Top Ten Signs of Cable Vendor Snake Oil [Archive] - Audioholics Home Theater Forums

10-17-2003, 11:53 PM

Guest : <font color='#000000'>Many interconnect cable ARE directional, The shielding is grounded only at the source end</font>
<font color='#000000'>Hi Drendon,

I'm familiar with the construction of a few varieties of interconnect and speaker wire that is sold with the little arrows.  In every instance I've seen, the cables are totally non-directional, totally symmetrical, and there is absolutely no justification for the little arrows.  In fact, I know of one company that sells cables they make from coax they buy from a company that puts the little arrows on to increase audiophile appeal.  They don't want to sell the snake oil, so they use a solvent to remove the arrows after they make up the cable.  Interestingly, they had to put an additional bit of documentation in with their cables, because they were getting too many calls from concerned customers who were not sure how to use the cables without the arrows.  !!!  The myth is extremely popular, and some even believe that changing the direction of the cable produces a situation under which that dreaded break-in has to be done all over again.

BTW, at least one golden eared reviewer has reported that the wire with the arrows is directional, while the wire with the arrows removed isn't.  He still doesn't know that the only difference was the arrows.  You gotta love the way some of the guys make themselves look so silly.

There are times with it is necessary to float the ground at one end of an interconnect, to eliminate ground loops.  I have not seen any situation where it made any difference which end was disconnected, but then there are many things I've never seen.

Arrows on speaker wires?  No ground to float, so what is the justification in that case?

If a company is selling speaker wire with arrows on it, they are selling myths, and I personally don't do any business with such companies.  I try to avoid doing business with crooks whenever possible.

R.O.</font>

Dan Banquer

10-18-2003, 05:40 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hi Radar;
*First of all Kosher is spelled with a K not a C. It's not Kosher when you spell it with a C. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'> Any old chicken will do as long as it's kosher. If you want documentation on that you can contact my grandmother if and when you get to Heaven. I warn you that she will give you an earful.
* <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

Eric

10-18-2003, 11:32 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There are times with it is necessary to float the ground at one end of an interconnect, to eliminate ground loops. *I have not seen any situation where it made any difference which end was disconnected, but then there are many things I've never seen.
</td></tr></table>

Actually, this type of interconnect (a shielded interconnect) is to protect from RF/EMI interference. The braid of the coax is still connected at both ends; it has to be connected at both ends or there is no signal return path and thus no sound.

An additional foil shield is added to the cable to reduce interference. It is grounded at the source so that the interference is not injected directly into the amplifier.</font>

gene

10-19-2003, 12:52 AM

<font color='#000000'>Kosher Chicken fat aside, Audioquest has responded to our article that featured their DBS system.

Audioquest Response (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Audioquest_DBS.html)</font>

2x6spds

10-19-2003, 03:02 AM

<font color='#000000'>Hi GDS

I figure that this is one of those rare opportunities where you can set to rest this quasi religious doctrinal dispute. Why don't you pick 4 cables you figure to be snake oil, and 4 of your favorites, do the Double Blind Test. Tell us what you think.</font>

10-19-2003, 05:43 PM

Eric : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There are times with it is necessary to float the ground at one end of an interconnect, to eliminate ground loops. I have not seen any situation where it made any difference which end was disconnected, but then there are many things I've never seen.

Actually, this type of interconnect (a shielded interconnect) is to protect from RF/EMI interference. The braid of the coax is still connected at both ends; it has to be connected at both ends or there is no signal return path and thus no sound.

An additional foil shield is added to the cable to reduce interference. It is grounded at the source so that the interference is not injected directly into the amplifier.</td></tr></table>
Hi Eric,

Ground loops are often the result of multiple grounds, can result in increased hum, and is a problem we rarely see with modern (well designed) equipment. With older gear we'd often see (among other things) a pair of interconnects with a common ground at the receiver or amp, and sometimes lifting one of the grounds would reduce or eliminate ground loop induced hum.

The shield on the one coax (or the other) is not always the only signal return path.

R.O.</font>

10-19-2003, 05:49 PM

gene : Kosher Chicken fat aside, Audioquest has responded to our article that featured their DBS system.

Audioquest Response (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Audioquest_DBS.html)
Hi Gene,

I find it interesting that Audioquest claims to have done blind tests much like the tests Jon Risch claims to have done. I wonder if they will be any more forthcoming with information about their tests. Seems to me that with two people making the claim, they should be able to at least confirm each other's work. I hope you plan to get some more information on their methodologies. Their claims are astounding. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

R.O.</font>

Eric

10-19-2003, 08:03 PM

Guest : <font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (Eric @ Oct. 18 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There are times with it is necessary to float the ground at one end of an interconnect, to eliminate ground loops. I have not seen any situation where it made any difference which end was disconnected, but then there are many things I've never seen.

Actually, this type of interconnect (a shielded interconnect) is to protect from RF/EMI interference. The braid of the coax is still connected at both ends; it has to be connected at both ends or there is no signal return path and thus no sound.

An additional foil shield is added to the cable to reduce interference. It is grounded at the source so that the interference is not injected directly into the amplifier.</td></tr></table>
Hi Eric,

Ground loops are often the result of multiple grounds, can result in increased hum, and is a problem we rarely see with modern (well designed) equipment. With older gear we'd often see (among other things) a pair of interconnects with a common ground at the receiver or amp, and sometimes lifting one of the grounds would reduce or eliminate ground loop induced hum.

The shield on the one coax (or the other) is not always the only signal return path.

R.O.</font></td></tr></table>
<font color='#000000'>Hi R.O.

That makes sense. I thought you meant a modern AVR.

Regarding ground loops, I have similar problems at work with test equipment built by the "un-knowing". A “star” grounding approach has never failed me. It’s a lot of work for the techs but pays off in the end.</font>

Eric

10-19-2003, 08:54 PM

<font color='#000000'>I just read through Audioquest’s cable theory section. Although I have problems with their explanation of skin effect at audio frequencies,

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Directionality: All cables are directional, from hardware store electrical cable to the finest pure silver cables. All AudioQuest cables are marked for direction. With other cables it might be necessary to simply listen to the cables in one direction and then the other. The difference will be clear-in the correct direction the music is more relaxed, pleasant and believable. While cable directionality is not fully understood, it is clear that the molecular structure of drawn metal is not symmetrical, providing a physical explanation for the existence of directionality.
</td></tr></table>

I have to say that if they are going to make such claims as “all cable is directional” they need to back it up. If a wire is better in one direction than the other it must exhibit some observable change in conductance depending on the direction (sorta like a DIODE). You must be able to measure that: TDR, Network analyzer or just a good old DMM.

The second major problem I have with statements like “the directional nature of wire” is the signal is A.C. not D.C. No matter how you orient the wire current will flow in BOTH directions – AUDIO IS A.C. If you stick some of this “directional wire” in the signal path you just 1/2 wave rectified the signal. Rectifying the signal (even a small amount) will cause undeniable distortion. Further, for speaker wire, it could damage the loudspeaker.</font>

gene

10-19-2003, 09:49 PM

<font color='#000000'>Eric;

Any credible Electrical Engineer knows that Skin Effect is not an issue with speaker cables.  Only the exotic cable vendors enjoy promoting the fallacy to help justify the prices of their products.

You may also wish to read our FAQ interview with Audioquest to gain more insights on their "theories".  

Audioquest Cable Theories Exposed (http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/Audioquest.html)

We are at least pleased that Audioquest responds to us.  In the past we have contacted many other exotic cable vendors to discuss their theories and/or offer to measure and review their products, but once they realized we had a EE background they quickly became non-cooperative.</font>

Eric

10-19-2003, 10:27 PM

<font color='#000000'>Gene,

I read AQ’s response and found it a non-denial denial. I swear, these guys should start a cult.

Being an EE myself (Digital Design is area of specialization) I agree with your response.  If (big if) AQ takes you up on your offers to do a blind test on their cables, please buy your Zip Cord from Home Depot. When the Zip Cord wins it will make the victory all the better.</font>

10-20-2003, 12:17 AM

<font color='#000000'>I have a combination of MIT cables on my HT.  I have MIT 2 on the fronts and MIT 5 on the rear.  I had Monster XP before and since I switched I really enjoy the percieved impovement.   What I would like to know is has anyone used these cables and believe they use snake oil?  If yes then Why?</font>

TjMV3

10-20-2003, 03:28 PM

<font color='#000000'>Thank you so much for addressing this issue!  As someone who is new to this whole "High End Audio" thing, I find your articles and reviews very educational.  I 've learned so much.

When it came to deciding on all my cables,  I was thoroughly confused.  So many cables,  so many companies/manufactors,  so many amazingly unbelievable claims.  

So I read your "Speaker Cable Face-Off " and decided to go with Cobalt Cables all around (Audio and Video).  I figured,  they  earned some good results in the Face-off,  and they are resonably priced.  At least compared to some of the other cables I looked into. I didn't think I could go wrong,  and I didn't. I'm very happy with them.

Has anyone ever had any experience with XLO/VDO's cables?  

I had very bad experience with the customer service of XLO/VDO.  Not helpful at all.  There's some other things I'd like say,  but I won't.</font>

10-20-2003, 05:49 PM

<font color='#000000'>Gene,

Have you noticed that (at this point in time at least) that the votes for the most flagrant snake-oil seem to be strongly weighted toward "break-in?" *Did you also notice that Audioquest claims that their "dielectric bias system" has an effect that is three to five times greater than break-in?

I was taught that anything times nothing yields nothing. *Doesn't this make this particular AQ claim technically true? *Three to five times no change is still no change, right?

I find it comical they way they want us to take things like break-in as a given, and it scares me that so many are taken in by such things.

R.O.</font>

gene

10-21-2003, 12:52 AM

<font color='#000000'>Radar;

That is a good point I didn't really consider.  If their product is "x" times better at resolving an issue with zero relevance than I suppose it is a valid claim with no relevance <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

10-25-2003, 07:48 AM

<font color='#000000'>I will first admit that I am not an audiophile.  But I do have something to throw out.  I know a little college physics and have some knowledge of conductors and insulators, however all that went out the window at my first "real" job.  It was a high voltage test equipment company where, with very high voltage, 45 Million Volts, we could polarize polycarbonate atoms and make polycarbonate 'slightly' conductive.

My point is college physics don't always tell the whole truth.</font>

PaulF

10-25-2003, 11:42 AM

<font color='#000000'>In other words there was a leakage current. What a surprise!</font>

10-25-2003, 01:10 PM

<font color='#000000'>tx2rx;

So I suppose what you are saying is lets throw away what science knows and rely on the experiences of non technically oriented cable vendors charging high $$$'s for products that have no measurable or provable benefits?</font>

10-25-2003, 05:50 PM

PaulF : In other words there was a leakage current. What a surprise!

Paul, that was your response to the statement,
B "My point is college physics don't always tell the whole truth."

One conclusion that can be drawn from that exchange is that the truth of the matter is that not every education includes enough "college physics" to prepare one for understanding every problem they encounter in their profession. It also illustrates that merely encountering a problem, and understanding it, are two quite different things. Audiophiles and audio-gurus are infamous for their ability to combine partial knowledge, limited experience, and a runaway imagination, to produce their own brand of what they try to pass off as "science." Perhaps leakage will someday surpass soakage as a favorite source of audiophile mythology. ;-)

R.O.</font>

PaulF

10-26-2003, 12:03 PM

<font color='#000000'>Radar,

I agree, but posts based on some basic, albeit limited theory of how something works don't bother me that much. Sometimes peoples positions are well founded, others times not. However some sort of logical reasoniong is being applied to the basic underlying principle supporting the argument.

Other times people lack common sense. To quote an insulator's behaviour when subjected to 45 million volts against the physical principles at work on cables where tens of volts are the norm is like (as we say back home) comparing chalk and cheese.

Just because water turns to steam when I boil it doesn't tell me its behaviour when its frozen.</font>

10-26-2003, 04:24 PM

<font color='#000000'>Paul,

You're probably right.  The post struck me as being too much like posts by cable-gurus who will insist that such things actually do matter at audio frequencies and voltages, and there is no real evidence that this is what was intended.  However, this IS exactly the kind of "science" that bolsters wire and other audio myths, and it wouldn't fly if people didn't buy into it.  Still, I did react rather than respond, and I should probably just keep my mouth shut. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

R.O.</font>

Ken

10-28-2003, 11:08 PM

<font color='#000000'>Gene,

As an Electrical Engineer I have had many discussions with colleagues about audio cables. Quite refreshingly, all of our views were like yours, we never understood the basis of the exotic cable sales.

In the back of my mind, because I always try to remain open minded, I questioned the engineering basics with possible new analysis and new materials in this industry. Well, now you have called Audioquest to the table and you did it with tact and civility. KUDOS. It will be interesting to see if Audioquest will produce any real analysis.</font>

10-29-2003, 12:17 PM

PaulF : <font color='#000000'>To quote an insulator's behaviour when subjected to 45 million volts against the physical principles at work on cables where tens of volts are the norm is like (as we say back home) comparing chalk and cheese.</font>
<font color='#000000'>The voltage is not bad, but the gradient would be the issue.  The big voltages are meaningless if the insulator is 200 inches long..and tested in oil or a hexaflouride gas.

Thermal epoxies run 280 volts/mil in production, 1 inch can support 280 kilovolts endlessly, 100 inches  28 megavolts...all without any degradation whatsoever.  Kapton is 6Kv per mil by spec, 6 Mv per inch..   4 inches 24 Mv.  Again, no degradation.

45 Mvolts?  let me know when ya start talkin big numbers.. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

Cheers, John

10-29-2003, 05:34 PM

<font color='#000000'>Jneutron,

Seems that voltage is like money. *If all you have is 100 units, a hundred units is a lot, but if you're use to having a few million units in hand, then a hundred units doesn't amount to much. *I don't consider $4500 to be a fortune, but 4500 volts seems like a lot. *I think it's all a matter of what one is accustom to dealing with. * *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

On a more serious note, I've got a question that you can probably answer. *Back when I was a Doppler Weenie the APN-81 and APN-89 systems used 4100 and 4800 volts respectively for the magnetron, and of course the wire leading to the cap on the tube was insulated with Teflon. *I was taught that Teflon was used because it had such a high punch-through voltage. *Interestingly, the "Handbook for Sound Engineers" states that Teflon is not suitable for use with high voltages or in radioactive environments (exactly the opposite of what I was taught and contrary to experience). *In any event, until recently I was of the opinion that Teflon would be an excellent choice for insulating perforated metal stators (ESL stators), and that Teflon insulated wire would be a natural for building wire stators. *I've never tried it, because I have cheaper ways to insulate the metal stators that works perfectly well, and I never imagined that Teflon might actually cause some problems. *Recently I was discussing stator construction with another DIY type who builds wire stators, and he told me that Teflon insulated wire would not work. *Since I'm using the glass-composite stators now it's unlikely that it will ever matter, but his comments left me with a void in my understanding (just one more added to a long list). * <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

What was claimed was that Teflon insulation on the wire (or perforated metal) would not only contain the voltage, but also the electrostatic field, with the result that panels made with Teflon insulated stators would be extremely inefficient. *I was not aware that insulation does (or could) reduce the field strength, but apparently it can. *?? *That's my question. *If I were to build two panels with wire stators, one using Teflon insulated wire and the other using PVC insulated wire, would the field strength of the Teflon insulated wire stator actually be less than the one using PVC insulation?

