Top Ten Signs of Cable Vendor Snake Oil

[Eric]

<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]

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

Audioquest Response</font>

 

[2x6spds]

<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>

 

[Guest]

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>

 

[Guest]

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

Audioquest Response

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.

R.O.</font>

 

[Eric]

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 &quot;un-knowing&quot;. 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]

<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]

<font color='#000000'>Eric;

Any credible Electrical Engineer knows that Skin Effect is not an issue with speaker cables. &nbsp;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 &quot;theories&quot;. &nbsp;

Audioquest Cable Theories Exposed

We are at least pleased that Audioquest responds to us. &nbsp;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]

<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. &nbsp;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>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[TjMV3]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

<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 &quot;break-in?&quot;  Did you also notice that Audioquest claims that their &quot;dielectric bias system&quot; 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]

<font color='#000000'>Radar;

That is a good point I didn't really consider. &nbsp;If their product is &quot;x&quot; times better at resolving an issue with zero relevance than I suppose it is a valid claim with no relevance

</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>I will first admit that I am not an audiophile. &nbsp;But I do have something to throw out. &nbsp;I know a little college physics and have some knowledge of conductors and insulators, however all that went out the window at my first &quot;real&quot; job. &nbsp;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]

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

 

[Guest]

<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>

 

[Guest]

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

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

One conclusion that can be drawn from that exchange is that the truth of the matter is that not every education includes enough &quot;college physics&quot; 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 &quot;science.&quot; Perhaps leakage will someday surpass soakage as a favorite source of audiophile mythology. ;-)

R.O.</font>

 

[PaulF]

<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>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Paul,

You're probably right. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;However, this IS exactly the kind of &quot;science&quot; that bolsters wire and other audio myths, and it wouldn't fly if people didn't buy into it. &nbsp;Still, I did react rather than respond, and I should probably just keep my mouth shut.

R.O.</font>

 

[Ken]

<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>