The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[gmgraves]

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

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

Not exactly, every component has different output and input characteristics. These are what determine the way that the transmission medium interacts with both the source and the destination components. Theoretically, that would mean that a receiver in which each section of the device is connected through a short length of wire and a function switch to the other section in the same chassis would be superior to separates connected via interconnect coaxial cables and RCA plugs and jacks. But this is generally considered to be not the case. However, the differing input and output characteristics of each individual component in an audio system can’t be cavalierly dismissed as a weakness in the system. It’s not that simple. For instance, some audio outputs are operational amplifiers and some are discrete transistors. Of those, some might be collector followers and others are emitter followers. All are legitimate ways to couple out a signal. On the input side of  things, some are bipolar transistors, some are FETs, the FETs generally have higher load impedance than do bipolar transistors, both in discrete designs and in op-amps (many of which have FET inputs). Again, these are design decisions, not weaknesses. Then there are tubes. Some outputs are plate followers which generally speaking have higher output impedance than do cathode followers, but again, these decisions are not weaknesses, they are design decisions that all have varying characteristics. These characteristics are all going to have an effect on how the signal is conducted from one component to another. If the interconnect alters the sound, then these output and input characteristics cannot be discounted as having a heavy influence on the sound changes afforded by these interconnects.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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

And, yet that’s how it’s done. No doubt, all designers believe that they “get it right”. 

[gmgraves]

38 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes maybe just me reading too much between the lines of you saying "It’s never a huge difference. But it is a difference" and you 'liking' Alex's comment where he commenced " Cables rarely make more than a very minor difference with specification meeting cables ANYWHERE else except with USB audio". I agree it merely establishes your listening experience.

 

 

Then how do you know its never a huge difference? Why would you even comment on cable audibility if you don't listen to cables? In fairness, you may be basing your opinion on past experiences but it doesn't inspire confidence about current cables (or voltage ones 😉).

Well, just because in my own system, I don’t do cables, doesn’t mean that I haven’t experienced cables in other systems. That should be apparent.

38 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I understand anyone not choosing to listen or compare cables. As you said "I don’t willy-nilly swap-out cables". You cable-up your system, and then leave it be. You swap-out equipment but don’t change or listen to other cables describing it in fact as a rabbit hole, and a particular strain of audiophilia nervosa!.

 

Not listening to cables but then stating huge or "significant" differences don't exist, buying cables based on build quality not sound (notwithstanding your view that its too unpredictable), adding characterizations of audiophilia nervosa is to me starting to sound tendentious and tilting towards bias especially when combined with other statements like "Make no mistake, my friend, boutique cables are “snake oil”.

 

 

Then why not bother to listen to cables, especially when you swap out components, in addition to satisfying your views on build quality?  Could it be that you have a preformed view in the form of a negative expectation that cables do not or will not make enough difference to be concerned about?
 

 You have become very tiresome with this narrow attempt to belittle me. Think about these things before you continue to flog this obviously deceased equine!

 

Since no cable is neutral, it really doesn’t matter to me. Remember, it’s just wire and as such, can only subtract from the signal that’s applied. If one assumes that it is what it is, then one might get the idea that changing cables is futile. That’s my view. 

38 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I am looking at why you have formed your views about cables and then sharing them. One would think for discussion. Your characterization as belittling is utter nonsense except that you perhaps misconstrue the possibility of expectation bias as being belittling. This is a thread about cables and their audibility. If you don't want any questioning of your views don't comment or don't read the feedback. Not much of a discussion, then.

 

 

 If no cable is neutral wouldn't that be even more reason to listen? You can't rely on a transparent result so you want to choose what sounds like the most neutral, like amps or anything else. Alternatively you may wish to choose the color of your preference. either way involves listening and matching to your system.

I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE SOUND OF CABLES. Can’t you get that through your head? I know that different cables sound different from each other and they sound different in different applications. But my system is very good, very resolving. Why would I want to change that with unknown cables attenuating unknown regions of the audio spectrum? If others want to play Russian roulette with expensive cables, let them. It’s their money, after all. I’d rather spend my money on music.

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, semente said:

 

Are the Duettas a good example?