I see no difference in output between an uninsulated stator and a well insulated stator, so is there some threshold, or some special characteristic of Teflon?

(Chalk the questions up to idle curiosity, as the glass-composite stators are flawless.) * <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'>

I know this is off topic, but I don't think GDS will shoot us.

Thanks,

R.O.</font>

10-29-2003, 05:58 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hi Radar..

If you were to construct a sandwich composed of layers of different dielectrics, I believe the field gradients within each layer will be dependent on the dielectric constants of each layer..so I would agree that using a high dielectric constant material will reduce the external field a bit..but I couldn't say how much.

AS for radiation...yes, teflon is not allowed in accelerator environments for that reason..degrades quickly.  Totally banned in the cryogenic systems for the same reason.  Think it has something to do with the release of oxygen, but don't quote me on that.

Cheers, John</font>

10-29-2003, 06:30 PM

AudioZealot : In the back of my mind, because I always try to remain open minded, I questioned the engineering basics with possible new analysis and new materials in this industry.
AudioZealot, I'm not an EE, but I've worked in harness with EE's for most of my adult life, and I've often been warned that allowing my mind to be too open might result in my brain falling out. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

Discussing audio with EE's is nothing like trying to discuss it with "audiophiles." The former readily admit to limited knowledge, but the latter insist that they know everything. On the whole I find the contrast rather humorous.

Gene's exchange with Audioquest was, IMHO, nothing short of incredible. Audioquest clearly tried to imply, without actually saying it, that their cable "improvements," were verified as effective through blind testing. Given the nature of some of their "improvements" I'd be SHOCKED if they actually made such a claim outright, but they really just danced all around it and avoided any direct statements about what might or might not be audible. I really didn't see any hard testable claims, other than a general claim about doing lots of testing, "blind," and that there were "results." And of course the statement that this is the basis for their cable "improvements." So far they really haven't shown me much. other than evasiveness. Certainly a well constructed and independently verified, peer reviewed test proving that their products are truly superior would be something they'd want to publish. So why do you suppose they have been keeping it a secret? I'd really like to see a well constructed DBT using Audioquests most sensitive listeners, and their wire with the dielectric bias, two identical sets of wire, one with the batteries connected, and the other without. If anyone would care to place a side bet on the outcome I'd like some of the action. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':O'>

R.O.

gene

10-29-2003, 06:46 PM

<font color='#000000'>Radar;

I have been receiving similar requests via email almost on a daily basis.  Thus I wrote Audioquest the following email to see if they would be game:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Joe/Bill/Alastair;

Hi guys. We have had several email and forum requests to conduct DBT testing of your DBS system. Given the wide gamut of audio gear we have at our disposal, you can basically have your pick of what you feel to be the best equipment in the industry. We have a panel of listeners, or you may choose your own. Would you be interested in performing a controlled and repeatable DBT? If the results are in your favor, I am sure this would be a great marketing tool to promote your product and we will be all for doing that!

BTW, does the name brand of the battery affect the sound quality? What about if the battery is cryogenically frozen prior to its usage. Does that help? We are looking forward to working with you. Thanks!

http://www.audioholics.com/cgi-bin....try5333 (http://www.audioholics.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=4;t=1026;st=30#entry5333)

http://www.google.com/search?....est+dbs (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=audioquest+dbs)

http://www.audioholics.com/techtip....BS.html (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Audioquest_DBS.html)

Best Regards;

Gene DellaSala (GDS)
President of Audioholics.com
"Pursuing the Truth in Audio..."
</td></tr></table>

We shall see  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'></font>

10-29-2003, 06:47 PM

Guest : Hi Radar..

If you were to construct a sandwich composed of layers of different dielectrics, I believe the field gradients within each layer will be dependent on the dielectric constants of each layer..so I would agree that using a high dielectric constant material will reduce the external field a bit..but I couldn't say how much.

AS for radiation...yes, teflon is not allowed in accelerator environments for that reason..degrades quickly. Totally banned in the cryogenic systems for the same reason. Think it has something to do with the release of oxygen, but don't quote me on that.

Cheers, John
That makes sense, but doesn't help that much. I was hoping that you might be able to give me some numbers that would convince me that Teflon insulated wire stators won't work. They're a bear to build and I really don't think I'm that curious. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

I think (could be totally wrong here) that the problem with Teflon is heat, and the toxic products produced as it degrades. Above 202 degrees it can get pretty nasty. See
this page (http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/chemicals.php) for some poop on how the stuff breaks down.

I was taught that radiation in and of itself will not cause problems with Teflon. Is that incorrect?

R.O.

10-29-2003, 06:59 PM

gene : I have been receiving similar requests via email almost on a daily basis. Thus I wrote Audioquest the following email to see if they would be game:
Way to go, Gene! As I see it, this is simply a matter of giving them the benefit of any doubt. If they're on the up-and-up, this kind of thing would be a big plus for their credibility and just might improve sales. I don't think any of us are likely to blow off anything that makes a real improvement in our audio and/or HT systems, and I'm still not too old to learn new things. If they agree to help out, and can prove some kind of audibility under reasonable, repeatable test conditions, and there is no obvious measurement which exposes the difference heard, it will be great fun finding a way. If there is any merit to their claims, this could turn into a very interesting project.

R.O.

10-30-2003, 09:19 AM

Guest :
<font color='#000000'>""That makes sense, but doesn't help that much.  I was hoping that you might be able to give me some numbers that would convince me that Teflon insulated wire stators won't work. ""  RO

Sorry, that was only from memory...It's a classic electrostatics problem, I just have no software for running the static field potentials.  Somebody must cover the problem in a text somewhere.  When I get a chance, I'll peruse becker and Jackson for some info..

""I was taught that radiation in and of itself will not cause problems with Teflon.  Is that incorrect?""  RO

Not sure...But if it's irradiated in liquid helium too much, when it is brught up to room temp, the stuff will expand hugely and destroy whatever integrity it had..it's one of those "work-experience-hand-me-down-rules that everybody abides by, but no-one left on site actually did the work so we just have to go by the rules.  If you break the rules, and something happens...then the actual information will surface...

Cheers, John</font>

10-30-2003, 11:33 AM

Guest : ... we could polarize polycarbonate atoms and make polycarbonate 'slightly' conductive.
I particularly liked one feature of Audioquests Dielectric Biasing Scheme (http://www.audioquest.com/pdfs/earth_feature/everest.pdf):

"CONDUCTIVE INSULATION: The eight negative conductors in Everest are insulated with partially conductive carbon-loaded polyethylene..."

Conductive insulation, eh, whatever will these boffins think of next ?

I'm no electronics expert, but I thought partial conductors were known as semiconductors, and probably not a Good Thing to wrap around audio cables...</font>

gene

10-30-2003, 11:53 AM

<font color='#000000'>dLorde;

Good one, I actually missed that point.  Thanks.  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

10-30-2003, 12:57 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hello Gene,
 I have a background in EE, with a focus on Telecommunications and a little bit of micro-electronics.  When I first heard about this whole cable phenominon I couldn't see how anyone could hear audible differences so long as the wires had relatively the same properties, no shorts, and were firmly connected to their terminations.

 I have no explanation for it but I tried my best to conuct an unbiased blind listening test and still figure I can hear the differences between a complete harmonic tech magic link setup and switching them out for some cardas cables I borrowed from a friend.  Furthermore when I went to read various websites on the issue, I found their noted differences in sound were similar to mine.  Namely I found a little more sluggishness and warmth in the Cardas.  It maid the position I normally associate with the instruments a little more indistinct and blurry as well.  I hadn't been familiar with the purpoted capabilities of either cable prior to trying them out.

 So out of interest have you ever tried the brands and just listened to them?  Are you unable to hear a difference between them (not to imply that you should be able to and one actually exists)?  Your thoughts on the exotic extruding processes Harmonic tech uses?  Thoughts on exotic wire types like silver and whether audible differences should be noteable form them?

 I mean when it all comes down to it, if you can reliably hear a difference under a variety of conditions and with other things kept equal, regardless of silly claims made about why they sound different, they'd still sound different.

Best Regards.</font>

gene

10-30-2003, 01:09 PM

<font color='#000000'>Shion;

Welcome to Audioholics!   We never claimed cables do not make audible difference.  However these differences are not necessarily because of the reasoning that vendors give.

For example,  we have  heard some cables actually roll off the top end only to measure them and find 4x the resistance of 12AWG Zip Cord and over 2X the inductance.  Thus the exotic cable was acting like a tone control.

Also, in order to truly determine if a cable does alter sonics, it must be done so in a DBT testing style and with greater than 50% correlation.  Many times people think they hear a difference because they expect too.  Phycological effects can be very powerful which is why objective measurements and DBT testing are critical.

The bottom line is if you cannot measure a difference in a Speaker cables RLC metrics, it is highly unlikely there will be any audible differences whatsoever!  Claims of non linear distortions, strand jumping, moon phase are at best ancedotal and certainly unsubstantiated.</font>

10-30-2003, 02:09 PM

<font color='#000000'>Thanks Gene,

 Actually quite often I find myself thinking this should make a difference and thus causing myself to go looking for them, thus favouring my "finding" a difference (not necessarily cables, it applies to amplifiers etc etc).  I'm quite well acquainted with my ability to self delude and find it's a universal trait.  With it in mind I generally use the following methodology.

If I'm correct by DBT you mean to say that both the tester and subject are unaware of which item is being demonstrated in a particular circumstance.  In this way the tester cannot influence the tested in any fasion?

It's a little hard to pull off with 1 girlfriend and limited electronics.  Say I were to test a set of interconnects, I'd want two identical CD players and CD's each connected to an input source of my pre by two differing interconnects.  Then I'd need some sort of method of hitting a button and randomly switching or not switching (so I couldn't be sure) which source was playing.  I'd need to assume the sources and inputs on the pre and path through the pre was identical and the CDs were identical as well.  That no enviromental factors affected the playing at one point in time (solar storm) which could be done by repeatedly executing the experiment thus hopefully averaging out random cosmic ray factors.

Not really practical for me.  I normally have my girlfriend change or don't change them and then I hit play. I close my eyes the whole time and she says "ready" which I guess could be conveying something to me.  She also waits the same period of time, and disconnect and reconnects either the same or the different pair of interconnects so I can't tell based on length of time between ready's. Works well enough to keep me satisfied.

Now the trick is when I go to a audio store.  Normally I tell the dealer not to explain the difference to me and to play me the two items.  I sit there and write down a list of adjectives that describe the differences if any.  I compare this list with my second set of ears.  We almost invariably agree, and we have set categories we use for a qualitative analysis of music.  Hardly scientific right?  But what if you take 50 people in a room, don't tell them anything about what's being played and ask them which one has the more focused soundstage?  Now what if 40 people agree?  Is it sufficient even though you've biased them to look for a specific difference?  What percentage is good enough?  I think using my categorization of sound method I can at least confirm whether we both notice the same general aspects of changes or non-change and it's convenient to do for listening in a dealer (as opposed to DBT's which sort of would annoy them : ) )  The funny thing is there are a couple of things I like that she doesn't and even though we'll both agree an aspect of sound has changed in relation to it, I'll think it's for the better and she for the worse.

"Also, in order to truly determine if a cable does alter sonics, it must be done so in a DBT testing style and with greater than 50% correlation. "

Now as for DBT's being the only way to prove sonic differences... What about using some sort of frequency response measuring device?  So I would suggest there are otherways to determine if a cable could alter sonics.  I mean if I cut one of the cables in half and play music through it you'll hear a difference between A and B without a DBT right?  An SPL meter should be able to measure, but that's an aside and just to keep you thinking about biases in your approach.

Now as far as tone controling from inferior design, totally reasonable.  I don't claim to know why they make  a difference, just that I have preferences in my system.  I'd also be interested in seeing someone attempt to reproduce the characteristics of my favourite cables by adding on some inductors and whatnot.

However if someone manages to instill just the right amount of distortion to allow me to hear details I hadn't before and get a better idea of where objects are located both latterally and depth wise, a smoother midrange and highs that don't hurt my ears I'm all for it!  If I can hear a brush on a high hat instead of constant murmur in the background sell me distortion.  If it happens to work better than chaning my preamp for a better model then I'd rather spend the money on the cable.  If it consistently performs these results across all the frequencies I listen to when I listen to music then it's one heck of an aberration.  And if it happens when I take it to other peoples differing sets of equipment by highlighting them in the same manner, then it's one fixed "distortion" of amazing adaptability.  

I think the problem I have with the tone control issue is that I find it unliekly that one tone control that just emphasises one particular set of frequencies over another, would be able to provide benifit in locating objects throughout the frequency spectrum.  I mean from guitar to male vocal to female vocal to cymbal.

Furthermore it would have to be amazingly synergistic with the error in my (not so entirely bad) equipment, which would also just happen to be the same faults that my four audiophile friends systems I tried them on also have (all though using entirely different equipment).  And when I get them back and ask their impressions (having just said try it and tell me what you think, even misleading as to cost and material (copper vs silver) on occasion) their results tend to coincide with mine.  I suppose it's possible that most audio systems fall into the same set of flaws but it seems .... well puzzeling.  Anyway all the questions that this brings up can be entirely done away with if I can' t hear a difference, so it's the easiest way to discredit the argument.  But if you conceed that I can then you face the problem of explaining the above phenominon.  Or at least as far as I can figure it?

Was that interesting at all?

By the way I appreciate you being nice in the face of my ignorance relative to yourself on technical matters.  

Thanks</font>

10-31-2003, 08:30 PM

<font color='#000000'>Shion, your questions are not unlike questions I use to ask before I started participating in well controlled tests. *About all I can say with confidence is that you probably won't find any satisfactory answers until you do the same. *Even then, if you're like me, you'll be left with a boatload of unanswered questions. *For the most part we've owned very good equipment (Stereophile Class-A or better) but there was a period during which I lost all interest in the audio hobby, and for a while we had what I consider to be "consumer" gear (what audiophiles call "mid-fi"). *The speakers were Dalquist DQ-10's with a DQ-1 sub (I think this was rated Class-B by Stereophile, but they may have been Class-A; I really don't recall), but we were powering them with a top-of-the-line Pioneer A/V receiver. *Naturally I never bothered to run any measurements on the thing, because I'd lost interest in the hobby, so all I have to go by is the manufacturers specifications. *The thing was rated at something like 60 watts RMS per channel, all five channels driven, 20-20kHz. *The distortion figures were as good as any and certainly indicated that the distortion products were below audibility. *However, when we upgraded by using the AVR pre-amp outs to drive a Carver Cube, with 200 wpc, the improvement in clarity was startling. *Of course with the volume at higher levels, the Cube gave us nearly 6dB more headroom before the onset of clipping, but the additional clarity was very obvious even at very low listening levels. *Now I really wish ai had run some measurements on the receiver and its internal amps, because in looking at the circuit drawings I can find nothing to explain the difference. *That's pretty weird, because I heard it instantly, and my wife commented about it shortly thereafter (and I'd kept my mouth shut, so I wouldn't bias her perceptions). *There is a part of me that is just certain that we heard a HUGE difference, but what I've learned since convinces me that at the absolute most there could only have been a rather subtle difference, at least at lower volume levels. *Perhaps the receivers amps had notch distortion, but it didn't sound like notch distortion. *The sound of the amps was just muddy, but ONLY in comparison to what we *thought* we heard when we installed the Cube. *The best I can do in this and other similar instances is conclude that I'll never know for sure.

