Suggestion: ban all cable debates

[gmgraves]

The tone of this forum is really dragged down by all these stupid debates. It seems as if some posters have nothing better to do than to start threads to sneer at their fellow audiophiles. I don't think they even think of other audiophiles as "fellow" audiophiles, sharing a common hobby. Rather, a target of derision to be harassed and bullied. This is a good example. What purpose do threads like these serve? How does it benefit the community? Does it do anything but boost the narcissistic tendencies of those who endlessly create such threads? And why is it that they are not satisfied with only creating one - they have to do it over and over again.

 

This forum is called computer audiophile. There are plenty of other forums where these people can go and scorn those whom they perceive are inferior to them. I think it is time to get this forum back on track - discussion of computer based audio.

I think that these debates actually do serve a purpose. They present two sides of the coin. Lot's of newbies come here looking for advice. Cables are a very contentious subject. There are those among us with engineering degrees who can explain the electrical theory in layman's terms as to why interconnect cables cannot affect the sound of a stereo, because those factors that can and do affect an electronic signal do not apply at audio frequencies, and why that explanation might not apply with speaker cables and that "boutique" power cables can have no effect at all on the AC mains for sound scientific reasons. Then on the other side, there are people here who insist that in spite of what the laws of physics say, the effect of cables not only are audible but they can make a profound difference in the final sound. Thus armed with both sides of the argument, a newbie can decide for themselves which side of the argument to come down on. So, if they want to experiment with cables, they can do so forearmed with the knowledge that what they think they hear may be expectational or some other form of bias. and to proceed with a bit of good old scientific skepticism. They might end up being full blown cable believers, but at least they have seen both sides of the story.

[gmgraves]

if you limit your analysis to "those factors that can and do affect an electronic signal do not apply at audio frequencies" shows a limitation in the imagination. RF noise can have an affect on the performance of those active devices which are handling audio signals so are you saying that these are of no concern?

 

No. I'm not saying anything pro or con about either side of the argument. But since you ask, 99.99% of systems have no problem with RF, but if they do, buying any non-balanced cable, irrespective of price won't fix it because using RCA connectors makes any cable essentially non-balanced regardless of price.

 

The problem is that these sorts of discussions get into deeper areas of physics that the "newbie" is not equipped to handle & so the stuff that looks "scientific-enough" often impresses those who are not interested in or capable of deeper scientific analysis or investigation.

 

While that's certainly true, it is not incumbent upon those offering sound engineering answers about cable mythology to explain all the reasons why cable mythology might be just that, mythology. However, it is incumbent for the technically unsophisticated to ask the questions of those who know and understand. I'm sure that any person here who's an engineer would be happy to try to answer anyone interested enough to ask.

 

Yes, science is difficult & this is why many "believe" in those who sound "scientific-enough".

I'm sure it is, but most anybody can learn if they want to do so.

But is it really "truth" or just a charade as the above post presents??

 

I'm not advocating anything here except to say that there is value in these types of debates. Read into my comments whatever you like.

[gmgraves]

Okay - just a misjudgment on my part then.

 

But no - you assume that most people making that claim are "unscientific" or just making a wild ass unsupported statement.

 

This is simply not so - at least for the most part, Rather than what you have is a large group of very careful amateurs making careful, and often very controlled observations. And being unjustly discounted. There are folks on here with engineering degrees and creds that anyone should respect that report audible changes with reasons someone not paying attention will find incredible. (shrug)

 

Those are pretty careful observations. Not notoriously unreliable testimony!

 

 

-Paul

 

Well, the testimony is usually unreliable in my estimation because only scrupulously set-up tests with very tightly controlled parameters and unbiased oversight and a number of participants with a preponderance of those participants agreeing with both the methodology and the results. Otherwise it's just someone's opinion. That's the reason why science designed test equipment and a scientific method for using it. There is an axiom in engineering which states "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". And whether you believe it or not, claiming that something which, by all the rules of science, cannot make a sonic difference, is making a sonic difference, most assuredly is an extraordinary claim. But we have yet to see this extraordinary proof! Heck we haven't even seen any ordinary or even credible theories, much less proof. Just saying'.

[gmgraves]

Live and let live. If people say cables work and they say they can hear a difference, who am I to argue. If they can afford the expensive cables and like them, who am I to argue.

 

If we all respect each other's opinions, no should get butt hurt.