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/apogee-duetta-ii-loudspeaker-george-graves

Well, that’s speaker cable and speakers and amps are somewhat different because of the impedance and reactive components involved, But yes, that’s really an excellent example. I had lots of speaker cables available to me, but I just couldn’t get those Duettas to sound right, until Jason Bloom of Apogee sent me that Symo cable from Switzerland! While I never put much stock in chasing interconnects, I’ve long been aware that due to the very low impedances involved In both the source (the amplifier) and the load (the speaker) that the characteristics of the speaker cable were a much larger part of the overall circuit than are the coaxial cable characteristics in a line-level circuit where the source is usually somewhere around 600 Ohms and the load is likely to be many thousands of Ohms.
 

I also recommended bi-wiring in that review. While I didn’t elaborate at the time, I don’t generally recommend bi-wiring per se. Apparently, removing the strap between the woofer and tweeter sections of the Duettas, introduced the reactive components of that length of Symo wire into the tweeter circuit because all bi-wiring does (in this case, anyway) is to move the woofer/tweeter strap from the back of the speaker to the output terminals on the power amplifier, making that strap now 20 ft (in this case) long. Obviously the tweeter crossover needed that extra resistance, capacitance and inductance in order for the Apogees to sound “right”!

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Perhaps he should then send it to Chris for a Review ? 

I like that emoticon! Evil Alex!

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

This is from the September 1986 Stereophile. The Internet never forgets. 😬

“Replacing the Monster M1/Powerline II combo with Symo changed the sound of the Duettas drastically: The top end was now open and fast, the highs sparkled, and triangles floated over the rest of the ensemble. The brasses had more bite, and the bass was tighter and better defined than ever before. All instruments had more air around them, and the imaging was the best so far. This change was overwhelming; it took me several more days of listening before I was ready to make any recommendations.”

We have already discussed that above in post # 955. 

[gmgraves]

On 5/2/2020 at 10:17 AM, PYP said:

 

 

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

ABX or just double-blind switching between two samples is not designed analyze the differences between the samples, such tests are only good for detecting that a difference in sound between two samples actually exists. A jarring change in the sound between the two samples as they are switched, is all that these tests are designed to detect. Herein lies the problem. It has been noted that differences of a fraction of a dB are easily heard. This means that there can be NO differences in the volume level of any two devices subjected to such a test. This is really difficult to achieve even in so-called “passive” devices such as interconnect cables because all have different R, C, and L values and all attenuate the signal to some small degree. Since the “former” engineering wisdom was that humans can’t detect a difference of less than one dB (and I’ve seen where some sources say that people can’t hear changes in volume of less than +/- 3dB), it’s a wonder that any such comparison ever yields any positive results.

Anyway, if we assume that an ABX or DBT does uncover differences in cables, it’s not going to tell you the source or the character of those differences. That would require long term listening. But the problem here is that people get used to changes in sound very quickly*, and memory of specifically what something in the past sounded like is fairly fleeting, I suspect that any conclusions drawn from such long term listening tests, especially for something as subtle as an interconnect’s sound would be highly suspect.

*When I get a new pair of speakers (or headphones) to review, and replace my reference Martin Logans with them, I’m often astounded at how quickly I get used to the “new” sound, and start to regard it as “normal”. Of course, if the new speakers (or ‘phones’) are drastically different (in either a good or a bad way) from what I’m used to, then this “normalization” doesn’t occur.

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is a good thing of course - where it becomes interesting is that the "new normal" will have edges to it; meaning, a particular recording will sound "better", or "worse" than what you experienced previously, with the the prior setup - that it sounds worse is a giveaway that something that is not as good as it should be in the overall system is now more aggressively highlighted, because of the changes made ... a highly effective approach to improving the setup is to be grateful for this insight, and to constructively use this extra knowledge to refine the system.

Looks like somebody is back to playing that broken record again. This person seems to never get tired of hearing that “click, click, click” every revolution Like the rest of us do.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

I see in a recent post of yours, George,

 

 

that your "broken record" is that the status of a recording is firmly set, deep into hard concrete - for you, and others, many recordings "just sound wrong and unsatisfying", no matter what ... 'tis a pity - because you're missing out, on so much ... 🙂.