What I do know is that at least based on my own personal experience, anything that can score a positive in a DBT can be exposed with measurements. *The thing about measurements is that they actually tell us very little about audibility unless they are coupled with something that allows us to relate them to audibility. *Sure, if a DUT measurements show a large peak or dip in the frequency response, horrible transient response, or some other gross deficiency, we can safely assume that the things measured will be audible. *But measurements are scalable, and far more sensitive than our ears. *It's very easy to measure (for example) the effects of driver ringing and cavity resonance's, but with well designed drivers, the measurements don't tell us anything about well ringing must be suppressed before it becomes inaudible. *At that point, the only way to be sure is to run some human factors tests, and to be credible, all human factors tests have to be done under fully blind conditions. *This isn't some silly notion that comes from the audio community (as some audio gurus and golden ears claim), but rather it is standard practice in all forms of human factors testing. *It's required for educational research, psychological research, EPA drug testing, and everything else involving human factors, EXCEPT for audio, where the gurus and golden ears reject it because they don't like what it reveals. *I really think you can only understand why anyone would say something like that once you do some of your own controlled tests.

R.O.</font>

PaulF

11-01-2003, 10:45 AM

<font color='#000000'>So is cable break in just a ploy for getting people to keep the cables beyond the return period, or perhaps long enough that their desire to do anything about the lack of any improvement is gone?</font>

gene

11-01-2003, 01:09 PM

<font color='#000000'>Paul;

Your thoughts about cable break in match mine exactly.  IN fact I prepared an article for Ecoustics.com that will be published soon that discusses this.

Also take a look at an oldie but goodie FAQ we did with Audioquest that discusses cable break in.
Audioquest FAQ (http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/Audioquest.html)</font>

gene

11-01-2003, 01:20 PM

<font color='#000000'>Shion;

That was a rather lengthy response, but a good one *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> *
I will briefly touch on some of the topics you discussed.

We NEVER claimed audio cables can't sound different. *But the differences are usually NOT for the reasons many of the exotic cable vendors claim. *

We have compared exotic cables to ordinary Zip Cord and found some do alter the signal enough to be audible in the cable lengths are long enough.
Speaker Cable Face Off (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoff.htm)

I am currently working on a sequel to this article that covers a wider gamuut of cables and the results will be most interesting. *Stay tuned...

Distortion: *Yes it is true many audiophiles prefer the types of distortion that say tube amps invoke. *If that is their cup of tea, than by all means let them drink it. *I personally believe audio equipment should be as transparent as possible. *Let the recording engineers and artist mix the music as it was meant to be heard. *With that, cables are a whole other story. *They DO NOT introduce non linear distortions, despite what exotic cable vendors claim. *If they did, it would be an easy task to measure. *Speaker cables can do one or all of the following:
1) Attentuate
2) Alter phase response or group delay
3) Act as RF antenna (rare, but we will soon show a case where it can happen).

If the cable causes significant attentuation at audio frequencies than you can rest assured it will also alter phase response to some degree. *Again, do you want your cable to act as a tone control? *I don't believe that is a good idea, especially when dealing when high fidelity, accurate playback is of most concern.

Claims about Skin Effect, strand jumping, distortion, smearing, soakage, cryogenically freezing, moon phase, etc are mostly unsubstantiated and annecdotal at best. There really is no magic about cables. *It is has been a well established, *well documented and understood science by credible engineering disciplines for over 50 years. *To claim otherwise implies ignorance by the person or company that promotes the cables they sell.

As for an SPL meter being able to detect differences in cables, it is highly unlikely, unless the cable is really plagued with insertion loss or high frequency roll off. *Most of the differences between well designed cables are measurable with high precision equipment such as the Wayne Kerr $30K Magnetics Analyzer I use to evaluate cables, however how that translates to audibility is an entirely different story. *Our ears are not as sensitive to the measurable changes that our test equipment is able to measure.

For example, if I cable A measures a 5% higher inductance than cable B, with all other parameters being equal, the audibility of this difference is highly unlikely. *

[edited:added comments about SPL]</font>

dlorde

11-02-2003, 07:22 AM

PaulF : So is cable break in just a ploy for getting people to keep the cables beyond the return period, or perhaps long enough that their desire to do anything about the lack of any improvement is gone?
I think there's more to it than that. There is a neural adjustment effect that occurs when a stimulus we are accustomed to changes, known as 'habituation'.

When you change to new cables, there may appear to be an audible difference. If this seems to be for the better, well and good - you'll keep the cables. If the cables seem marginally worse than the old ones, the 'break in improvement' claim will encourage you to persevere with them for a while. Over this time your auditory system will habituate to the new sound balance, resulting in a perceived improvement. If you then swap back to the old cables for a 'fair' comparison, they will probably sound worse, as you are now adjusted to the new ones.

The second effect that comes into play is our suggestibility. Some people are more suggestible than others, but most of us are surprisingly open to persuasion. Expensive audio cables are an almost ideal example: we are persuaded to get them because they will improve the sound, and will get better over time, they cost a lot of money so they ought to be 'special', we've gone to some to get them because we want a change for the better, we'd hate our choice to be a failure, it would be a hassle to return them and start again, and most importantly, the judgement is purely subjective and very susceptible to emotional influence.

Under these conditions, the chances are we'll convince ourselves the new cables sound better, even if on someone else's identical system they might sound slightly worse - after all, 'worse' is subjective, and they have to break in, right?

In reality, there probably won't be a significant audible difference, but our expectations and suggestibility will manufacture one.

There are probably quite a few old-hands who are resistant to these effects, you know, the cynics and pessimists <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/glare.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':glare:'> but it doesn't matter to the snake-oil salesmen, there are enough suggestible people seeking auditory nirvana for them to prosper, get rich, afford swanky web sites, buy advertising space in all the glossy mags, and still give a decent mark-up to the retail outlets.

Interestingly, the New Scientists recently commented on the London Heathrow Hi Fi Show, saying that among the cables selling for up to £30,000 for 6 metres, they found Quad demonstrating their latest speakers to great enthusiasm. The orange cable to the speakers looked oddly familiar. When asked about it, Tony Faulkner, the recording engineer demonstrating them (who'd used the speakers as monitors while recording Saint-Saen's complete works for piano & orchestra, Gramophone's Record of the Year), said of the cables:

"Yes, they would look familiar if you have a garden. Before the show opened we went over the road to the DIY superstore and bought one of those £20 extension leads that Black & Decker sells for electric hedge-cutters. They are made from good, thick copper wire, look nice and sound good to me. The show's been running for three days and no one in the audience has noticed..."

Nuff said <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'></font>

gene

11-02-2003, 09:34 AM

<font color='#000000'>Dlorde/PaulF;

I think you guys provided excellent commentary on Cable Breakin and certainly worth turning into an article  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

dlorde

11-02-2003, 10:49 AM

gene : <font color='#000000'>Dlorde/PaulF;

I think you guys provided excellent commentary on Cable Breakin and certainly worth turning into an article <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>
<font color='#000000'>Thanks - if you want to use any of what I post for an article, you're welcome  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

gene

11-02-2003, 11:20 AM

<font color='#000000'>PaulF/DLorde;

Here is what I have prepared. *If you guys would like further credit, please let me know. *I think this is good content for posting and adding to our Cable Article Arsenal *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Cable “Break In” Myth

Cable Vendor Claim
"'Breaking in' a cable has everything to do with the insulation - not the wire itself. The insulation (or dielectric) will absorb energy from the conductor when a current is flowing (i.e. when music is playing). This energy-absorption causes the dielectric's molecules to re-arrange themselves from a random order into a uniform order. When the molecules have been rearranged, the dielectric will absorb less energy & consequently cause less distortion." Audioquest

Audioholics Response:
Thus their conclusion is the dielectric, not the wire causes distortion!
Claims regarding insulation molecules "aligning" with a signal, skin effect, strand jumping, etc, are anecdotal at best. Let’s not forget that an audio signal is AC, and effectively random from a physical perspective. Nothing can align to a random signal by being anything other than random - exactly the state they claim is "cured" by injecting a signal.
*
“Break In” is not a proven audible or measurable phenomenon. The perception of changes in sound quality with time is likely attributable to the classical placebo effect, i.e., a listener anticipating a possible audible difference is predisposed to hear one whether or not it exists.

Audioholics Forum Feedback Response

“So is cable break in just a ploy for getting people to keep the cables beyond the return period, or perhaps long enough that their desire to do anything about the lack of any improvement is gone?” *Paul F

“I think there's more to it than that. There is a neural adjustment effect that occurs when a stimulus we are accustomed to changes, known as 'habituation'.

When you change to new cables, there may appear to be an audible difference. If this seems to be for the better, well and good - you'll keep the cables. If the cables seem marginally worse than the old ones, the 'break in improvement' claim will encourage you to persevere with them for a while. Over this time your auditory system will habituate to the new sound balance, resulting in a perceived improvement. If you then swap back to the old cables for a 'fair' comparison, they will probably sound worse, as you are now adjusted to the new ones.

The second effect that comes into play is our suggestibility. Some people are more suggestible than others, but most of us are surprisingly open to persuasion. Expensive audio cables are an almost ideal example: we are persuaded to get them because they will improve the sound, and will get better over time, they cost a lot of money so they ought to be 'special', we've gone to some to get them because we want a change for the better, we'd hate our choice to be a failure, it would be a hassle to return them and start again, and most importantly, the judgment is purely subjective and very susceptible to emotional influence.

Under these conditions, the chances are we'll convince ourselves the new cables sound better, even if on someone else's identical system they might sound slightly worse - after all, 'worse' is subjective, and they have to break in, right?

In reality, there probably won't be a significant audible difference, but our expectations and suggestibility will manufacture one.

There are probably quite a few old-hands who are resistant to these effects, you know, the cynics and pessimists but it doesn't matter to the snake-oil salesmen, there are enough suggestible people seeking auditory nirvana for them to prosper, get rich, afford swanky web sites, buy advertising space in all the glossy mags, and still give a decent mark-up to the retail outlets. “ DLorde

Interestingly, the New Scientists recently commented on the London Heathrow Hi Fi Show, saying that among the cables selling for up to £30,000 for 6 metres, they found Quad demonstrating their latest speakers to great enthusiasm. The orange cable to the speakers looked oddly familiar. When asked about it, Tony Faulkner, the recording engineer demonstrating them (who'd used the speakers as monitors while recording Saint-Saen's complete works for piano & orchestra, Gramophone's Record of the Year), said of the cables:

"Yes, they would look familiar if you have a garden. Before the show opened we went over the road to the DIY superstore and bought one of those £20 extension leads that Black & Decker sells for electric hedge-cutters. They are made from good, thick copper wire, look nice and sound good to me. The show's been running for three days and no one in the audience has noticed..."
</td></tr></table></font>

PaulF

11-02-2003, 12:03 PM

<font color='#000000'>Dlorde,

Funny you should mention habituation, I've never heard it expressed that way before. That was in sense what I was referring to also.

Years ago, I had a hobby of repairing TVs. I would swap stories of the difficult find etc. with other techs. One tech, an instructor of mine in college, told me about an elderly couple who's TV had broken. He went out to repair the TV, got it fixed, and in so doing noticed that the picture had a slight yellow tint to it. Naturally, he corrected the picture for proper grey scale.

A few days later he got a call from the customer saying the TV was not right, could he come back to take a look. The TV was in perfect working order, but as you may have guessed, they thought the picture looked a little blue. They were so used to the yellow tint, the tech had to reintroduce the yellow tint to keep the customer happy.

This is common with picture sharpness as well. Years ago, before the introduction of auto-focus circuits, it was common for the resistors in the focus circuit to go slightly higher in value due to the high voltage (3-5KV). This happened gradually and would defocus the picture over time. Many times after a fault, techs would adjust the focus to correct this. Again, you would find that people thought the picture had become worse, grainy etc.

I believe the same is true with our ears. Given enough time we will adapt to slight changes in acoustics until the change becomes the norm.

Gene,

Feel free to use any of my comments. The way you presented the draft seems fair. I have started a paper on video resolution and it has ballooned out to more than 14 pages and I'm not close to being done. So I loath to take on another one for the moment.</font>

dlorde

11-02-2003, 01:32 PM

gene : <font color='#000000'>PaulF/DLorde;

Here is what I have prepared. If you guys would like further credit, please let me know. I think this is good content for posting and adding to our Cable Article Arsenal <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>
<font color='#000000'>Looks fine to me Gene - by the way, the Quad story should be attributed to New Scientist Magazine - I had finger trouble <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'></font>

dlorde

11-02-2003, 01:47 PM

PaulF : I believe the same is true with our ears. Given enough time we will adapt to slight changes in acoustics until the change becomes the norm.
Yes, habituation occurs in practically all neural circuitry, in fact it's a fundamental behaviour most living things - adjusting to the environment.

I guess it's the next door neighbors who notice its effects most, as we habituate to high volume and bass <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

We tend not to notice it most of the time, until something changes suddenly - such as when next door cuts the power <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/glare.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':glare:'></font>

Dan Banquer

11-02-2003, 04:31 PM

<font color='#000000'>Let's hear it for Tony Faulkner!!!! I use Belden 8718 myself.</font>

gene

11-02-2003, 10:48 PM

<font color='#000000'>Thanks Guys. *It has been posted *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>
Audio Cable "Break In" Science or Psychological? (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Breakin.html)</font>

11-05-2003, 12:53 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hmmm. Went to log in, and the system said "Sorry, we could not find a member called Steve Eddy, are you sure it's correct?"

I thought I'd registered here before but perhaps not. So I go to try and register under Steve Eddy. The system says "We already have a member by that name, please choose another."

So, let's see what happens if I try to post.

se</font>

Clint DeBoer

11-05-2003, 02:18 PM

<font color='#000080'>Steve - email me at clint@audioholics.com

I'll set you up with a temp password that you can then change.</font>

Steve Eddy

11-05-2003, 11:49 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Steve - email me at clint@audioholics.com

I'll set you up with a temp password that you can then change.</td></tr></table>

Thanks, Clint. The account seems to work at least as far as logging in is concerned.

Unfortunately after I'd logged in with the new account I had to leave to get some work out of the way and I done forgot what I was going to say.

se</font>

Steve Eddy

11-06-2003, 01:32 AM

<font color='#000000'>Oh yeah, I remember now. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

Mr. Harley says:

We've been very forthright in the past about responding to your questions. There is a very complete explanation of what our Dielectric Bias System is, how it works and why it is sonically beneficial included in all of our recent ads in Stereophile, Absolute Sound and several other audio enthusiast publications.

Looking at their ad on p. 71 of the October 2003 issue of Stereophile, one thing that rather jumps out is:

"Break-in properly applies to mechanical phenomena, such as a motor or a loudspeaker surround. Cables and capacitors do not break-in, rather their "dielectric forms," meaning that it takes time for the dielectric material to adapt to a charged state."

Actually dielectric forming properly applies to electrolytic capacitors where the dielectric is formed on the aluminum foil electrode. The actual dielectric of an aluminum electrolytic capacitor is a thin layer of aluminum oxide which is formed by applying a DC voltage across the capacitor. In other words, anodizing.

