "magic" and "flying saucers" doesn't really help your case, IMO

 

 

Well, just another example of a belief unfounded by evidence, a bit like your assertion about nobody ever being unhappy with their boutique cables - also incorrect.

I didn’t say that. I said that I had never seen or heard anyone say that they were unhappy with an expensive cable purchase. If you are going to excoriate and belittle me, at least get my words right.

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

George, you may find it "amusing" but please do no not serve it up as irrefutable science when clearly it is non-science (and notwithstanding the laws of thermodynamics). The only real scientific answer is "I don't know" and we all need to learn to live with that, even have fun with it.  😉

My comments here are more than a theory and less than absolute proof, and I think that should be clear to anyone.

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Edi- just found the Feynman quote i was after....

“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.”

― Richard P. Feynman

 

 

[gmgraves]

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You say "Believe me, I do understand “how”. Okay but excuse those of us that may not steadfastly believe you nor your conclusions based on your "know-how". Repeating it doesn't make it so. You offer opinion and that is fine, and no matter how compelling, it is NEVER "more than theory" no matter how much you believe it, are pretty sure you're right about it, or offer supportive reasoning and factual premises for it, until such time as you offer experimental results it remains theory.  If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

I’m not married to this hypothesis. If somebody comes up with a better one, or even better, actually proves one, I will gladly accept it as truth. But so far,  my hypothesis is, as far as I can see, the only one that fits all the observed results. But at least I thought through the problem and came up with a working hypothesis about Interconnect sound, while all you have done is criticize my theory. Well, at least you’ve thought about it, but if you actually have any theories of your own on the subject, so far you’ve kept them to yourself. 

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes, totally agree and all credit to you.Sincerely

 

 

George its more some of the conclusions you seem to draw like "Make no mistake, my friend, boutique cables are “snake oil”" That is a positive vote for the premise of prufrocks successfully titled click bait thread.You are entitled to that opinion.

What else would you call products that remove information and loudly advertise that they make one’s system sound better?

1) no cable is perfect

2) all cables, attenuate some portion of the audio spectrum.

3) without listening there is no ay to tell how any given cable brand/model will sound in any given system.

4) whether or not any given cable improves or denigrates SQ depends on the taste of the buyer.

 

I’ve often wondered how cable manufacturers come up with their products. 
1) they certainly can’t design how their cables sound, because nobody has yet been able to measure what people hear with those cables. 
2) any single cable will sound different in every different application.

Quote

So, after a huge number of similar threads over many years across multiple audio fora, my view is, if you value science and don't have a dog in the fight, we cannot be certain whether boutique cables make a huge difference in SQ if at all. 

It’s never a huge difference. But it is a difference.

Quote

I get and respect the evidence suggesting they do not. I also get and respect that (many) thousands of people hear significant differences (at times self included) and that is at odds with contrary evidence. I get and respect that hearing differences can be psychologically influenced. I don't get nor respect the view that it must be illusion or bias (not implying you) to explain the differences.

I used to be in the camp that says that it’s an illusion, but not any more. I’ve heard it myself. I don’t know what causes it, it defies logic and electrical theory, but obviously these SQ differences exist. Like I said, I have no idea why this is so, and given the type of advertising babble that these cable companies indulge in, they don’t know either! 

Quote

Observations are valid data points and when shared with thousands of others it becomes progressively less likely in my view that illusion is the underlying mechanism, not impossible, just less likely.

Oh, it’s definitely not an illusion. It’s real all right

Quote

It is also possible it is a real psychoacoustic effect that some but not others perceive.This btw is the difference between the "Santa Claus" or "Russell's teapot" analogy. It is not such an "extraordinary" claim if thousands or millions see the teapot. If only the guy down the street sees the teapot (or Santa) it is likely he has been drinking a strange brew in his teapot ie he is experiencing an hallucination not shared with peers.

Problem is, the guy probably won’t share his tea! They never will, you know!😉

Quote

My position then, as stated is that we just don't know. We don't know because as I see it, as do you apparently, it cannot be reliably tested. As said many times, I am okay with doubt (not knowing). My theory is that cables can make a difference but I don't understand how, as yet, and I am left in a state of not knowing how or why, but subjectively sometimes hear differences as shared with many of my peers.The universe doesn't owe me an explanation. In such circumstances I go with what I hear, not what I am supposed to hear or not hear.

I agree fully. AFAICS, the only bone of contention between us is that I’m fairly convinced that interconnect cables perform differently under dynamic conditions (playing music) than they do using test signals (sine waves, square waves, triangle waves, etc.). Since cables are passive, the only logical conclusion is that different cables are suppressing different things from the signal. Otherwise, they would (and should) all sound the same - neutral.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, PYP said:

 

That is a little different from my own experience.  

 

1)  Started with "generic" cables, then tried some made by a guy who turned his hobby into a small business.  I was surprised by the difference.  I'd call it "significant."  It changed my mind about the role of cables in the overall system.  Much later, I asked a hifi dealer who sold a DAC I was interested in about what cables he liked.  My assumption was/is that cables change the sound and I knew he liked the kind of sound I liked because that DAC was his favorite.  He provided demo cables, with no commitment on my part.  This was another significant jump in the sound I was after.  More recently (and, please forgive me, during the time I was reading this thread  ), I tried another demo cable (same manufacturer).  It worked for me, but clearly is reaching the point of diminishing returns.  Just my own experience, of course.  My gear has changed over that time, so no way to do an apples-to-apples comparison.  Of course, like many, I think it is the gestalt that we are seeking yet the interaction of the individual components cannot be known before listening.  

I have found that one person’s definition of “significant improvement” is another person’s “subtle” or “barely noticeable” change.

[gmgraves]

19 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I would highly recommend buying only those cables that make a significant improvement 😁😜

Ok, but I’ve never run across one of those. 

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

...and you won't if you think you're not supposed to so IMO it undermines your credibility on this topic.

I really don’t know how to respond to that! You are making the assumption that I think that I’m not supposed to hear a great deal of improvement when I swap cables. That’s not it at all! What I was referring to is that I’ve never heard a cable that made a huge difference in sound because I don’t listen to cables!

That’s a completely different thing from assuming that I believe that I’m not supposed hear a difference. 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 that determination on my part undermines my credibility on this topic, in your estimation, then don’t read my posts on this topic. It really is that simple.

 

[gmgraves]

38 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

So, in the end, it a subjective evaluation that determines best cable?  I misunderstood that part of your discussion.

Since there is nothing about interconnect cables that can be measured in any way that would alter their sound, what else would it be?