Seems like my comment went WHOOSH! right over your head. Frank, you are the broken record, and the click, click, click is you singing the same old song in every post and in every thread you participate in. 

[gmgraves]

On 5/12/2020 at 4:10 AM, fas42 said:

 

George, I was pointing out that the broken record that you accuse me of is a response to the steady mantra of those who assert that the lacking in the quality of what they hear is the recording's fault - the same excuse has been trotted out, to me, constantly over the last 35 years ... and that groove has worn down to the point of breaking through to the other side, for me.

 

You seem unaware that hardware is now coming out that is capable of getting so much closer to the true sound of the recording with relatively little tweaking - progress is being made, whether you like it or not.

So, it doesn’t matter that your comment was a non-sequitur? And that you are answering a question that nobody asked?

The fact is, Frank, that most commercial recordings are sonic junk. Every now and again, somebody gets it right, but most of the time they don’t. What’s the use of having “hardware (that) is now coming out that is capable of getting so much closer to the true sound of the recording“ if the recordings coming out for the general public to buy are so sonically incompetent? Pop recordings are so compressed and so hard limited These days, that I’m surprised that even millennials can listen to them with ear-buds!

Where do you get the idea that I’m unaware of the advancements in playback hardware? Or that I don’t like such advancements? And finally, isn’t this revelation antithetical to your usual mantra that high-end hardware is not necessary and that all you need is some cheap mid-Fi equipment, a pair of boom-box ghetto blaster speakers and the famous “Frank method“ to get as close to the original performance as technically possible and make every recording sound like you are in the room with the musicians irrespective of that recording’s origin or quality? As I have been saying all along Frank, you are as full of it as a stuffed Christmas goose.

[gmgraves]

22 hours ago, Summit said:

It is not true that a recording either sounds good or bad regardless of the playback system. Some records are more complex and difficult to reproduce and can sound bad on a lesser audio system but good on a better one.

 

It is a myth that a bad recordings sound worse the better the system. The better system will still sound better even if we can hear some flaws more clearly. It is those over-analytical midfi “HIFI” system that lack bass and that emphasize a sharp and bright sound that can sound worse, but I don’t consider them to sound good and lifelike.

Seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. In one breath you say that bad recordings don’t sound worse on good systems, then you say that good systems reveal more of the flaws in a bad recording. In what universe does revealing more flaws not equate to the bad recording sounding worse?

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes ... how it works is that low resolution, midfi systems simply don't extract all the details of the recording; the "bad bits' of the technology, as well as "good bits" of the music just don't come through - this compromise works quite well. Improve the resolution of the playback, and you "hear everything" - where this goes wrong is that the remaining distortion misbehaviour of the rig intermodulates with less than perfect capture or storage of the event; two very distinct wrongs are too much for the ear/brain - "bad recordings" abound. The solution is to push the playback chain to a higher level of integrity, so that its distinctive sound signature vanishes. Then the listening mind only has to accommodate a single style of distortion; that of the particular track - this is very obvious when you play a compilation album, each successive track changes the acoustic world you experience, sometimes dramatically - but each works, because the listener very rapidly adapts to the new soundscape; it almost immediately makes sense.

Nonsense!

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Summit said:

 

In this universe because a good audio system is about much more than digging up and showing flaws. Maybe one day you will understand that.

Since my system makes my recordings (as in those that *I* recorded) sound like the live performance sounded when I was there recording it, believe me when I say that  I couldn’t agree more. A good audio system is about very “much more than digging-up and showing flaws“.

In my previous post I was asking you to explain, if you would be so kind, what you meant with that seemingly contradictory comment about lousy recording quality and good, revealing systems and I was gently (I thought) chiding you about it. Reading it some hours later, I can see how you might have taken it as an attack. Understand, it wasn’t meant that way, and I apologize for my wording. Very terse of me, and I should have read it over before I hit the “Submit Reply” button!

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Indeed, otherwise things will get too controversial!

 

 

v

 

DeSalla understands! How does McGowan know that some other cable (other than AudioQuest), isn’t more “synergistic” than AudioQuest cables? Has Paul listened to every cable on the market to come to the conclusion that AudioQuest cables have more synergy With PS audio equipment than some other cable manufacturer? Of course he hasn’t. Nobody could possibly have that much time (even if they did have the money to throw at this question).