From United Chemi-Con's website:

Formation

The dielectric of the aluminum electrolytic capacitor is composed of a thin layer of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) which develops or "forms" on the surface of the etched aluminum foil during a process called "formation."

This process of forming the dielectric oxide on the aluminum foil (electrode) requires a continuous application of DC voltage at 140% to 200% of the rated voltage for the capacitor being manufactured. The dielectric thickness of this aluminum oxide film is approximately 15Å/volt. The insulation strength is approximately 107V/cm.

Of course cables are a whole different ballgame from aluminum electrolytic capacitors where the dielectric is already formed. So I'm wondering if this dielectric forming mentioned in their ad isn't based on some misunderstanding thinking that dielectric forming is something which applies to all dielectrics.

Moving on:

The exceptionally simple design puts a wire down the middle of the cable which is simply an extension of the battery's anode. This wire is attached to positive (+) at the DBS battery pack, and not to anything else. It is not in the signal path and has no interaction with the signal.

Hmmm. I'd always thought the battery's negative terminal was the anode.

No matter. The claim of interest is that it's not in the signal path and has no interaction with the signal.

Um, isn't the negative terminal of the battery also connected to another conductor and the signal conductors are situated between those two conductors? How else can it polarize the dielectric? And if that's the case, then the signal conductors are operating within that field and will indeed interact with it.

In fact, unless I'm overlooking something, the signal is essentially capacitively coupled to the battery!

Further:

The negative side of a battery is nothing; it's just an empty reservoir.

Hmmm. When the negative side of your battery becomes an empty reservoir, it's dead, isn't it? Otherwise, it had better have an abundance of negative charge. And the postive side an abundance of positive charge. How else do they expect to produce that "comparatively high voltage DC field"?

Still more:

Again, there is no interaction with the signal flow and no extra connections are introduced to the signal path.

Of course there is. Just because it's an AC coupled connection doesn't make it any less a connection.

And finally:

There is no new language to this phenomenon. It is simply more of the same.

I dunno, "dielectric forming" certainly seems to be some new language. And I think that last sentence is incomplete and could use one more word between "same" and the period. However I'll leave that word up to y'all's imagination. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

And to be fair, I'd like to say a few words about Gene's comment:

Here is an example of the dielectric biasing scheme courtesy of Audioquest. *The battery does not make a complete electrical connection. *Thus it is considered an open circuit.

The scheme would in fact polarize the dielectric as claimed, particularly if they're using a pair of braided shields in order to fully enclose the signal conductors. Just imagine the signal conductors being run between the two plates of a capacitor with 24 volts across it.

Whether it's of any benefit is open to argument. AudioQuest is keen to tell you what their "cure" is, but they never really identify what the "disease" is and resort to framing it in vague and arguably misleading terminology.

se</font>

gene

11-06-2003, 06:21 PM

<font color='#000000'>HI Steve;

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm. I'd always thought the battery's negative terminal was the anode.</td></tr></table>

Maybe they are confusing the battery with a Diode where Cathode is negative and Anode is positive?  They do think stranded wires exhibit diode rectification.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The scheme would in fact polarize the dielectric as claimed, particularly if they're using a pair of braided shields in order to fully enclose the signal conductors. Just imagine the signal conductors being run between the two plates of a capacitor with 24 volts across it.</td></tr></table>

I have not seen that ad at Stereophile that you referred to in your post.  The only info I had on this product was their reference to the pick on their website.  I didn't see any shielding in the wires.  I wonder how high the capacitance is on this cable system?  I see no Zobel here either.  Hmm..</font>

Steve Eddy

11-06-2003, 08:45 PM

<font color='#000000'>
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe they are confusing the battery with a Diode where Cathode is negative and Anode is positive?</td></tr></table>

Perhaps. Their "Cable Theory" tome has a fair bit of confusion in it as well so I guess this wouldn't be too surprising.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They do think stranded wires exhibit diode rectification.</td></tr></table>

Yes. Something which I see no mechanism for. They seem to base this speculation the existence of copper oxide diodes, but they seem to assume that copper/copper oxide produces a diode, however in a strand of wires, you'd have copper/copper oxide/copper, which won't work as a diode. You need copper/copper oxide and then some conductor other than copper. Actual copper oxide diodes typically use a sandwich of copper/copper oxide/lead.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have not seen that ad at Stereophile that you referred to in your post. *The only info I had on this product was their reference to the pick on their website. *I didn't see any shielding in the wires.</td></tr></table>

Hard to tell from the illustration. Not sure of the wires shown are the only wires that are involved with the battery or if they're bleeder wires which are ultimately attached to a braided shield.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how high the capacitance is on this cable system?</td></tr></table>

Dunno. Perhaps not much more capacitive than otherwise. Far as I can see, the conductor pairs are still adjacent to each other and that will largely define the capacitance.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see no Zobel here either. *Hmm..</td></tr></table>

Why would you expect to see a Zobel?

se</font>

gene

11-06-2003, 11:27 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hi Steve;

Reasons for comment on Zobel:
1) I was being facetious <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>
2) Their employeed cable geometry does give rise to higher than zip cord capacitance. If they added a foil shield around the cable, that would raise it further.  Not sure of their capacitance/ft, but if it is say greater than 100pf/ft their cables may benefit from a zobel termination to eliminate potential for RF ingress when loaded by a speaker with high Z at high frequencies and hooked to a wide bandwidth amplifier no?

BTW; I did an article about calculating cable inductance you may find of interest, which I could expand upon for capacitance and cover other cable geometries if I only had the time.  Any volunteers ;)

Calculating Cable Inductance (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/CableInductance.html)</font>

Steve Eddy

11-07-2003, 12:07 AM

<font color='#000000'>
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reasons for comment on Zobel:
1) I was being facetious <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></td></tr></table>

Ah. Bad timing. My Faceti-O-Meter is in the shop at the moment. They sure don't build things like they used to. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Their employeed cable geometry does give rise to higher than zip cord capacitance. If they added a foil shield around the cable, that would raise it further. *Not sure of their capacitance/ft, but if it is say greater than 100pf/ft their cables may benefit from a zobel termination to eliminate potential for RF ingress when loaded by a speaker with high Z at high frequencies and hooked to a wide bandwidth amplifier no?</td></tr></table>

Yeah, I guess some of the squirrelier amps might have fits with such a load. But I see that as a problem for the amp manufacturer to deal with. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW; I did an article about calculating cable inductance you may find of interest, which I could expand upon for capacitance and cover other cable geometries if I only had the time. *Any volunteers ;)</td></tr></table>

Sure, I'll volunteer.

Hey all you cheap lazy bastards, go buy a damned capacitance meter and measure it yourself!

How's that? <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

se</font>

gene

11-07-2003, 01:43 AM

<font color='#000000'>Steve;

Well I do have access to a Wayne Kerr Magnetics analyzer, but what good is it without the cable sample to test *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>

Calculating cable capacitance can get a bit tricky, especially when dealing with different cable geometries than conventional twin feeder Zip Cord. *

My objective one day is to continue my prior article with simple equations and relationships that will apply so that measurements can correlate with theory.

Call me a nerd, but when I do any design, I like to correlate:
1) PSPICE
2) Analytical Analysis
3) MathCad Analysis
4) Measurements
before I sign and seal off a design. *I take this approach with audio cables, no matter how trivial it may seem at times, I really like correlation * <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':;):'>

As for amps, stability, unity gain crossing, phase margin, and how this all interplays with the reactance of a cable + speaker load, this is something I am working on with Speaker Cable Face Off II and would value your input given your infinitely more experience in audio amplifier design than myself.

[edited grammar, so sleepy]</font>

Steve Eddy

11-07-2003, 03:33 AM

<font color='#000000'>
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I do have access to a Wayne Kerr Magnetics analyzer, but what good is it without the cable sample to test *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'> </td></tr></table>

Dude, be creative! Kiss some babies. Shake some hands. Grease some palms. Ply them with cheap booze and hookers. Schmoze, Gene, schmooze! <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Calculating cable capacitance can get a bit tricky, especially when dealing with different cable geometries than conventional twin feeder Zip Cord.</td></tr></table>

Yes. And the most common calculation for twin feeder assumes that all space that's not occupied by conductor is occupied by dielectric so it doesn't work right for things such as twisted pair.

Which is why I think it'd be best to simply obtain some cables employing some basic geometries and measure them.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My objective one day is to continue my prior article with simple equations and relationships that will apply so that measurements can correlate with theory.</td></tr></table>

The basic theories are pretty straightforward. It's the numerous geometries that complicate things.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Call me a nerd, but when I do any design, I like to correlate:
1) PSPICE
2) Analytical Analysis
3) MathCad Analysis
4) Measurements
before I sign and seal off a design. *I take this approach with audio cables, no matter how trivial it may seem at times, I really like correlation * <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':;):'> </td></tr></table>

dang! And I thought audiophiles were obsessive/compulsive. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for amps, stability, unity gain crossing, phase margin, and how this all interplays with the reactance of a cable + speaker load, this is something I am working on with Speaker Cable Face Off II and would value your input given your infinitely more experience in audio amplifier design than myself.</td></tr></table>

Yikes. Where'd you get that idea? I'm just a noodler at best. I"d be happy to offer what input I can, but don't overestimate me. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

se</font>

11-07-2003, 11:56 AM

<font color='#000000'>I think you people all have a chip on your shoulder! I'm a professional musician and sound engineer, who's also been an audiophile for many years. I've heard the effects of cable break in many, many times. It's not fiction. Most recently, a friend bought a spidf digital cable for the output of his CD player. He called me up and said "This sounds TERRIBLE, very thin and harsh". I stopped by to listen to the cable and my first question was "Did you break it in?". "Why?", he said. I gave him a copy of the Stereophile Magazine test CD with a burn-in track. He played it constantly for a couple of days. Then, we listened to the system. The difference was not subtle, it was night and day. Now, we had a full, deep soundstage, with great resolution and coherency. Now,  he was happy.
 I've experienced this over and over again. It's also true with components and speakers. And as for high end cable voodoo, sure, there's some of that going around, but putting together a first class high end audio system is an art. Components need to work synergisticly with one another. This includes cable. I've tremendously improved the performance of my Mark Levinson/B&W/Rel system by finding the best matching cable, currently MIT reference level cables. These cables have produced the most natural tonal balance, clearest resolution, best dynamics and deepest, most well defined sound stage that I've heard in my system. I've spent many a day in recording studios. I know first hand what live music sounds like, up close. I know what a violin or acoustic guitar,etc. sounds like in person. Through much trial and error, and with much appreciated help from other audio professionals, including my high end audio dealer, I've fine tuned my system to be accurate as possible. A large part of this fine tuning involved matching the proper cables to my system.
    I don't care about measurements. I care about sound! When I hear a violin through my speakers, I want it to sound like a violin, and with my "high end" MIT cables, IT DOES!! Use your ears, people.</font>

NOFAITH

11-07-2003, 12:07 PM

<font color='#000000'>So do you work for MIT in marketing or human resources?</font>

11-07-2003, 01:09 PM

<font color='#000000'>No, I don't work for MIT. Do you want me to talk about the TARA Labs cables that I have in my acoustic guitar rig? They've improved the sound of my rig considerably over the cables that I used to use, which were standard oxygen-free copper strands. Not only the sound improved, but the touch of the instrument improved. The rig became more sensitive to slight changes in my playing dynamics. On one of the first gigs that I played with the new cables, my soundman came over to me after the show and asked me what I'd changed in my acoustic guitar setup. I played dumb and said, "I don't know, what did you hear?". He told me the guitar came through richer and more natural sounding. When I told him about the TARA Labs cables, he couldn't believe it. The $1800 for the cables was very well spent, in my opinion.
   I could go on for days about all the positive experiences that I've had with high end cables. Another point is that, in many lines of  cable, such as MIT or TARA Labs, there is a significant improvement as you move up the line in price. It is a law of diminishing returns after awhile, but the main criteria seem to be- are your components "resolving enough" to hear the differences, and are you willing to pay the cost. Is it worth it to you? For example, you could take a JVC or comparable brand receiver and put, say $200 MIT speaker cables on it and hear an improvement in the sound over stock cables. But, if you switched to $14,000 MIT top of the line reference cables, you probalby would not hear much of a difference. But, you do the same thing using a Mark Levinson or Krell reference system($100,000+), you'll hear a big improvement with the expensive cables. I've spent many hours auditioning cables and hearing these improvements for myself.
   Again, people, use your ears!!!! Not everything can be measured. Just because it can't be measured, does it mean it doesn't exist? As a guitar player, I can plug into a '64 Fender Twin Reverb tube amp and realize instantly that I'm playing and hearing something very special, something that many other amps can't compare to. Can I measure it? How do I prove it? I can't. As a player or a listener, I just have to use my ears. How can you prove that a real Strativarius is one of the best violins ever created? Again, you can't........you just have to open up your ears (and minds) and listen! Listen and you will hear.</font>

Dan Banquer

11-07-2003, 02:10 PM

<font color='#000000'>O.K. Greenroom; I have had the opposite experience with high end cables and that includes putting them on some of the priciest equipment that you mentioned. The higher in price they get the worse they sound.
Anytime you would like to stop hiding behind that moniker of yours and tell us who you really is O.K. with me. Otherwise I will assume you are just another shill for the snake oil wire companies.
* * * * * * Dan Banquer
* * * * * * R.E. Designs</font>

Steve Eddy

11-07-2003, 02:16 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think you people all have a chip on your shoulder! I'm a professional musician and sound engineer, who's also been an audiophile for many years. I've heard the effects of cable break in many, many times. It's not fiction.</td></tr></table>

Certainly our perceptions seem every bit as real to us as anything can be. But the problem is, and which has been proved beyond doubt, is that our perceptions are not always accurate reflections of the physical reality.

For example:

http://www.q-audio.com/images/illusion.jpg

Here we perceive that A and B are the two ends of a straight line. But the physical reality is that A and C are the two ends of a straight line.

Similarly, just because we may perceive some difference in our audio systems it doesn't mean that that perception is necessarily due to any actual audible stimulus. Indeed, it's been demonstrated time and time again that people may perceive differences even in the complete absense of any physical difference.

And of course these perceived differences in the absence of actual physical differences will seem just as real to us as those perceptions which are due to actual physical difference.

Which is perhaps why it's so difficult for some people to come to grips with well-established human psychology and physiology.

But this notion that simply because one perceives some difference that it MUST be due to some realworld, physical change in our audio equipment simply flies in the face of over a century's worth of well-established facts. You might as well start arguing against Ohm's Law.

Now, this isn't to say that ALL perceived differences are due psychological/physiological phenomena. Only that until those very real possibilities are ruled out (and ruled out by something other than sheer ego and insistance as you illustrate in your post), one cannot say with a sufficient degree of confidence whether certain perceived differences are due to actual audible stimulus.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't care about measurements. I care about sound!</td></tr></table>

That's fine. Seeing as how something sounds is a personal, subjective judgement, there should be no questioning how one goes about determining what sounds best to them.

But when you make testable objective claims, such as claims regarding actual audibility you're no longer in that subjective realm and your sighted subjective perceptions do nothing to substantiate such claims. Neither do your claims of being a professional musician, sound engineer or audiophile.

