• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Is there even a tiny bit of truth in all the marketing voodoo that audio cable manufacturers say? Or is it all BS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast switching definitely makes it easiest to detect differences between two audio streams. If we needed to put more nails in this coffin, I suppose that would do it. Personally I think the coffin is nailed shut, glued shut, welded shut, wrapped in chains and encased in concrete. The possible audible effects of cables are known, they don't apply in the vast majority of systems.

But apparently no cable reviewer in the world needs fast switching to (putatively) successfully identify the audible differences between two cables. Hmm...
 
It's also pretty curious that audio reproduction seems to be the only branch of technology where these critical aspects of signal transmission have been implemented.

CERN would probably find a ton of new particles in no time if they didn't use boring old copper wire to get data from their sensors. LIGO would be swimming in gravitational-wave observations if they did the same. VLT would get pictures of the cosmos with unbelievably new claity. ITER should hurry and implement it immediately, so that when it's finally ready, they'll reach a Q value of 1000 on the thermal power of their fusion plasma in no time! All of those poor dumb scientists. They don't have a clue what they're doing. But the audio cable manufacturers know so much better :p
 
It's also pretty curious that audio reproduction seems to be the only branch of technology where these critical aspects of signal transmission have been implemented.

CERN would probably find a ton of new particles in no time if they didn't use boring old copper wire to get data from their sensors. LIGO would be swimming in gravitational-wave observations if they did the same. VLT would get pictures of the cosmos with unbelievably new claity. ITER should hurry and implement it immediately, so that when it's finally ready, they'll reach a Q value of 1000 on the thermal power of their fusion plasma in no time! All of those poor dumb scientists. They don't have a clue what they're doing. But the audio cable manufacturers know so much better :p
i wouldnt be shocked if every single sensitive and essential component at cern is ran with ptfe coated silver wire itself. maybe not the higher level coms and power supplies? but im sure all the sensors and expensive small components aren't wired with run of the mill copper wire dude.....
 
Asking this question because you see the 'technology' printout for all these cable manufacturers and does any of it actually make any sense to an electrical engineer here? Some of these cable companies even say stuff that directly contradict what other cable companies say!

A few examples of what these companies say about their technology:

Morrow Audio:



Wireworld:


Nordost:


Cardas:

AudioQuest:


Kimber:


Shunyata:


All I hear is a bunch of jargon about semi-technical terms like 'eddy currents' 'skin effect' 'dialectric' etc ( probably to convince the consumer that these companies with their big vocabulary must know what they are talking about ) and some of them even contradict each other (Morrow for example charges money for people to use their burn in machine service! whereas Cardas says burn in machines don't have any effect).
I haven't read all the comments, but Keith's about the hype being "complete bullshit" has undoubtedly been re-echoed throughout all twelve pages and a goodly proportion of the 223 comment on this thread. But I bet not one of them told you this: The fact that the claims of these uber-expensive cable makers are bullshit is good news. In fact it's great news provided you know it and accept it. Congratulations, you've not only saved yourself thousands of dollars not pursuing a moronic canard: that cables make huge differences for the better in the sound of your system (when in fact they either make no difference, or else use some bizarre filter to make the sound measurably worse), you will have also learned to trust your own critical faculties and develop your abilities to separate truth from falsehood. In short, you will have taken the first step to developing in yourself one of life's most invaluable tools: a bullshit detector.

Now go out and unsubscribe to Paul McGowan's YouTube channel!
 
Last edited:
At CERN, they use simple, high quality industry wires, matched to the task. Then the sensors get calibrated and thats all. They don't use any precious metal for such dumb causes.

Mr. Genesis must have a very high financial interest in promoting voodoo cables and the like or be the Troll of the week. Any reasonable argument just beads off from him and is followed by a new set of voodoo promotion rant. I'm sure there is some Teflon insulation helping him with that immunity agains science.

What a boring thread.

There is a simple rule for audio wires: You can get a 50% cable, which is a bad quality, just like any other percentage below 100% , which represents the perfect one. Once you reached 100% there is no way to get something better than perfect.

Now some individuals want to tell you there are cables that perform better than 100%. If you learned your basic's about percentage, you will know that a 120% cable is not possible and pure voodoo and marketing lies.
Thanks to the global industry, there is no lack of perfect cables that are quite cheap as well. If you find some exotic wire construction only made and used with audio, the rest of the world doesn't need it for a reason. It is pure rip off and non sense.
 
i wouldnt be shocked if every single sensitive and essential component at cern is ran with ptfe coated silver wire itself. maybe not the higher level coms and power supplies? but im sure all the sensors and expensive small components aren't wired with run of the mill copper wire dude.....

You'er most likely in for a big surprise then. Lots of shielding, differential transmission when possible and an impedance that matches the bandwidth of the signals + every other trick in the book to keep signal integrity. But the material itself is likely just plain old copper. There's no need for anything else. Nobel metals are only used for corrosion protection, and silver is used in contacts because of its "self healing" ability. Anything more exotic is only needed in cases with abnormal thermal or mechanical conditions.

Seriously, different metals do not transmit signals differently. They have different resistance, that's all. The only case where silver is a better choice, is the one where a 6% reduction in weight is absolutely critical.
 
You'er most likely in for a big surprise then. Lots of shielding, differential transmission when possible and an impedance that matches the bandwidth of the signals + every other trick in the book to keep signal integrity. But the material itself is likely just plain old copper. There's no need for anything else. Nobel metals are only used for corrosion protection, and silver is used in contacts because of its "self healing" ability. Anything more exotic is only needed in cases with abnormal thermal or mechanical conditions.