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Hitchens - amazing person

 

 "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

v

Another way of saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Words to live the Audiophile lifestyle by...

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Speaking of which, from watching the video - what is this thing about cables with batteries - if I did not know the industry I would think is a joke... or a parody...

 

ah well - here we are, in our sandbox, preaching to the converted when it should be possible to take the fight "over there", where is needed...

 

v

I’ve seen some articles that say that a static charge on an AUDIO FREQUENCY cable improves the cable’s dielectric. These same articles say that there is no evidence that biasing USB or Ethernet cables has any effect whatsoever. I have a high-end USB cable from AudioQuest that has a 72 volt battery bias system. I have listened to this cable vs a generic USB “printer cable” on the latest Yggdrasil DAC and under no listening circumstances have I noticed the slightest difference between a $2 generic USB cable and the multi-hundred dollar AudioQuest “battery” cable. Of course, all this does is confirm for me the article’s statement that there is no “evidence” that biasing other than audio frequency cables does anything at all. But that doesn’t really mean anything. And of course, Just because biasing audio cables improves dielectric performance doesn’t mean that this will improve the sound or even change the sound of a cable Between it’s biased and unbiased state. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 You are leaving yourself wide open there George . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fortunately for George n, I have heard one of his recordings.

Well, I meant to add that my system makes my recordings sound like the original performance while I was recording it AS FAR AS, AND AS CLOSE AS I REMEMBER! Realizing, of course, that sonic memory is fleeting and subject to human bias. But, My train of thought got derailed, and I failed to complete that thought. 🤫

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

For your recordings, do you add this disclaimer:  no electrons were harmed for this recording.   Might give you a marketing advantage.  

Most of my recordings were made for the client, not for commercial release (although I did have a number of releases on Musical Heritage Society many years ago).

But yeah, that would be a good idea.😉

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

What would need "extraordinary proof" (nonexistant and never provided) would be the claims about "why XXX cable is better"

It is easy to dismiss the claims as BS without doing your own "experiment"  (the science is that well established).

 

That doesn't mean that two cables don't sound different. They very well may. The question is why would anyone want to pay $$$$$ for a cable who's manufacturer has no idea why its "better" (or worse). I choose cables which are well constructed e.g. there are a variety of well respected XLR cables with  Neutrik connectors that pros use -- or Amphenol. and if you want to get fancy custom cables then Lemo makes some really sweet connectors but you need equipment designed for that.

That’s just half the story really. After spending $$$$$, the buyer doesn’t know whether these cables will make his system sound better or worse. Since there’s no way to measure cables in any way that correlated with how they will sound, ultimately in any given system, the buyer is buying a pig in a poke. Although some dealers will take back cables if they don’t work out in a customer’s system, many will not. The whole Megillah is a lot like the old saw about Christopher Columbus: “He left Spain, not knowing where he was going, arrived in the New World not knowing where he was, and returned to Spain not knowing where he had been!”

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

apropos the above video: absolutely, a BNC connector with RG cables can go out into Ghz. Go milspec if your want 'fancy' but its all dirt cheap.

Well as someone who spent a good amount of his first several years as an engineer in a government contractor’s cable lab, I can tell you that the only thing a mil-spec certification means is that the device or cable has been tested to conform to the design parameters called for in the government’s original contract for that device or cable. In another context, that mil-spec certification may have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. For instance a semiconductor built to mil-spec tolerances would be certified to work as specified from -55 to +125 degrees C. Now what good is that certification if that mil-spec semiconductor is used in a domestic preamplifier, for instance? None. It would work exactly the same as an ordinary spec’d part of the same type. It would just cost 1/10th to 1/100th the cost.