Professional musicians, sound engineers and audiophiles are all human beings and as such they are susceptible to the same idiosyncracies as other human beings.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Use your ears, people.</td></tr></table>

Using your ears is fine when it comes to determining what works best for you. They're not quite so fine when it comes to establishing objective realities such as actual audibility. That's because our ears are plugged into our brain and because of that, our perceptions can be altered in ways which can have nothing to do with actual sensory input.

There was an article recently in the New York Times that illustrates this quite well.

It concerned some research carried out by a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine.

It had to do with the old "Pepsi Challenge" ad campaign back in the 70s and 80s where they went out on the street and asked people to try both Pepsi and Coke, but without knowing which was which. The majority of people chose Pepsi over Coke.

The researcher repeated the Pepsi Challenge test on subjects while monitoring their brain activity with an MRI.

When the subjects didn't know which was which, the majority preferred Pepsi, and the MRI indicated that under these blind conditions, that when drinking Pepsi, the subjects had greater activity in the region of the brain called the ventral putamen which is thought to process feelings of reward.

So he decided to repeat the test, but this time, instead of the blind conditions of before, the subjects would be told which was which.

Now the results were reversed. The majority of the subjects preferred Coke over Pepsi. Further, this time there was now activity in the area of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex, which is said to govern high-level cognitive powers.

Basically, under sighted conditions, the subjects' higher level brain functions, i.e. the effects of Coke's "branding" practices and their images of Coke, overrorde the subjects' sensory input and produced an entirely different result when it came to preference.

While this doesn't relate directly to being able to detect simple differences, it's a prime example of how our perceptions under sighted conditions can be altered by that which has nothing to do with actual physical stimulus.

And that's why, when it comes to establishing whether something produces an actual audible difference, sighted listening tests carry little weight.

se</font>

Steve Eddy

11-07-2003, 02:33 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, people, use your ears!!!! Not everything can be measured. Just because it can't be measured, does it mean it doesn't exist? As a guitar player, I can plug into a '64 Fender Twin Reverb tube amp and realize instantly that I'm playing and hearing something very special, something that many other amps can't compare to. Can I measure it? How do I prove it? I can't. As a player or a listener, I just have to use my ears. How can you prove that a real Strativarius is one of the best violins ever created? Again, you can't........</td></tr></table>

Here you're talking about preference. Which is a subjective, individual assessment which no one should question or challenge. One likes what they like, period.

But the question here is whether a given cable will produce actual audible differences versus another cable. That's a whole other matter and has nothing to do with subjective preference.

Certainly you may perceive differences between cables under sighted conditions and I don't believe anyone questions that you do, but that does not in itself establish that there are differences which are due to actual audible stimulus.

se</font>

NOFAITH

11-08-2003, 01:09 PM

<font color='#000000'>Greenroom;

Sorry for my implication that you work for MIT, I should have said Tara Labs ;)

Seriously if you think your cable is improving the sound of your guitar, who are we to pass judgement?  Enjoy!</font>

PaulF

11-10-2003, 01:46 AM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But, you do the same thing using a Mark Levinson or Krell reference system($100,000+), you'll hear a big improvement with the expensive cables.</td></tr></table>

I love it when people equate price directly to sound quality, what a waste of time. If one of the big Japanese manufacturers made the same item it would cost one third the price. They also spend in a month on R&D what a smaller boutique audio company spends in a year.

I could do a lot to upgrade my audio system with $1800, but it sure wouldn't go towards cables. For that kind of money I could obtain much greater improvements elsewhere.</font>

gene

11-10-2003, 01:49 PM

<font color='#000000'>Greenroom;

I don't follow most of your logic.  You claim when putting together a very high end system you need mathing high end cables.  Usually high end gear (if designed well) is better able to cope with poor cables (IE. High capacitive, poor shielding) since the outputs should be more robust and the inputs should have better filtering and Common Mode Rejection, no?

What is your definition of "better" cables?  Is it packaging, apperances, or real cable metrics?

Case in point, I set up a $20K speaker system this weekend.  When connecting the subwoofer amps to the preamp using exotic interconnect cables, I had audible hum and noise when the volume was maxed out.  I replaced the exotic cables with a shielded twisted pair cable from Belden and the problem was nearly 100% eliminated.  In this case, a $5 cable clearly outperformed a $500 exotic interconnect.  Grant it, the $5 cable wont win any beauty contest prizes, but who cares, they are located behind the system and away from visible view.</font>

11-11-2003, 04:05 PM

<font color='#000000'>I'm going to say something that I'm sure to most people here is pure heresy. Our hearing sucks. At least compared to the rest of the animal kingdom it does. 20 KHz of bandwidth is not much in relation to the known frequency spectrum. Our ability to measure the behavior of electrons in wires, and sound waves in the air, far exceeds the hearing ability of anything on this planet. If you claim that something sounds different, then that means the waveform must BE different. And that CAN be measured by modern electronics. We can measure timing differences into the picoseconds, and AC signals into the Gigahertz. There is nothing in the audio spectrum that we cannot analyze. Bottom line: I don't trust "your" ears. I don't know if I can trust mine either.</font>

Steve Eddy

11-12-2003, 03:53 AM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm going to say something that I'm sure to most people here is pure heresy. Our hearing sucks. At least compared to the rest of the animal kingdom it does. 20 KHz of bandwidth is not much in relation to the known frequency spectrum. Our ability to measure the behavior of electrons in wires, and sound waves in the air, far exceeds the hearing ability of anything on this planet. If you claim that something sounds different, then that means the waveform must BE different. And that CAN be measured by modern electronics. We can measure timing differences into the picoseconds, and AC signals into the Gigahertz. There is nothing in the audio spectrum that we cannot analyze.</td></tr></table>

Well, as I've said a number of times (not here but elsewhere), all that we can possibly hear from our audio systems amount to nothing more than changes in air pressure versus time. And we have the capability of doing that to levels far lower than can be perceived by humans under realworld conditions.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bottom line: I don't trust "your" ears. I don't know if I can trust mine either.</td></tr></table>

Depends what one is trusting their ears to do. I trust my ears completely when it comes to deciding what I like, what sounds best to me, etc. In that regard I'm a hedonist and the only thing that matters is my ultimate enjoyment in the end, regardless of whether that enjoyment comes about due to acutal audible differences or to psychological phenomena.

However I don't trust my ears, or more accurately my brain and my subjective perceptions, to always be an entirely accurate reflection of the physical reality.

se</font>

11-14-2003, 03:49 AM

<font color='#000000'>Ok people, you're quite a bunch. One of you is a paranoid, neurotic, who thinks I work for a cable manufacturer. One of you is trying to give me Rorschach test. Another is telling me that my hearing sucks compared to a dog. All I'm hearing is that a person's perception doesn't count. All that counts are scientific measurements.
 First of all, the reason that I've written these emails, is that I received an email from "Audioholics". I must be on an audiophile email list. The email immediately attacked high end cables, calling them "snake oil". I clicked on the link to this site and felt I had to respond.
  To the people who say high end cables have made their systems sound worse or made their systems "hum" - you've either bought defective cables, or you've not matched the correct cable to your system! Just as music is an art, assembling a high end audio system is also an art. My advice - go to a reputable, knowledgable  high-end dealer and have them make cabling suggestions, based on your individual systems.
   Yes music is subjective....Hello!....and sound can be subjective. But, there are certain qualities that trained listeners can hear, over and over. For instance, certain cables and certain other components, for that matter, can increase the depth and width of a soundstage. Certain cables can create a sense of "air" around images in a soundstage, thereby delineating them to a greater degree than other cables. Some cables can produce a "blacker" background, thereby enhancing resolution and dynamics. Not to mention that some cables sound darker or brighter than others. These qualities, I and many other trained listeners, CAN HEAR! How do you measure this? You can measure frequency response. You can measure distortions in a sine wave. How do you measure these other qualties, such as soundstage depth? YOU CAN"T, at least not at this point in the 21st century. Maybe someday....
   I'm a trained musician and engineer with many years of experience. I'm not "just tooting my own horn", but I can hear many qualities in an audio signal. Just like you can see a stop sign and tell that it's red. I can hear an "A" note and tell that it's 440hz. I can hear chord voicings and write out the individual notes. I can even hear music in my head and write out a composition while sitting on an airplane, with no instruments. When I finally play the piece, it's sounds like I envisioned it. How do I do this.....I've been trained to hear. In the audio realm, I can hear when a signal has been compressed and have a good idea what the slope is on the attack and release of the note. I can hear the effects of subtle changes in a digital reverb settings. I can tell which frequencies are too predominant in a mix of a song, Etc....And I can sure hear the effects of different cables and which ones are producing a more realistic portrait of sound in a given system. And many high end cables offer superior performance to their more generic counterparts. I'm not saying that more money = more quality in all instances, but more often than not, it is true.
    Can everyone hear the difference? No! Some people honestly don't hear the differences in audio cables or other components, because they don't care to, it's not important to them, because they've never trained themselves to or because they have a bias against them.
  Here are some tips for improving your listening skills. Master these exercises and then talk to me.
1.Learn to recognize frequency ranges -To have perfect pitch means that you can identify each note blindfolded. Grab an eq and have a friend boost or cut individual frequencies while listening to pink noise. Practice until you can identify each frequency blindfolded.
2. Learn the effects of bandwidth  limiting  - use shelving eq's to practice.
3. Learn to identify comb filtering
4. Learn to identify the sound of great recordings well-produced; perception of dynamics, space and depth. Start by becoming familiar with the sound of great recordings made with purist mike techniques, little or no equalization or compression. Learn what wide dynamic range and clear transients sound like captured and reproduced. Finally, hear a great deal of live music, to know what it really sounds like.
- I could go on....learn to hear tape overload, qualties of reverb chambers, learn to hear bad edits, wow and flutter, polarity problems. "Earientation" should be a lifelong activity.
   Why is all important? Because, if you can hear all this, then you can better judge the quality of recorded sound and not just "subjectively". You can judge when a component or cable reproduces all the dymanics, subtle cues and inner detail that make a recording sound closer to reality. This my friends, cannot be faithfully and completely measured by any test equipment.</font>

11-14-2003, 09:02 AM

<font color='#000000'>"To the people who say high end cables have made their systems sound worse or made their systems "hum" - you've either bought defective cables, or you've not matched the correct cable to your system! Just as music is an art, assembling a high end audio system is also an art. My advice - go to a reputable, knowledgable *high-end dealer and have them make cabling suggestions, based on your individual systems."
Excellent performance in a given system is not art, it's applied technology. Music is art. The confusion of the two is the curse of consumer high end.
I am on a pro audio net with people like Bob Katz, Nika Aldrich, and Dave Moulton. The real pro's of this business certainly don't go in for snake oil cables, and it certainly tells me that your education is lacking in this area, You certainly seem to have the money to *waste to make up for your lack of education.
Anytime you would like to give your real name and who you really work for is fine with me.

Dan Banquer
R.E. Designs</font>

PaulF

11-15-2003, 12:45 PM

<font color='#000000'>Greenroom,

The 440Hz A note is the most commonly recognized note in the music industry. It is the open A note of the A string on a guitar. Many people can pick it. As for voicings, chords typically contain 3-4 notes. If you are a musician you'll recognize the chord, then it's just a matter of picking the order in which the notes are arranged frequency wise, typically the root note (or the one with the lowest frequency) will come over as the most dominant. In terms of your pink noise test, I doubt you would be able to pick the changes with just 1-2dB difference.

Air, blackness, brightness etc. these are the terms that are not well defined. They are often loosely defined to allow for wiggle room by some audiophiles. However in general "air" is related to presence which is affected by the response in the midrange frequencies. "Blackness" is typically related to the absence of noise, and brightness is attributed to the response at the higher end of the frequency range. All of which is measurable.

My point is that these things are all measurable, it's the loose definition by snake oil cable vendors and golden eared audiophiles which purposely create a mystique around cables by refering to audio qualities as if they are judging wine.

Cables are linear devices; period. They do not posses rectification qualities and do not create harmonic or intermodulation distortion. They have three basic properties, R, L & C. The R is constant with frequency, and if R is low relative to the load then it's pretty much a non issue. So that leaves two factors that can affect audible performance, L & C. These two factors affect amplitude vs frequency, that's it. As a trained engineer you should be very familiar with this.

So any changes in audible properties should be attributable to these two measurable factors.

Finally, to reitierate. No one has said that cables do not make an audible difference to sound quality, they can. What has been said time and again is that unquantifiable cahnges in audio should not be claimed with even less quantifiable physical and electrical properties.</font>

11-15-2003, 08:30 PM

<font color='#000000'>I too am an audio engineer. I have worked in recording studios; postproduction studios and I have been custom installing high-end home theaters and house audio systems for the past 12 years. It was the wiring I did in studios that led me to be skeptical about cable claims. After wiring the TTL patch bay of an SSL console, I was amazed that any form of high quality audio could come out of such a varied and complicated signal pathway. It occurred to me that if the "simple", small gauge Belden wire I was using was the standard for the industry, then how in the world could a patch cable that goes three feet from a CD player to the preamp make a difference in the playback? If any other cable was somehow inferior to the cable in my system, then the "damage" has already been done. If the microphone cable that goes from the mic to the mic preamp in the studio isn’t "as good" as some MIT or Tara Labs cable, then that violin sound that just traveled down it must be ruined for life. I certainly hope you don't think that high-end cables can magically bring back some sound quality that was lost back in the mastering stage.

Now lets consider the inside of a high end CD player or DAC. The dac is on a printed circuit board. Evan if it’s a mil spec four-layer super duper circuit board, its still has paper thin copper traces they may only be fractions of an inch wide. This leads to the rca connectors on the back of the device. At the input end on the preamp, is the same thing. What makes anybody believe that for the few microseconds that the signal travels from the back of the CD player to the input on the preamp, that it needs a cable that cost $100.00 a foot to carry it? Does the signal go "Wow, I sure am glad I'm out of that cramped, thin circuit board trace.” "Holy cow, look at all this fine expensive well braided copper in this cable I'm in. It sure feels good in here"

If the CD or DVD transport was in the same chassis as the preamp and amp, (a design that exists nowadays called Home Theater in a Box), the signal would travel along the same circuit board to the preamp section, and then to the amp section. If Krell were to make a HTIB would they be putting monster cable jumpers between the different sections? Of course not. I've worked inside a Krell HTS and the different circuit boards are wired together with simple ribbon cables. The inside of my Parasound Halo C2 is the same way. There is no reason to believe that such a product would perform worse that a stack of separates, so why is it OK to wire the inside with ribbon cables, but you need really expensive cables to interconnect them if they are in separate boxes?

