Audio Cables Science or Religion?

[gene]

I have just written a new article that discusses how different people view cables.  Please join in the discussion and feel free to add your take.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtip....ce.html

I've been building my first 'real' HT/Music system for about the last year and a half. *In the course of building the system I've been scouring magazines and forums for information to help me build a decent system w/out spending too much money. *I just had an interesting expeirience with speaker cables that I thought I might share with you. *(I just read the rather scathing rebuttal of the AudioQuest 'FAQs')

My sytem is basically a Denon 3802, Panny CP72 DVD A/V, and Paradigm Monitor 7s L/R, CC 370 Center, Boston Accustic rears.

I had originally wired the system using a plain jane 16 to 18 gage speaker cable. *I originally bi-wired the fronts (I know that's a whole other diss.). *A freind of mine had access to an employee discount from Monster Cable and could get anything at about 70% of list. *So without too much research I settled on Z2 bi-wires for the fronts and a Z2 center. *Seemed like a #### of a deal. *It took about 3 months to get the cables and in that time I kind of became dis-enchanted with the whole exotic speaker cable thing. *I thought that with my system I probably wouldn't be able to hear much of a difference and worse my girlfriend would think that I was really foolish! *I became resigned to the idea that it would be mostly a cosmetic improvement.

We got the cables a week ago and hooked them up. *When we sat down the next day to really listen to the system. *My girfreind (very skeptical) surprised me and told me within the first track we listed to that she could hear a difference and thought that it sounded much clearer. I had to agree. *We were listening to the Buena Vista Social Club DVD Audio 2 channel stereo track. *We listened to several DVD-A and CDs, and I really think there was a significant audible improvement. *The speakers seemed a tad forward on the highs but with good clarity and detail before the cables. *They could be a little fatguing to listen to for long durations with music at high volume. *After the cable swap the highs were less forward with more detail and not fatiguing at all.

Now I personally believe that Monster is one of the worst offenders when it comes to cable marketing vodoo. *Much of the 'specifications' for their cables is a buch of marketing lingo dressed up as engineering that makes it impossible to tell what they really are doing in their cable design. *However their cables made a real sonic difference in my system. *Maybe the old cables had some defects, or its just the difference in gage.( I wouldn't know because Monster doesn't give the wire gage in their 'spec') *Also the idea of using cables as tone control (attenuating high frequency) seem to be a poor way of compensating for system defficiencies (sp?). *However, I think that the previous cables were potentialy causing the highs to be distorted (non-linear impedence vs. frequency?).

I think that after my experience that if one were to find good quality ( I know that's the hard part!) cables for the $100-$300 range they would be a good purchase. *Of couse companies like Monster make it almost impossible to tell what kind of quality your getting.

In doing a little more reaseach I came across a decent white paper on a cable company's site that you may want to check out. *The company is called Analysis Plus. *I ran across a review of their cables on Hometheaterhifi.com and a few other sites. *There short story is that they were/are a communications cable company that in the process of testing other cable companies speaker cables realized that most didn't perform well. *They decided to get into the market. *They approch seems to be very egineering/scientifically based. *In addition their cables seem to be not that expensive.

Check out their white paper. *I'd love to hear some response on it.

Mike

[audioengr]

I have to be one of the minority of cable manufacturers that has applied engineering and science to cable design.  I can do this because I have designed electronics and interfaces for a number of large computer companies for the last 25 years.  I don't claim to have all of the answers, but my studies seem to support my theories pretty well so far, based on the performance of my cables as judged by numerous customers and reviewers.

Frankly, it is really difficult to operate in a field such as audio cables that is dominated by so much hype and pseudo-science.  If I were not such a perserverent person with faith in myself I would have abandoned this pursuit 10 years ago.  Instead, I have challenged myself with finding some of the answers, including new methods of measurement, new ABX tests and solid correlation between measurements and listening tests.  I plan to perform some of these tests this summer, when the cable trade typically slows down.

Something else to think about:  If an engineer is really talented and bright, why in the world would he waste his career doing audio cables when he could get stock options and a $100K+ salary at various fortune 500 computer companies?  I've already had such a career.