 

Agreed but there is another side of this issue to consider. Neophytes to the pursuit of good sound, are often told by audio salesmen that they absolutely NEED to buy certain cables or their new multi-thousand dollar system won't sound good at all. Case in point. I have a friend who's a doctor of psychology and a really smart guy. But he is technically all thumbs. He wouldn't know a volt from an Ohm! He saved up for a couple of years and went to his local dealer in Seattle WA where he lived. He bought VTL's most expensive preamp, and their 85W/pc power amplifier and a pair of Martin Logan Vantage Loudspeakers. I suspect that he paid around $12000 for that gear. Anyway, not knowing any better, he let the salesman talk him into some MIT speaker cables, and a set of Nordost interconnects. The cables cost him more than THE EQUIPMENT. This salesman also explained to him that he lacked the expertise to install this equipment himself and further sold him on paying the technician a further $2000 to hook the equipment up (delivery, of course, was free from this dealer. Isn't that nice?), Luckily, he called me when he got home from the dealer to tell me what he had bought. I just about blew a gasket. I told him to get on the phone before they delivered his equipment and cancel all of those cables. I also told him to inform them that he appreciated the free delivery, but would not be needing the services of their technician. I then sent him to MyCableMart.Com for his interconnects, and to SewellDirect.Com for his speaker cable while I was on the phone with him, and we both went to those sites simultaneously so I could show him what to buy. Total bill from those two sites? about $40! On Skype I walked him through putting his system together (he had a CD Deck and an FM tuner, and that was all he needed at the time). By doing this I saved him $15,000! Money that he DID NOT have to spend, and wouldn't have known the difference if he had spent it because he had nothing with which to compare it. So, even if one believes in boutique cables affecting the sound of a system, That dealer ripped him off big-time.

 

This is why I think these debates are not just useful on this forum, they're essential. And if these neophytes listened to a bunch of different cables and made the decision to buy the high-priced spread THEMSELVES, then of course, that is their decision and they have only themselves to blame if it turns out that there were cheaper alternatives that were just as good. My motto here is forewarned is forearmed. At least here, the neophyte gets a balanced picture of both sides of the argument. He can go listen to cables knowing that:

 

1) Many CA members have electrical degrees and say that cable sound is imaginary and if one thinks he hears a difference, it's all in his (or her) head.

 

2) Price is no basis for selecting cables. Even those who are True Believers agree that the cable that sounds the best to your ears is the one you should buy irrespective of price.

 

3) Even Believers will tell you that no matter how much your cables cost, the end result will be subtle compared to things like speakers, cartridges, DACs, disc players, amps and preamps and the result is only going to be as good as the weakest link in the system. I.E. If you connect a $40 CD player off the internet to a pair of $2,000 Nordost Valhalla II interconnects, it's still going to sound like a $40 CD player. Or, as they say in India: "you can put a pair of gold and diamond earrings on a goat. But it's still only a goat!"

[gmgraves]

On 3/18/2017 at 2:20 AM, JS21 said:

Sorry to say, buy your friend is more than just thumbs technically.

All this proves is that your friend had no business walking into an a/v store.

Pretty elitist attitude if you ask me. What this really proves is that the debate over cables serves a useful purpose. That is to say, reading these debates will give newcomers a heightened  awareness of Caveat Emptor when it comes to taking someone else's (especially a salesperson's) recommendation about cables. In this case, the salesman's interest was most assuredly to increase his commission by selling my friend expensive cables (with huge markups), without regard to his actual needs.

Even if the salesperson actually thought that the stuff he was selling to my friend was good value in terms of what it did for the sound of that system, the fact that my friend had no baseline from which to make such a decision for himself should have caused the salesman to back-off. What I told my friend to buy were good quality interconnects and speaker cables, but are pretty generic. Now, if, after listening to this system with the cables that I had him buy, he decides that he'd like to dabble in the world of exotic cables and interconnects, he will have an idea of what he is looking for and can walk into an audio salon and arrange to try different cables in his system on a trial basis. If, after trying a number of them, he decides for himself that $10,000 worth of MIT speaker cables, and/or $6000 worth of interconnects float his sonic boat, then I have no problem with him spending HIS money for what he believes gives him an improved audio experience. My beliefs and experience notwithstanding.

[gmgraves]

+1

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, GUTB said:

Also, TOSLink using cheap plastic cables lacks the bandwdith for even 44.1/16, forget about 96 or 192. Cheap LED transmitters, all sorts of internal reflections in the cable, etc, destroys its performance. Super-fine quartz-glass cables with highly polished tips help a great deal by minimizing internal reflections.

ST-Link using expensive AT&T optical transmitters was an effort to implement a high-quality optical connection for audio but that went nowhere.

I have found that it is more a question of the quality of the two optical couplers than it is the cable itself. Some TOSLINK transducers have enough bandwidth to successfully and reliably transfer 24/192, many will only do 24/96 and the very cheapest are only good for 16/44.1. Often, when people complain about optical cable performance, it's not the cable at fault, it's one or both of the optical couplers.