This is the kind of simple, logical, common sense thinking that is missing from the audiophile world today. Audio has come a long way lately. With SACD and DVD-Audio, we are getting far better sound in our living rooms for somewhat less money, the ever before. But it’s still not real. We do not have the technology to recreate everything that happens in a live performance, in a different room then it was performed in. Not yet. If I bought every thing that was supposed to give me better tighter bass, I should have Stanley Clark in my living room. It's clear that some people are willing to try and believe anything that they think will get them better sound. By definition, I am an audiophile, and I have a pretty high-end system, but I am not willing to buy into the nonsense of high-end voodoo.</font>

11-16-2003, 12:48 PM

<font color='#000000'>Ok, to Dan Banquer, the paranoid, neurotic:  Who the hell do you think I am? I've told you who I am. I don't have any affiliations with any high end audio manufacturers. I have simply listened to, and worked professionally with audio components over many years and educated my ear to discriminate and understand what I'm hearing. Do you hear voices in your head? Do you think everyone is plotting against you? Do you see invisible rabbits named Harvey?
    In addition, I've had projects mastered in quite a few top mastering houses. Take one, for example - Bob Ludwig's Gateway Mastering, in Maine. Do you know what cables he uses for his mastering system? He uses reference level "Transparent Audio" cables, a brand that is very similar to the more well known "MIT" brand. He has spent literally tens of thousands on dollars on his cabing. Everyone go to their CD collections and count how many Cd's you own that were mastered by Bob......quite a few, probably. So, you are listening to many CD's that were mastered using "snakeoil". Oh my God! Bob had discussed with me, at one time, the many improvements that these cables brought to his system. He, exhaustively tested many brands of cables over months, before he made his decision. Bob's golden rule that he imparted to me.....Use Your Ears! If it sounds right, it is right!
  And yes, I've read Bob Katz and others. I have a great deal of respect for Bob. I don't think that he would stand in opposition to anything I've said.
  To PaulF:  By the way A 440 is the first string (high E) of the guitar, fretted at the 5th fret. The 5th string open is an "A" note an octave lower at 220hz. Oh boy.</font>

11-16-2003, 01:00 PM

<font color='#000000'>In addition, to Jay - I respect your thoughts, and I agree that the extensive wiring schemes, patchbays, etc. in many studios can be a nightmare. They actually do degrade the sound. Recording straight through a high quality preamp with good cables, into  a DAW or tape machine, is always the best way to go. But, it's not practical in many situations. But, listen to a good Telarc recording, done with good cables and a minimum of electronics and processing, and you'll hear a superior product, technically.
   My main point on all of this is, just LISTEN! I've heard the improvements that many high end cables impart. I'm a trained listener. I'm not making this stuff up. Just listen, extensively, before you come to a conclusion and just write off all high end cables. Many of them are excellent products.</font>

11-16-2003, 03:26 PM

<font color='#000000'>Now we have something to agree on. I would like to see recordings made with less "stuff" between the mics and the recorder. What Bob Ludwig is doing in his mastering studios kind of supports my ideas on cables. If a professional studio is wired with "better" cables, then there might be a chance that in the final playback, there will be a difference in sound quality depending on how your system is wired. If a studio wants to invest in expensive wiring, it certainly won't hurt. I still think that right now we are far from having any kind of recording and playback system that will really bring the listener the full experience of the original performance.

My main problem is that I think that some people are taken advantage of with claims of better performance with no real way to back it up. I have a client that is really into Linn. He bought the full Klymax system. That is full triamping a pair of Keltic speakers with eight of their 500-watt mono Klymax amps. (There are two woofers in each speaker)  Would I tell somebody they NEED 500 watts to the tweeter? No. But he is a millionaire and I didn't talk him into the system. He knew what he was getting and he wanted it. He is very happy with his system and that’s good for him. By the way, his system is wired with simple Linn and Canare cables. It sounds fantastic. My point here is that I would have never tried to sell him the system under the justification that it will get him closer to the original performance. As good as it sounds, he will never believe that the symphony is in front of him, and he knows it never will. I think that cable companies will claim anything to get people to buy their stuff and this is where I stop my pursuit of high-end audio.</font>

11-16-2003, 04:40 PM

<font color='#000000'>Any time you would like to stop hiding is still fine with me. I guess you just don't feel comfortable with your real identity whatever that is, or maybe you just have a lot to hide, or maybe you have a sizeable financial stake in snake oil.
I have been to Dave Moulton's Lab in Groton. He uses zip cord for speaker wire. He has also done lots of testing for people like Belden. Your claims are dubious at best, not only from my experience but Dave's testing.
As a suggestion maybe you try reading some of the cable articles on this web site, or maybe some of Henry Ott. You love to say "just use your ears"
*I say use your brain that's supposed to be between your ears.*
Have a nice day.
Dan Banquer
www.redesignsaudio.com</font>

gene

11-16-2003, 09:17 PM

<font color='#000000'>Greenroom;

We have extended you quite a bit of flexibility in your postings. *However, you latest series of name callings (particularly against Dan Banquer - a contributor to Audioholics.com) will not be tolerated. *Consider this a warning. *We also encourage you to register and post under your real name, if for nothing more than to add credibility to your arguments and assign responsibility to your statements.

We are glad you are enthusiastic about cables. *Expensive cables can be very pretty and alluring. *However, rarely do they measure, let alone perform better than standard well constructed 10AWG Zip Cord ($50/100ft), nor do they need to considering their intended purpose. *If you/others wish to spend $10K on cables, and not address the far more important, non trivial *issues in audio (ie. loudspeakers, room acoustics, source material,etc), then be our guest. *This is capitalism, buy what you desire <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> *

However, we would all appreciate it if you/others refrain from peddling and referencing psuedo sciences or false religious faiths about products, particularly regarding cables to justify  viewpoints and lack of tangible proofs.

To be of the mindset that one can hear differences in cables (Note this topic address cables only, not speakers, electronics, moon phase, etc) that they cannot measure implies:
1) Lack of understanding of basic electronics.
2) Lack of understanding of how the human ear and psychological perception affects ones hearing.
3) Motivated sales agenda to promote esoteric, high profit margin cables.

Since you claim no affiliation to exotic cable vendors, one can only conclude you must fit under #1 & #2 categories. *That being the case, *I refer you to the many articles we have authored about cables to help educate consumers of real world issues involving audio/video cables.

Audio/Video Cable Principles (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/cables.htm)

You may also wish to read up on an interview article that was conducted at ecoustics.com about this very subject:
Cable FAQ Interview (http://ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/5/6528.html)

Please also note that cables can and do sound different, but for reasons that are quantifiable and measurable. *If speaker cable A and speaker cable B share very similar R,L,C measurements, they will be sonically indistinguishable.

[edited: spelling]</font>

11-17-2003, 04:45 AM

<font color='#000000'>Don't worry guys, this is my last post. I don't have time for this any more. First of all, to Dan, I don't appreciate being called a liar. That's what you're doing when you insist that I'm hiding behind some moniker. Again, I have nothing to hide. I reiterate that you must be nothing more than a paranoid neurotic. I can't find any other explanation for your statements.
  To Gene, you people are the ones who contacted me. I received a "spam -like" email, which I happened to glance at, that went on and on about cables being "snakeoil". I never asked to receive this, but it prompted me to write a few posts. Then I'm accused of having some kind of hidden agenda. Give me a break.
  After participating in this forum with you people, I now realize that your original spam mail truly reflected your (most of you, that is) biased, narrow minded attitudes. I'm not saying that measurements aren't useful or valid, they are, but there's more to selecting audio components than just that. I would never purchase a mic preamp, power amp, A/D, or a cable soley based on measured performance. Once again, you have to use your ears, and in doing so over the course of many years, I have heard the obvious and sometimes dramatic improvements that many excellent high end cables bring to playback and recording systems. But, you people believe what you want to believe - "If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". Good luck with your zip cords. Goodbye.</font>

Clint DeBoer

11-17-2003, 08:25 AM

Guest : <font color='#000000'>you people are the ones who contacted me. I received a "spam -like" email, which I happened to glance at, that went on and on about cables being "snakeoil". I never asked to receive this, but it prompted me to write a few posts.</font>
<font color='#000080'>Well, since we haven't bought or used any outside email lists, I suppose you mean that you subscribed to our newsletter and then forgot??

I don't think we solely advocate Zip cord, but they do measure better than quite a few more expensive cables. Enough to give us pause.

We're not against using your ears, either - but we also recommend you use your brain, something that many people in support of expensive cables refuse to do.

PaulF

11-17-2003, 09:29 AM

<font color='#000000'>Jay,

Boy I wish I had your client's system. What a dream. To your point, Linn's speaker cable for their $40K/pair Komri speakers cost about $30 a pop. I read this in a review, even the reviewer was surprised when the $30 cables bettered his very expensive standard interconnects.

Greenroom originally worte
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To PaulF: *By the way A 440 is the first string (high E) of the guitar, fretted at the 5th fret. The 5th string open is an "A" note an octave lower at 220hz. Oh boy.</td></tr></table>

Yes I suppose that's true for common guitar tuning. I'm a little rusty. Tuning the A string to 440 is also used as noted here:

Vaughns (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/m-3.music.notes.6.pdf)
Guitar Notes (http://www.guitarnotes.com/notes/noteget.cgi?string_pitches)

It's also a common tuning fork frequency and as the A note *above middle C commonly is used by musicians to tune their instruments to each other. The A4 note = 440Hz, if this note is the fifth fretted note of high E then the open A string should be A2 which is 110Hz (not A3 = 220Hz as noted above)

My point is that it is a very common and well recognized note. Hopefully it will allow you to determine the real difference between speaker cables regardless of price and lofty manufacturer claims.</font>

gene

11-17-2003, 10:18 AM

<font color='#000000'>Greenroom;

I commend you for adding red herrings to your argument and going off topic from cables.  Perhaps you should re-read my statements in my last post:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To be of the mindset that one can hear differences in cables (Note this topic address cables only, not speakers, electronics, moon phase, etc) that they cannot measure implies:</td></tr></table>

Notice again, I was discussing CABLES, not preamps, speakers, or any other devices.  

If you wish to be unsubscribed from our voluntary newsletter, send me an email and I will gladly remove you from our list.</font>

XTI

11-17-2003, 10:54 PM

<font color='#000000'>I think you're missing the snake oil supertanker by concentrating on speaker & line level cables.

One of our suppliers has just sent me a new price list with some new "reference" AC power cables.

An excerp from their site:

"XXX is the only company in the world who utilizes such high-tech, very expensive, aerospace insulations in these high-end designs for a TOTAL LACK of spectral smearing of highs and midrange glare, and an ability to extend yet define low frequency bass response like no other AC cord."

I would like one of their 'scientists' to explain to me how connecting 3 feet of 8G power cord in series with a minimum of probably 30' to 50' of $0.10/ft 14G solid wire (I hesitate to call it 'cable') is going to make any difference at all - regardless of the construction of that last 3 feet.

(And that assumes that the so-called 'starting point' is at the breaker panel, and not the several thousand miles away that it actually is...)

As you know, standard IEC cables are often crap (mostly due to lousy connectors at the equipment end) but to expect a conscientious dealer to sell someone a 3 foot power cord for WELL over $2000 seems a bit much. How do they expect me to sleep at night? How do THEY sleep at night?

I guess after you sell a few of those, you can buy a pretty nice bed, mind you...

BUT they will 'break it in' for me for only another $25... Such a deal! Maybe I should buy some for my own system... <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'></font>

PaulF

11-18-2003, 01:23 AM

<font color='#000000'>You mean JPS labs? I could use their power cable as a tow rope if it wasn't so expensive.</font>

Clint DeBoer

11-18-2003, 04:03 PM

<font color='#000080'>Or weld with them...

There are many (deluded?) people who will swear to you on their mother's graves that they can hear the difference.</font>

Steve Eddy

11-22-2003, 02:32 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are many (deluded?) people who will swear to you on their mother's graves that they can hear the difference.</td></tr></table>

And why wouldn't they?

Our perceptions, even if due to purely psychological phenomena, will seem no less real to us than if they were due to actual audible stimulus. It's just human nature.

Why fault or impugn anyone for insisting that they are perceiving differences? Even if one is cock sure that there can be no differences, that's no reason to make things personal.

And while I'm here, I have to say that this cable industry conspiracy theory (i.e. that there are people working discussion forums such as this as covert, paid lackeys of cable manufacturers) does seem to border on paranoia.

I've no idea who thegreenroom2 is, what his affilations or associations may be, or what his motives might or might not have been. But I do feel that Dan's implications and accusations that he had something to hide and his attempts to call him out were insulting.

Who cares what his affiliations or motives may have been? Address what he's ACTUALLY SAID here in this forum. If anything he's said is questionable, it will be questionable regardless of who he is and what his affiliations or motives might have been.

I hate to say it, Dan (you know I love ya, man!) but you did to thegreenroom2 what Curl used to do to me. Instead of addressing what I'd actually said, he'd instead call into question my education and "credentials."

And as I said to Curl a number of times in response to such a tactic, a person's words don't stand or fall based on who says them, but on the veracity of the words themselves.

Bottom line, I think thegreenroom2 was treated here in much the same way that "naysayers" are treated on Cable Asylum.

se</font>

gene

11-24-2003, 12:20 AM

<font color='#000000'>Steve;

You certainly bring up valid points and we definately don't want to create the same atmosphere here about cables that is currently on other cable forums namely the Cable Asylum.  We entertain all opinions and facts here regardless if they do not align with our beliefs.  Sometimes it is easy to turn posts into personal attacks against people, especially when done anonymously which is why we encourage (but not mandate) all participants to register.  

You also raise valid points that just because people think they hear differences, even if none exist, doesn't mean they are deluded.

I for one feel my system sounds better at night time, when the lights are turned down.  Part of this has to do with a lower noise floor, calmer mood, but I am sure part of it is psychological.  But my point is, regardless if the system actually performs differently at night, I achieve more listening pleasure from it then.

Thanks for keeping us all in check.</font>

Steve Eddy

11-24-2003, 09:07 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I for one feel my system sounds better at night time, when the lights are turned down.  Part of this has to do with a lower noise floor, calmer mood, but I am sure part of it is psychological.  But my point is, regardless if the system actually performs differently at night, I achieve more listening pleasure from it then.</td></tr></table>

Certainly. When it comes to the pleasure of listening to reproduced music on our audio systems, whatever the listener does to achieve that pleasure is fine by me.

I just wish more people would refrain from making absolute objective claims when it comes to such things as interconnects and such. If someone simply says that something sounds better to them, they won't get any argument out of me. All I have to say is "GREAT!"

But as soon as the absolute objective claims come out, it's a whole other ballgame. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thanks for keeping us all in check.</td></tr></table>

And thanks for taking my comments in the constructive vein they were intended.

Now could you please tell Dan to sloooooooowly let the trigger down on that .38 he's got pointed at my head? <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

se</font>

Dan Banquer

11-25-2003, 12:46 PM

<font color='#000000'>I don't use a 38, I use a colt 44 magnum, which is the largest handgun in the world. One shot will blow your head clear off........... So much for my Dirty Harry imitation.
Yes I typically enjoy my audio system more at night. Less ambient noise, and I take this time to relax and enjoy not only the music, but the work I, G&D Transforms and Fried Loudspeaker did. Now if only I wasn't so tired from working all day.</font>

Steve Eddy

11-25-2003, 04:50 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't use a 38, I use a colt 44 magnum, which is the largest handgun in the world. One shot will blow your head clear off...........</td></tr></table>

Ok, ok. It's a .44 magnum. I'm sitting here with a !@#$% gun to my head and you want ACCURACY!? <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I typically enjoy my audio system more at night. Less ambient noise, and I take this time to relax and enjoy not only the music, but the work I, G&D Transforms and Fried Loudspeaker did. Now if only I wasn't so tired from working all day.</td></tr></table>

Get a .38. They weigh a lot less than .44 magnums and won't wear you out as much. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

se</font>

11-26-2003, 12:25 AM

Dan Banquer : I don't use a 38, I use a colt 44 magnum, which is the largest handgun in the world.
Wrong Dan, the Desert Eagle 50-cal. AE has more velocity and throws a bigger slug than the 44-mag. The Desert Eagle in 44-mag. is so mild that it's a ladies gun. The 50AE in the same handgun kicks like a 44-mag. snub-nose with an aluminum frame. The 44 will liquefy the meat of a watermelon, while the 50 will also liquefy the rind.