Best Regards,
Steve N.
http://www.empiricalaudio.com

[Clint DeBoer]

Good feedback. I think it's important to understand the point of all of these recent discussions at AH as well... Namely that we're not saying cables never make a difference. What we're against is unscientific and false claims made by quasi-scientific voodoo peddlers out to make a buck off the unsuspecting.

There are some decent folks out there making appropriately-priced good quality cables and not marketing them with false hype and pseudo-science, but they seem to be in the minority.

For those selling their cables at over $100/ft, I think some detailed specs and test results should be provided to show how they differ from good-quality cables at 1/10 the price. If a difference is obvious and perceivable, it is certainly measurable.

And then there is the bottom line. We want to educate, but basically people have the right to spend their hard-earned money on whatever they want. We're not trying to save the world, but we would like to inform people of the potential for scams.

[Dick Hertz]

The whole cable thing is just overloaded with hype and falsehoods. It doesn't help that the so-called golded eared types claim to be able to hear the difference between silver and copper wire, between teflon and vinyl insulation, or between gold and nickel connections. Then there's cable "break in" which is a whole 'nother can of worms. I've asked the question, "Just exactly what happens to a cable to break it in?" The answers are "skin effect" and "copper lattice integration" and all sorts of lame BS that doesn't translate in any meaningful way to audible differences. How 'bout "directionality"? You mean to say that once a cable (without an external ground) is used in one position, that it won't work just as well if you reverse it? Gotta follow the arrows, right?  And the great thing is the cable gurus do all of this with sighted testing. Who said anything about placebo effect? In any truly scientific field, the way cables are tested would be laughed out of the building. What are these cable guys afraid of? Either the audible differences are as "dramatic" as they often claim them to be, so they can be easily identified by anyone with normally functioning ears 100% of the time or just the products of an overgrown case of "audio nervosa". "I know what I hear" is a common reply. That's fine. Now show me you can identify the better sounding cable in a blind test in some statistically meaningful way.

[Pat D]

There are so many strange ideas, many of them expensive, in audio and it is good to see someone who tells it as it is. *Unfortunately, many people take any argument against their beliefs as flaming

My friend, Eyespy, has some interesting material on audio myths and psychoacoustic references, as well as some links, on his website. *He has quite a nice system and himself uses some audio jewellery (as Dr. Floyd Toole called it), but makes no claims it improves the sound.

Eyespy's site

[Bprest0n]

Good article, so who are you referring to when you say "audio forum cult hobbyists"  audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

Do the letters AA ring a bell?

Ahhh, yet another article that warms the cockels of my heart. *I couldn't have said it better myself Gene!

I myself was briefly swayed and drawn in by the allure of fancy exotic cables. *I spent my money and realized I really didn't need to spend so much. *Since then I try to build my own if it seems cost-effective.

I like "audio jewelry" just as much as the next guy, perhaps even moreso, but there's no cable out there that looks cool enough to justify the hundreds of bucks they expect people to fork over. *And if cables' audible effect is less than what I would hear from a slight twist of say an EQ knob, why the heck should I care? *Aren't people interested in BIG improvements, not ones that MIGHT be audible if you were REALLY TRYING?

I also wonder why people are so quick to point to the wire as the component MOST responsible for what they are hearing, even when scientific evidence shows that the wire may not be effecting it that much. *When I've done critical listening (which isn't very much fun) I noticed that I was concentrating so hard on one thing (the vocal, the ride cymbal) in isolation that each play of the song seemed different and consequently I felt one component sounded different than another. *Certainly there are more variables at play than expensive wire alone. *But this doesn't get the attention like cables do for some reason.

Apparently it's more fun to buy a new toy for many people, even if said toy is as boring as a length of copper! *It takes all kinds I guess...

Anyway, keep giving 'em HE-LL Audioholics!

This voodoo stuff in audio (not just related to cables) is due to very slack rules from governing bodies and marketing people knowing that the amount of people out there with the knowledge to know these claims are crap are few.  How many people out there find out that there is such a thing called skin effect yet actually research it to find out it has no difference in baseband audio signals (at least audible difference) and makes differences starting around RF frequencies?

And let's not even start the whole "break in" issue... what a crock!

[Bprest0n]

Sorry Brian, but Audioholics already started debunking the "break in" issue  

Take a look here:

Audioquest FAQ Debated