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

So we've talked about why cables might sound different, certainly not the ability to carry the audio signal -- that is where @pkane2001 can refer to well established known science, but we can argue single ended vs balanced, and shielded SG vs twisted pair, and we can dismiss some of these ridiculous pseudoscientific explanations out of hand ... the known physics of electronics is just that well known. Yet, as I've said many many times, it is the out-of-band transmission of noise between the components that is not accounted for: as I keep saying: common mode noise transmission between components can be affected by different cables in ways that are not commonly described in the audiophile literature: take a look at that book that the guy in the video above is holding up, y'know that "Ott" guy  

 

 

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

..sounds like a typical Saturday night really😵

Yeah, that too....

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

But what if it does? We don't know what we don't know....

 

Glass is an insulator (and a damn good one too. It can hold off many thousands of volts At many hundreds of Amperes). If it made any kind of an antenna, the whole world of physics is going to have to rethink everything we know about electricity!

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I am not suggesting test every single thing, just things that are critical to your method. If you are proposing that EMI/RFI is somehow involved you need to be able to accurately demonstrate its presence or absence.

" there is no difference between level of demonstrated RF/EMI common mode noise transmission accompanying fiber vs copper ethernet cable" should be easy to disprove and supports your theory

You know, EMI/RFI aren’t invisible. If you have a problem with either (or both) of those, you can easily see it on even a cheap oscilloscope, so there’s no reason to assume that it’s there or that it is high enough in amplitude to obscure your audio. LOOK for it before attributing sonic differences in cables to those phenomena.

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 George

RF/EMI doesn't need to be of such a high level as to obscure Audio .It can even present as low level wideband rubbish that can be like looking through a dirty window , adding low level grain/smearing.

Yes, Alex, of course, but I’m talking about RFI/EMI that doesn’t exist on a signal at all, or is down in the low microvolt or femtovolt level. Noise at -120 dB or less, is simply not going to “color” the sound, nor will RFI/EMI that is at - infinity (I.e. doesn’t exist at all!

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

Much of the RF/EMI from Computers is in the UHF and higher region, with even SSDs crap (higher harmonics) via it's PSU  leads etc.able to affect GPS modules as well as degrade Audio S/N. Al.fe even recommends HDD over SSD for this reason

RF/EMI from nearby TV and Radar transmitters can get back into Audio gear and be inadvertently rectified, as happened to me some years back where a 200MHZ Analogue TV transmitter several KM distant from me got back into the amplifier via the speaker leads and the NFB area to cause frame buzz interference .

 

Regards

Alex

 

 

All of what you say is true. But still, many contributors of this forum act as if every system suffers from RFI/EMI noise, and it just ain’t so. I also strongly doubt that RFI/EMI has anything to do with the “sound” of interconnects In the vast majority of situations. Sure, if it’s bad enough and at a high enough level because the shielding on the interconnect wires is inadequate to keep it out of the interconnects, it can and will become a factor in compromising the sound of a system. But it doesn’t exist everywhere. I have a 100 MHz Tektronix ‘scope, yet at maximum sensitivity, I see no RFI/EMI On any interconnects on my system. Blaming RFI/EMI for everything from the CV-19 virus to the sound of cables to the Isis insurgency in Syria is only muddying the issue. RFI/EMI Is not a panacea.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

RF/EMI are not relevant for every system component yet with digital computers and devices is it well known that there will be a certain level is essentially all cases such that FCC requires certifications. The levels which are relevant for audio are not specified. I am really saying that this is a variable which is not measured by the typical RCL cable measurements, and so cables which measure the same wrt the standard electrical measurements are not electrically identical.

My point is simply that RFI/EMI are not a universal panacea to explain cable sound, and you are right to say that computers generate a lot of UHF and VHF garbage. But my experience is that it is rarely generated at high enough levels to influence the quality of signal transfer in audio signals. I’m not saying that it COULDN’T be a source of distortion. I once knew a guy who lived very close to a high-tension power line right-of-way. No matter what he did, he couldn’t get rid of a low-level 60 Hz hum in his system. Finally he solved the problem by moving. But that’s a rare case; not at all typical. I have a MacBook Pro connected to my system all the time (I use it to access Tidal and Qobuz as well as my ripped and downloaded music library via Audirvana, and using the highest gain available on my Tektronix lab ‘scope, I see nothing but a tiny amount of ripple in the no-signal baseline of the scope trace. This “ripple” is more than -130 dB compared to line level, and therefore insignificant.