Don't point any of them at your head, or anyone else's. Just smack your forehead with the palm of your hand, and move on. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

Dan Banquer

11-26-2003, 12:45 PM

<font color='#000000'>Gentleman: I stand corrected. I guess I need to go out and get an UZI. Lightweight, won't tire me out, sprays a lot of ammo in a hurry; just the perfect weapon if you have lousy eyesight, and are surrounded by marketing people from snake oil companies. *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

11-26-2003, 02:23 PM

<font color='#000000'>Want fire power, try one of these. *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'>

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m61pod.jpg</font>

Steve Eddy

11-26-2003, 10:07 PM

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Want fire power, try one of these. *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'> </td></tr></table>

Hehehe. Cool!

Now you wanna see something cool and VERY clever? Check this out:

http://www.backyardartillery.com/machinegun/darkbg1b.jpg

A hand-cranked Gatling gun that fires 144 rounds of... RUBBER BANDS!

Christmas is less than a month away and there aren't many gifts as cool and unique as this and still within the realm of affordability. You can find more information here: Rubber Band Machine Gun (http://www.backyardartillery.com/machinegun/).

se</font>

11-27-2003, 12:18 AM

<font color='#000000'>No way I can top that one Steve. * <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/electrical/tesla/pictures/turner/brent_1.jpg</font>

Steve Eddy

11-27-2003, 09:48 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hehehe. And that is why I don't design with vacuum tubes. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

se</font>

11-27-2003, 11:44 PM

<font color='#000000'>Well, how refreshing...an audio forum where opinions based on science and objective data are actually more the rule than the exception. I found this forum via a post in a DIY site (either Speakerbuilder.net or the Parts Express forum).

For personal and financial reasons I stopped paying serious attention to audio back in the Neolithic era* (mid to late 1970's), thus entirely missing the rise of cable mythology** and subjectivism in general. Imagine my disorientation on renewing my interest and returning to see what was up with audio lately, finding mags like Stereophile (what is all this crap? Where's the freakin' measurements? What happened to Stereo Review?) and trying to make sense of the discussions in the likes of the (aptly named) Audio Asylum!

I'll be back!

-"Rip Van Woofer" ;-{)}

--------

*Still have some technology from back then: my Dyanco PAT-4 preamp and FM-5 tuner are still going strong. But my Dyna Stereo 120 gave up the ghost. An Adcom GFA 545ii purchased on eBay replaced it. My grandson inherited my Original Large Advents, vintage  ca. 1972

**Sure, I knew about Monster Cable. But I figured it was aimed at the general public and that serious, sophisticated audio enthusiasts would never fall for such nonsense...</font>

11-28-2003, 12:45 AM

<font color='#000000'>Welcome back!

Guest : For personal and financial reasons I stopped paying serious attention to audio back in the Neolithic era* (mid to late 1970's), thus entirely missing the rise of cable mythology** and subjectivism in general. Imagine my disorientation on renewing my interest and returning to see what was up with audio lately, finding mags like Stereophile (what is all this crap? Where's the freakin' measurements? What happened to Stereo Review?) and trying to make sense of the discussions in the likes of the (aptly named) Audio Asylum!

Same story here, only I got interested in the hobby again around '96. Back then there weren't any forums for sensible discussions involving audio. During your long sleep things got a lot crazier, but they also got a lot better. Enjoy. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

Quote *Still have some technology from back then: my Dyanco PAT-4 preamp and FM-5 tuner are still going strong. But my Dyna Stereo 120 gave up the ghost. An Adcom GFA 545ii purchased on eBay replaced it. My grandson inherited my Original Large Advents, vintage ca. 1972

I still have an Infinity ServoStatic (not working), a Sony TTS-3000 (working) and a DKL modified Rabco SL-8e (not working) and enough other old gear to create a slight storage problem. My ST-120 gave up the ghost too, as did my PAT-5. Nothing lasts forever.

Quote **Sure, I knew about Monster Cable. But I figured it was aimed at the general public and that serious, sophisticated audio enthusiasts would never fall for such nonsense...

I saw this coming in the 70's, but thought that by the time the 90's had rolled around, improved education would have put an end to the nonsense. Quite an eye-opener, isn't it.</font>

11-28-2003, 06:46 AM

<font color='#000000'>A few years back, I was reviewing some literature on expensive cables. One of their more interesting attributes
was the 'Esoteric' quality of their perfomance ...

Esoteric :
Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult : mysterious.
Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.
Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
Not publicly disclosed; confidential.

Smiles,
Alex  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':;):'></font>

SoftEng

11-28-2003, 12:37 PM

Guest : Welcome back!

Quote (Guest @ Nov. 27 2003,23:44)For personal and financial reasons I stopped paying serious attention to audio back in the Neolithic era* (mid to late 1970's), thus entirely missing the rise of cable mythology** and subjectivism in general. Imagine my disorientation on renewing my interest and returning to see what was up with audio lately, finding mags like Stereophile (what is all this crap? Where's the freakin' measurements? What happened to Stereo Review?) and trying to make sense of the discussions in the likes of the (aptly named) Audio Asylum!
[/quote]

Same story here, only I got interested in the hobby again around '96. Back then there weren't any forums for sensible discussions involving audio. During your long sleep things got a lot crazier, but they also got a lot better. Enjoy. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

Quote *Still have some technology from back then: my Dyanco PAT-4 preamp and FM-5 tuner are still going strong. But my Dyna Stereo 120 gave up the ghost. An Adcom GFA 545ii purchased on eBay replaced it. My grandson inherited my Original Large Advents, vintage ca. 1972

I still have an Infinity ServoStatic (not working), a Sony TTS-3000 (working) and a DKL modified Rabco SL-8e (not working) and enough other old gear to create a slight storage problem. My ST-120 gave up the ghost too, as did my PAT-5. Nothing lasts forever.

Quote **Sure, I knew about Monster Cable. But I figured it was aimed at the general public and that serious, sophisticated audio enthusiasts would never fall for such nonsense..

I saw this coming in the 70's, but thought that by the time the 90's had rolled around, improved education would have put an end to the nonsense. Quite an eye-opener, isn't it.
I can sell you my old PAT-5 if you want it!

Rip Van Woofer

11-28-2003, 01:32 PM

<font color='#000000'>OK you narrow-minded, blinded-by-science cynics, I challenge you to deny the obvious audible superiority of my soon-to-be unleashed on a stunned world RipWire interconnects and speaker cables, made of a proprietary gold/silver/sodium/titanium alloy, hand-braided by monks in the Himalayas where they are closer to the Van Allen belt which adds a subtle cryptomagnetic charge to the Teflon-impregnated yak fur dielectric.

Contact me to get yours now at the special introductory price of US$500/foot!

But seriously...the difficulty of doing one's own DBT was mentioned earlier in the thread. There are plans for a clever and easy to build ABX box on the well known Elliot Sound site from Australia (link below). Little electronics involved -- basically just wires, switches and (I think) some trim pots for level matching. I'm thinking of building one for myself. Besides its educational value, it might also come in handy for auditioning any gear you're considering, i.e., is the extra $$ going to get me real performance improvements, or just a pretty faceplate? Assuming you can audition said gear at home, of course.

Cheers.
(f.k.a. bcoppola)
ABX tester project (http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm)</font>

11-28-2003, 02:38 PM

SoftEng : I can sell you my old PAT-5 if you want it!
No thanks, SoftEng. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> I have too much obsolete audio gear of my own without adopting anyone else's.

What kind of Software Engineering do you do?

11-28-2003, 02:52 PM

Rip Van Woofer : There are plans for a clever and easy to build ABX box on the well known Elliot Sound site from Australia (link below).
ABX tester project (http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm)
Hi Rip,

Rod Elliot (ESP) also helps out Gene (Audioholics) from time to time. The Web has made the world a lot smaller.

Have you seen Rod's discussion group (http://www.instantboard.com/users/rode/)?

Rip Van Woofer

11-28-2003, 03:21 PM

Guest : Have you seen Rod's discussion group (http://www.instantboard.com/users/rode/)?
Yes, I have, and posted a few times too, but it's mostly DIY oriented. I am beginning to dabble a bit in DIY too. Right now I'm building a pair of Linkwitz-designed small dipoles -- his PMT1's on his "prototypes" page. Just the thing for my new cables! <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

12-11-2003, 12:02 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hey, this is a good web site.

I am not an audio guru atleast in the sense of hi-fi equipment.  However I am a musician and produce sound gigs weekly for small gatherings in a church youth program with live music.  I also posses a good understanding of physics and electronics but again I am no guru.

Recently i bought a home entertainment system and the sales person talked me into buying "superior" cables and convinced me that the supplied cables "would not Cut it".  So I did.  

I also forgot . .  . I am a sceptical person and usually need good technical "backup" for claims of superiority of one system (or idea) over another.  So researched the electro-physical properties of cables (not just for audio), on many, many websites and read numerous tech articles.  Some of which have nothing to do with this debate.  To my (not-so-much) surprise, the overwhelming majority of technical (and I really mean technical!) authorities using scientific tests and double blind un-biased tests C O N C L U D E >>>>>> there is no scientific proof neither audiably nor physically that cables produce such a drastic difference in sound or video quality. (within reasonable quality cable)

maybe some one can answer this for me. . . .

In music we use balanced cables from our instruments to the mixer or preamp inputs because of the long runs these cables sometimes have to make.  The way they work - or atleast I understand- is that the mono signal is split into two parts ran in  isolated wire.  One of those signals is 180 degrees out of phase and polarly inverted, thus any interference incurred through the long run will spike each cable identically (positive or negative in each.  On the other end of the run the signals are processed and one signal is polarized to match the wave pattern of the other original signal.  This causes the interference spikes on the overlayed wave forms to cancell each other out, eliminating extraneous noise.  this is how "balanced" cables work. . .So I understand.

The big question is ----How does Monster Cables' claim that their cables are balanced.  There is only a center conductor and a ground.  Any balanced cable I've seen is three wires. Two signal carrying and a ground.  Please explain !!

Thanks! <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'></font>

12-14-2003, 02:03 AM

<font color='#000000'>Got here from the article on cable resonance and although I don't believe cables make any significant difference, I was wondering if these cable vendors were referring to mechanical resonance, not electrical resonance.  The "theory" would be that the changing magnetic field around the cable would cause the cable to vibrate and at the resonance, the vibrations would be large enough to affect the RLC parameters of the cable enough to be audible either by changing the physical spacing of the conductors or by compressing the dielectric or by causing the stands of a multi-stranded wire to move relative to each other.
I very much doubt that any such effect would turn out to be signficant but I wonder if that's where they are headed.</font>

12-14-2003, 02:11 AM

<font color='#000000'>hmmm, just checked out the cable vendor referred to in the article.  They are definitely talking about electrical resonance...  I think they would have had a better "story" with the mechanical resonance approach <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>.</font>

gene

12-14-2003, 03:03 AM

<font color='#000000'>Endymoin;

Excellent feedback.  I too initially thought they were referring to mechanical resonance and when I realized they weren't I was appauled and thus created the resonance article.  Mechanical resonance on terminated speaker cables is not a significant issue.  What you are referring to is the microphoney effect which can cause deleterious effects for low level signals transmitted into high impedance loads.  Eventually I may publish a paper on this to demonstrate the real world affect this has for applications such as microphone transmission and the non effect it has on speaker cables.</font>

abob

12-14-2003, 11:16 AM

gene : Matt;

I suspect that the snake oil vendors tout "break-in" so that the consumer will keep the product for longer than the return policy. Also, statistically if a consumer doesn't return a product within a weeks time, they are less likely to do so thereafter.

As for Monster products, they are well built and usually measure well. The only problem I have had with many of their RCA type cables is the barrel is to narrow causing me to almost break the RCA plugs off of my electronics when putting them on or off. And yes, I do twist while doing this procedure, but it still can be too challenging. I really love the WBT locking RCA plugs that Kimber uses on his cables, but they are very expensive <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('>

why not say it's probably "break in" their ears and their minds.
I think that's the reason!
<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':laugh:'> <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':laugh:'>

mustang_steve

12-21-2003, 06:55 AM

<font color='#000000'>As far as teh .44, .38, uzi and so on goes, check this out http://www.powerlabs.org/railguncurrent.htm

Railguns > all  <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

As far as cables go, might as well roll your own.  That way you'll have something made to your spec (length any aethetics, flexibility of cable, etc), and the price will most likely be far lower than even monster cable.  You can get interconnect cable that even has teflon dielectrics and foil shielding for about 75 cents a foot.  RCA connectors can easily be $2 each.

Sadly, when I hear someone talk about how they met this cable and suddenly their system's sound has changed, I think of the following.  Replace "cable" with deity of choice, and "system's sound" with "life" and it's basically a religious testimony with slightly different subject matter.

Sure we buy whatever sounds best to us, but that doesn't mean it's any more or less accurate than another component.  At least to me, accuracy is the goal.  Sure an accurate system will make some recordings sound bad, but that's because that recording IS bad.  

My gear may or may  not be even close to accurate, but I'm just playing with what budget I have.  With that budget, exploring anything that has no evidence backing it up is not going to happen.  Everything for my music system has to have plenty of specs, and anyhting that isn't speced (like calbes), I choose to make myself.  The end result, at least to me, seems to be very good for a sub-$900 system.  Would I call my system perfect?  Heck no, I have no proof backing it up.  I do knowf some weaknesses in the speakers especially.

Sound quality and What sounds good to a person often does not go had in hand, mostly due to pyschological reasons.  We all like things we are familiar with.  Example, if you grew up in some asian countries, fishheads are delicacies.  Here, we think of fishehads as disgusting.  If a person who grew up here goes to a country where fishehads are delicacies, they will still not like them, just because they are not comfortable with the idea yet.   Maybe in a year or two that person will love fishheads, who knows?

Sound is much like the fishhead, in that we get comfortable with certain sound characteristics, and consider everything else bad, when in truth the sound may have been far more accurate, and the listener was just uncomfortable with the new experience that they just became part of.

So we have the balance of what we have become accustomed to, and sound quality.  We all strive for quality, but some do fall into the hole of loving certain sound characteristics.  So long as they chose to fall in that hole, good for them, but if they are being guided down it by someone merely trying to make a commission, that's all bad.</font>

Chuck

12-30-2003, 11:23 AM

mustang_steve : As far as cables go, might as well roll your own. That way you'll have something made to your spec (length any aethetics, flexibility of cable, etc), and the price will most likely be far lower than even monster cable. You can get interconnect cable that even has teflon dielectrics and foil shielding for about 75 cents a foot. RCA connectors can easily be $2 each.
If you want to try some really nice RCA connectors, check out the Vampire C4X (http://vampirewire.com/mcart/index.cgi?ID=126094829&PID=IT185&code=13) connectors. They're a little more expensive, but they're cheaper if you buy them by the dozen, and they're worth the extra expense. Most connectors are either too loose or too tight, but these puppies are tight enough to stay connected while still being easy to connect and disconnect. The difference is not subtle. A well designed and well constructed connector that may well be the best available.