Seriously, different metals do not transmit signals differently. They have different resistance, that's all. The only case where silver is a better choice, is the one where a 6% reduction in weight is absolutely critical.
I would suggest not wasting keystrokes. Things are pretty clear.
 
Don't mean to hurt your feelings but turntables and needles by their very nature are microphones, some more so then others.
In any case they are antiques and mostly irrelavant in any discussion of modern High Fidelity components.
Sure, I'm well aware of that. My comment was just a remark concerning extra vibration dampers, when - at least in my opinion - turntables should have reasonably good bulit-in vibration damping, that makes an extra one superfluous. In my experience, some do, and some don't. Then again, I live in an apartment building and like to keep my listening volume at reasonable level.

ps. No feelings were hurt while reading Your post.
 
. and yet there are people who swear by them
Could be applied to anything in life people have opinions about.

Audio is full of those opinions.

Why fill a thread with all of those silly opinions and posting opinions on those opinions and adding one's own opinion ?
 
Last edited:
It's also pretty curious that audio reproduction seems to be the only branch of technology where these critical aspects of signal transmission have been implemented.

CERN ... LIGO ... VLT … ITER …

And yet, everyone forgets 40-pin vs. 80-pin IDE connectors, Cat8 vs Cat3 cable, or even the challenges with old school trace length matching
1734241773834.png


So all the hand waving audiophile cable theory actually DOES matter.

But, when it matters for PCI express, it doesn’t matter for audio, at least when it comes to practical benefit.

Everyone talks level matching, but when you actually do it, it’s impossible to level match. L-C-R can impart frequency response, amplitude and phase changes which may not respond to a simple volume up or down. I used the example of resistance, if the lower resistance cable at max volume delivers you louder dB than the max volume of the other cable, and you are playing at max blast, the better cable can win in blind testing because it’s louder, and if you can only correct by 0.5 dB with your volume control, then the better cable will always be better when you match volumes as close as possible.

If you digitally attenuate the lower resistance cable, then the two sound the same. Cables don’t make a difference. But all you did was take the better, lower resistance cable and then take away the premium conductivity through post processing.

You may not need the lower resistance but it is better.

If you had EQUAL PRICING and it was $10 for the normal and $10 for the better cable, we would all unanimously recommend the better cable.

If you were Elon Musk and there was a $3000 cable that was 0.1 dB better than the $10 cable, then maybe it’s fine for him to do that. It’s wealth re-distribution done with intent as opposed to being forced onto someone.

Where you DON’T want to be is spending $3000 on a cable that has HIGHER resistance or higher capacitance so that it is less transparent…. OR at the very least c it would be very inefficient.

Last, unless Elon Musk is hiding amongst us since he does have a fancy Sonus Faber setup, so he’s not a Bose/Sonos/Bang and Olufsen type of guy, for most of us, even those who have saved/allocates more of their budget to audio, spending money on nice cables comes at a compromise of something else, which is where it is useful to recommend against investing in fancy cables.

I disagree with @genesisaudiorack that criticisms only come from people who haven’t experienced very expensive products on very revealing systems, but I also disagree with @Wolf11Man that there is some ulterior motive. It’s an Internet forum. Men like to argue that they are right all the time and audiophile hobby is disproportionately men :)

I also disagree with @Killingbeans that high performance scientific computing ignores cables. It’s OK for cables to matter in areas like HPC and OK for cables to be one of the audio products where the point of diminishing returns occurs as soon as you have electrical conductivity of any sort!
 
@Killingbeans and @Wolf11Man are correct. CERN, Fermilab and other research facilities use robust industry proven cables and connectors. Once the data is detected/collected by the sensor it's sent down simple copper or fiber, nothing fancy or exotic. Having spent hundreds of hours one summer at Fermilab making thousands of cables the only exotic conductors were in the liquid helium cooled superconductors in magnets.

One exception that does come to mind are the data cables used by the Ice Cube Neutrino project. IIRC they used shielded twisted pair cables with a kevlar thread to suspend the detectors approximately 2500 meters below the surface of the ice. Pretty much a standard cable but reinforced to support the additional weight.
 
if concluding the idea i had wasnt sufficient enough, and suggesting that multiple rooms setup the same way, with only a cable change was the progressive idea for a test then that eliminates the previous claims of blind testing that cables dont matter

the idea is setup a room with two systems only, one on each side. then mute each one for one second and continue on the other. eliminating time factor that is a test fail for the human ear. only side by side effect can be decided upon honestly. i truly think testing a cable, swapping a wire set, and trying again leads to a hard reality of not being able to tell. due to time. nobody has done a true side by side and posted it. and if you want to use a switch box it just adds a connection between. but the fact is the time issue. hearing one thing and hearing another a second later and switching back andf forth is the only logical appropriate in house human ear test.

Not sure I understand your suggestion, but if the speaker is not the same speaker at the same location, the difference due to this will be larger than any cable. So what you need is not two systems, but a way to instantly switch cables in the same system.

If this was so easy to do and prove, wouldn't the cable manufacturers have benefited from doing this already? Also, for a long time James Randi (RIP) offered a million dollars to anyone who could do this, yet no one was able to. Wonder why that is.
 
I also disagree with @Killingbeans that high performance scientific computing ignores cables
He said what now?
Lots of shielding, differential transmission when possible and an impedance that matches the bandwidth of the signals + every other trick in the book to keep signal integrity. But the material itself is likely just plain old copper. There's no need for anything else.
Straw man much?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom