Top Ten Signs of Cable Vendor Snake Oil

What is Your Favorite "Snake Oil" Cable Scam?

  • Strand Jumping

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Diode Rectification

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Audiogenic Distortion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eddy Current Minimization

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Soakage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Skin Effect

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Cable Elevators

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Break In

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Cryogenically Freezing

    Votes: 4 33.3%

  • Total voters
    12
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
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. &nbsp;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 &nbsp;28 megavolts...all without any degradation whatsoever. &nbsp;Kapton is 6Kv per mil by spec, 6 Mv per inch.. &nbsp; 4 inches 24 Mv. &nbsp;Again, no degradation.

45 Mvolts? &nbsp;let me know when ya start talkin big numbers..


Cheers, John
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
<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.    


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 &quot;Handbook for Sound Engineers&quot; 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).  


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.)  


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

Thanks,

R.O.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
<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. &nbsp;Totally banned in the cryogenic systems for the same reason. &nbsp;Think it has something to do with the release of oxygen, but don't quote me on that.

Cheers, John</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.


Discussing audio with EE's is nothing like trying to discuss it with &quot;audiophiles.&quot; 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 &quot;improvements,&quot; were verified as effective through blind testing. Given the nature of some of their &quot;improvements&quot; 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, &quot;blind,&quot; and that there were &quot;results.&quot; And of course the statement that this is the basis for their cable &quot;improvements.&quot; 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.


R.O.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Radar;

I have been receiving similar requests via email almost on a daily basis. &nbsp;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.google.com/search?....est+dbs

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

Best Regards;

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

We shall see &nbsp;
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
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.


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 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>&quot;&quot;That makes sense, but doesn't help that much. &nbsp;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. &quot;&quot; &nbsp;RO

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

&quot;&quot;I was taught that radiation in and of itself will not cause problems with Teflon. &nbsp;Is that incorrect?&quot;&quot; &nbsp;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 &quot;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. &nbsp;If you break the rules, and something happens...then the actual information will surface...

Cheers, John</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Guest : ... we could polarize polycarbonate atoms and make polycarbonate 'slightly' conductive.
I particularly liked one feature of Audioquests Dielectric Biasing Scheme:

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

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

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>dLorde;

Good one, I actually missed that point. &nbsp;Thanks. &nbsp;
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>Hello Gene,
&nbsp;I have a background in EE, with a focus on Telecommunications and a little bit of micro-electronics. &nbsp;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.

&nbsp;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. &nbsp;Furthermore when I went to read various websites on the issue, I found their noted differences in sound were similar to mine. &nbsp;Namely I found a little more sluggishness and warmth in the Cardas. &nbsp;It maid the position I normally associate with the instruments a little more indistinct and blurry as well. &nbsp;I hadn't been familiar with the purpoted capabilities of either cable prior to trying them out.

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

&nbsp;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

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Shion;


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

For example, &nbsp;we have &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Many times people think they hear a difference because they expect too. &nbsp;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! &nbsp;Claims of non linear distortions, strand jumping, moon phase are at best ancedotal and certainly unsubstantiated.</font>
 
G

Guest

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

&nbsp;Actually quite often I find myself thinking this should make a difference and thus causing myself to go looking for them, thus favouring my &quot;finding&quot; a difference (not necessarily cables, it applies to amplifiers etc etc). &nbsp;I'm quite well acquainted with my ability to self delude and find it's a universal trait. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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 &quot;ready&quot; which I guess could be conveying something to me. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Normally I tell the dealer not to explain the difference to me and to play me the two items. &nbsp;I sit there and write down a list of adjectives that describe the differences if any. &nbsp;I compare this list with my second set of ears. &nbsp;We almost invariably agree, and we have set categories we use for a qualitative analysis of music. &nbsp;Hardly scientific right? &nbsp;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? &nbsp;Now what if 40 people agree? &nbsp;Is it sufficient even though you've biased them to look for a specific difference? &nbsp;What percentage is good enough? &nbsp;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 : ) ) &nbsp;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.


&quot;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. &quot;

Now as for DBT's being the only way to prove sonic differences... What about using some sort of frequency response measuring device? &nbsp;So I would suggest there are otherways to determine if a cable could alter sonics. &nbsp;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? &nbsp;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. &nbsp;I don't claim to know why they make &nbsp;a difference, just that I have preferences in my system. &nbsp;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! &nbsp;If I can hear a brush on a high hat instead of constant murmur in the background sell me distortion. &nbsp;If it happens to work better than chaning my preamp for a better model then I'd rather spend the money on the cable. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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 &quot;distortion&quot; of amazing adaptability. &nbsp;

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. &nbsp;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). &nbsp;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. &nbsp;I suppose it's possible that most audio systems fall into the same set of flaws but it seems .... well puzzeling. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;But if you conceed that I can then you face the problem of explaining the above phenominon. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;

Thanks</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
<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 &quot;consumer&quot; gear (what audiophiles call &quot;mid-fi&quot;).  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>
 
P

PaulF

Audioholic
<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

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Paul;

Your thoughts about cable break in match mine exactly. &nbsp;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</font>
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Shion;

That was a rather lengthy response, but a good one  
 
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

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>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

dlorde

Audioholic Intern
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
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 &amp; orchestra, Gramophone's Record of the Year), said of the cables:

&quot;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 &amp; 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...&quot;

Nuff said
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Dlorde/PaulF;

I think you guys provided excellent commentary on Cable Breakin and certainly worth turning into an article &nbsp;
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

dlorde

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

I think you guys provided excellent commentary on Cable Breakin and certainly worth turning into an article
</font>
<font color='#000000'>Thanks - if you want to use any of what I post for an article, you're welcome &nbsp;
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top