The DIY rail-gun is pretty cool, but in general, they lack portability. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'> Anyone working on a DIY OET particle beam weapon (http://www.tldm.org/news4/deathraygun.htm)?

http://www.orionsarm.com/tech/dstr_01_01.jpg

Dan Banquer

12-30-2003, 12:44 PM

<font color='#000000'>For anyone interested in rolling their own, I have two articles on this very web site. Bulletproofing Your System From Interference gives a lot of good cable suggestions and the DIY speaker cable article for the beginners. Have fun.
* * * * * * * d.b.</font>

03-15-2004, 08:38 PM

<font color='#000000'>Now for my confession:

I've got one of those super-expensive audiophile systems.  Sometimes I think I'm more interested in the sound than the music.  Yup, I'll avoid some classic jazz music because of its horrible sound and listen to a crisp recording of junk instead.

I'm delighted with the debate about cables.  In medicine, we use double blind randomized controlled trials to sort the wheat from the chaff.  Many times, a drug's mechanism of action is unknown and only found years after the drug has been seen to be safe and effective.  (Modafinil is a great example.)

I never thought much of Stereophile and its ilk because they NEVER test blind.  (Wine Spectator does and is invaluable as a result.)

I did my own double blind study.  It came about when my Levinson dealer was willing to put his money where his mouth was.  He bought the cables and gave them to me.  They were Straightwires and cost about $2000.  I would have to pay him only if I saw a $2k difference.

I asked my wife to change the cables randomly with two other and lesser pairs.  I repeated this for a total of 20 trials, blinded to each change.

I reliably recognized the $2000 cables 100% of the time.  The difference was amazing.

I wrote the check.</font>

gene

03-15-2004, 11:29 PM

<font color='#000000'>Dr. Nick;

Sounds like you found a cable that works well for your system and listening preferences.    Good job!</font>

03-16-2004, 11:12 AM

<font color='#000000'>Straightwires at 2K?  holy mackeral.

I made some speaker cable that reads about 10 nanohenries per foot, and my audiophile friend is going to try them as a replacement for some straightwire product..I didn't know they were that expensive...maybe I'm in the wrong business..

Eh..Eh...Hi Gene..

Cheers, John</font>

gene

03-16-2004, 01:55 PM

<font color='#000000'>John;

That cable sounds promosing.  What is Cp?

Right now I am working on Speaker Cable Face Off II (when time permits which these days seems rarely at best).  After this, I will be doing a face off article on DIY cables.  Perhaps I can throw your cable into the mix.</font>

03-16-2004, 02:20 PM

<font color='#000000'>Cp?

An interesting question. *The first piece I made, 20 feet long, has 288 pf per foot, with an inductance of 10 nanohenries per foot.

Using the tefzel dielectric, I now have the capability of tailoring both inductance and capacitance, the relation being:

L (nH) * C (pf) *= 2783.7

with air dielectric, the equation is:

L (nH) * C (pf) *= 1031

This is independent of conductor equivalent resistance, and will be skin invarient throughout the audio band.

I'm not sure what will be accomplished by testing it in comparison to any other cable at this time, as I can set the parameters at will, and your measurements of resistance and inductance will be flatline to well outside the audio band.

I'll try to link a graph here...

[img src="http://forums.audioreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=351&stc=1"]

If you still want, I can make some more. *Right now, I only have one braid size, so resistance per foot is pre-defined to what is on hand..
John</font>

03-16-2004, 02:22 PM

<font color='#000000'>Oh well..guess the html code doesn't work..

how does one post a jpeg here?

John</font>

gene

03-16-2004, 06:26 PM

<font color='#000000'>Great Scott thats a lot of capacitance!  I hope you are terminating that cable with a Zobel.

Why are you trying to get inductance so low?

At frequencies below w= R/L, the resistance exceeds the inductance reactance and the cable behaves like an RC transmission line known as the RC region.  Thus resistance should be the dominant metric you are trying to control.</font>

03-17-2004, 08:56 AM

gene : <font color='#000000'>Great Scott thats a lot of capacitance! I hope you are terminating that cable with a Zobel.

Why are you trying to get inductance so low?</font>
<font color='#000000'>It was a trial run at minimizing inductance..and it worked quite well.  My friend has less than a meter between his amps and speakers.

The capacitance is just a consequence of the equations and the dielectric I used.  It is a trivial matter to specify the capacitance as say, 50 pf per foot, and have the inductance as 60 nanohenries per foot..using the tefzel heatshrink.

I'm investigating ways of reducing the DC of the insulation towards 1.  Then, if one wants 50 pf per foot, I can produce a 20 nanohenry per foot cable.  Or, a 25 pf/ft cable with 40 nanohenries...its quite trivial, actually.

So, measuring my cables would be a good way of testing out your test equipment, but it's really trivial to best any metrics you decide make for a good cable, within the bounds of the equations.

Next, I'll be trying some other interesting geometries, to see if I can violate the double braid L-C relationship.

Cheers, John

03-17-2004, 09:16 AM

gene : At frequencies below w= R/L, the resistance exceeds the inductance reactance and the cable behaves like an RC transmission line known as the RC region. Thus resistance should be the dominant metric you are trying to control.
If I were treating the problem as a transmission line...yes, I would agree.

But for the lengths and frequencies we are talking about, RC transmission line theory does not apply, so the actual resistance can be considered as lump sum for the purposes of analysis. It would only be in the high frequency testing range where I would worry about that...you know, the 100 Khz and up region.

The only subset of transmission line theory I need for the double braid is the calculation of inductance and capacitance, I'm not even concerned with the characteristic impedance, although the first cable I made has one in the 4 to 8 ohm range....serendipity at best.

John

03-29-2004, 03:54 AM

Guest : <font color='#000000'>The big question is ----How does Monster Cables' claim that their cables are balanced. There is only a center conductor and a ground. Any balanced cable I've seen is three wires. Two signal carrying and a ground. Please explain !!</font>
<font color='#000000'>Hold on to your potatos here. The buzzword is "bandwidth balanced" where they claim to have a bunch of different gauge conductors for high/mid/low frequencies. Apparently it is their belief that different audio frequencies travel at different speeds through the cable, and that conductor geometry can change this. This must be one of the oldest snake oils on the cable market, afaik. So snake oils have another amazing property: They Never Dry Up.

pam

03-29-2004, 04:10 PM

Guest : Apparently it is their belief that different audio frequencies travel at different speeds through the cable, and that conductor geometry can change this.

It is true...
They have special speed traps in the geometry of the cable that catches the electrons that are faster. While they get their tickets they are slowed down. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>
You should see how much energy Monster are spending to do those pico-meter traps. Much smaller than Nano-technologies! With this technology I don't understand why they don't sell their cables at 100K per meter. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

BTW, Can anyone refer me to a good specialist in Telekinesys/Telepathy I need to contact the extra-terrestrial. My karmic path has to be enhanced. And I need something before my monition.

Also, for those interested, I have some Nano-Wawa cables to sell at only 375$ per meter.

gene

03-29-2004, 04:30 PM

<font color='#000000'>I just cut into a $1200 component video cable from an alleged high end company that is nothing more than a simple rat shack patch cord ($.30/ft) with a center conductor wrapped in plastic and the return wire surrounding it.  It DOESN"T have any shielding, not enough dielectric to maintain 75ohm characteristic impedance and very poorly designed banana plugs.  Yet the manufacturer claims they minimize "eddy currents".  This is probably the worst exotic cable I have ever seen.  It caused ghosting in my HDTV connection between my Satellite Box and Display.  It amazes me that people still buy into this hype and I have to continue on writing about it.  Am I sounding like a broken record?</font>

03-29-2004, 04:49 PM

gene : I just cut into a $1200 component video cable from an alleged high end company

Hmmm...it must be nice to be able to afford to do that...

Quotewith a center conductor wrapped in plastic and the return wire surrounding it. It DOESN"T have any shielding, not enough dielectric to maintain 75ohm characteristic impedance

It's magic plastic, Gene..

How did you determine it's not 75 ohm??

How does a return wire surround the center conductor without being a shield?

Quoteand very poorly designed banana plugs.

Banana plugs? Why would a video cable have banana plugs?

Quote Yet the manufacturer claims they minimize "eddy currents".

They do..especially after someone cuts it in half..

Quote It amazes me that people still buy into this hype and I have to continue on writing about it.

It doesn't amaze me..especially when they can read of "informed" opinions of "engineers", "high end designers", and "professors", who write diatribes about this stuff. The typical layman looks at these "major players" with ALL THAT EXPERIENCE, and believes them..without question.

What DOES amaze me is the fact that that vendor can't get the hype correct..like the vendor who claimed inductance increases 3 db/oct as skin effect happens...

Cheers, John

PS..
Quote Am I sounding like a broken record?

What's a record?

03-29-2004, 04:57 PM

pam : [quote=Guest,Mar. 29 2004,3:54]Apparently it is their belief that different audio frequencies travel at different speeds through the cable, and that conductor geometry can change this.

That does happen..why would you think otherwise?

It was necessary to understand it via the telegraphers equations to eliminate the problem..major distortion for long line tel..

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW, Can anyone refer me to a good specialist in Telekinesys/Telepathy I need to contact the extra-terrestrial.</td></tr></table>

Yah, right.....if you need a referrel, ya ain't gots it..

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">monition.</td></tr></table>

Ya got me on that word...is that the tail end of "am".

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, for those interested, I have some Nano-Wawa cables to sell at only 375$ per meter.</td></tr></table>

Nano-wawa??..sure, I'll buy a nano meter of it..

Cheers, John

gene

03-29-2004, 05:04 PM

<font color='#000000'>I shouild have know you would show up to ask more questions John. *Fly in the ointment ;)

As you know, a simple equation based on dielectric material and spacing of center *and return conductors determines characteristic impedance.

Coax Cable Impedance (http://audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/ComponentVideoCables.php)

I should have said, it doesn't have an effective shield. *Frayed return wire does not a good shield make <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

A good shield for a video cable is a combination braid and foil, or at least multiple braids. *Braids typically provide 60-98% coverage alone. *They are move effective at magnetic shielding than electric. *The reason is the braid distorts the uniformity of the shield current. *As you know at high frequencies, the braid becomes less effective, b/c the braid holes become larger than the wavelength of the signal. *Thus it is good measure to implement an additional foil shield. *
http://audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/images/image017.jpg

Unfortunately consumer industry settled on RCA long ago. *Fortunately however, the connector is electrically small compared to the wavelength of video (30MHz Bandwidth) so it really doesn't matter. *However, when your cable starts approaching lengths greater than a meter, the cable charactersitic impedance does matter (IE. 1/6 (3*10^8m/s/30*10^6MHz) = 1.67meters. *

In this case, the cable I was using from the company in question was 2 meters long, had about 30-40 ohm characterstic impedance and very poor shield. *

I haven't even started to write about video cables (not enough time in the day!), but I may after this experience.

Record, whats that? *Exactly <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

[edited: spelling]</font>

ThA tRiXtA

03-29-2004, 10:53 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hey after reading this mes,, I just wanted to ask a real world question...

Is a monster video 3 component cable any good?</font>

Rip Van Woofer

03-29-2004, 11:13 PM

<font color='#000000'>This article (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm) in Forbes a few years back is a classic on Monster. It explains a lot about them and is relevant to the subject of cable voodoo in general.

I thought eddy currents only happened in air and water!</font>

pam

03-30-2004, 02:37 AM

gene : I just cut into a $1200 component video cable ... It caused ghosting in my HDTV connection between my Satellite Box and Display.
Gene

If you get twice the signal then it is normal to pay more, you are having extra signals magically added. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

ThA tRiXtA

03-30-2004, 12:18 PM

<font color='#000000'>Good article on the monster cables, but it really never gets down to whether they are worth it, not worth it etc.

It does say that guy is richer than a skunk and the cables have a lot of markup on them...

I was more looking for a specific answer to  has anyone ever had any experiences with the monster video 3 component cable ?

[quote from article]

Early in the program, one Midwest salesman almost totaled a Ferrari by driving it off a cliff, but was saved from the Pacific Ocean by construction netting. For Lee, it was just another cost of doing business.

[end of quote]

Must be nice to write that one off!</font>

Dan Banquer

03-30-2004, 02:42 PM

<font color='#000000'>"I just cut into a $1200 component video cable from an alleged high end company that is nothing more than a simple rat shack patch cord ($.30/ft) with a center conductor wrapped in plastic and the return wire surrounding it. It DOESN"T have any shielding, not enough dielectric to maintain 75ohm characteristic impedance and very poorly designed banana plugs. Yet the manufacturer claims they minimize "eddy currents". This is probably the worst exotic cable I have ever seen. It caused ghosting in my HDTV connection between my Satellite Box and Display. It amazes me that people still buy into this hype and I have to continue on writing about it. Am I sounding like a broken record?"

I love it; but I keep hearing about this one cable vendor who proclaims that kosher chicken fat smeared on his cables will get you better performance.
d.b.</font>

A. Vivaldi

03-31-2004, 05:20 AM

gene : <font color='#000000'>I just cut into a $1200 component video cable from an alleged high end company that is nothing more than a simple rat shack patch cord ($.30/ft) with a center conductor wrapped in plastic and the return wire surrounding it. It DOESN"T have any shielding, not enough dielectric to maintain 75ohm characteristic impedance and very poorly designed banana plugs. Yet the manufacturer claims they minimize "eddy currents". This is probably the worst exotic cable I have ever seen. It caused ghosting in my HDTV connection between my Satellite Box and Display. It amazes me that people still buy into this hype and I have to continue on writing about it. Am I sounding like a broken record?</font>
<font color='#000000'>Are their anti-defamation laws or something against exposing this cable manufacturer by name so that others may not get scammed? If they can't be called to account for their mediocrity, then the knowledge you've gained is useless to us. No offence.

Dan Banquer

03-31-2004, 09:03 AM

<font color='#000000'>If you look at the companys advetising and what's posted I think you will be able to put two and two together. If this cable is tested and Gene posts the results then it should become extremely obvious.
* * * * * * * * *d.b.</font>

03-31-2004, 12:09 PM

<font color='#000000'>Hi Gene.  Got the pics of that cable..coupla notes..

First, the frayed outer shield is frayed only after you cut it and splayed it out.  Prior to it being dissected, what did the shield look like?  Ten to one it was a nicely spirally wrapped, uniform coverage shield...Not 100%, mind you, but certainly uniform.

Second, by spiralling the inner wire around a plastic core, they eliminate the internal inductance of the inner conductor..for all non tubular wires, the internal inductance is 15 nanohenries per foot...this inner wire construction eliminates that internal component.  The inner wire inductance will actually be 15 nanohenries divided by the number of strands the inner wire is composed of. (that correction factor accounts for the non zero thickness of the tube).

However, there is one thing that is wrong in the design, one which should probably not be used for hf signals, even though it may be ok for audio stuff.

They wound each conductor in a spiral fashion..In doing so, they have created a solenoidal component of magnetic field.  The outer spiral is opposite pitch from the inside..

What this does is create a solenoidal field component that is not cancelled by the coaxial geometry.  And it causes deviation from the ideal equation L*C=1031*DC.

In other words, this cable will have external sensitivity, will have too much inductive storage...

It may be of the correct dimensions for 75 ohm impedance, but by spiralling both (either) of the conduction paths, they have a horrible hf response..consistent with your ghosting experience.

Cheers, John</font>