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

[gofishus]

no just something ive been practicing doing on cables. i personally want something with the least amount of resistance.

I see you own some Morrow Audio cables. Regardless of what you think of the sound quality difference of their cables, you must admit there are some things quite suspect about this company. For example:

Cable Break-in Service (not discountable)

NOTE: This service cannot be performed on our Ethernet, HDMI and Toslink cables. Save wear and tear on your equipment with our cable break-in service. 3, 5, 10 and 20 day service is available. Service applies to your entire order that is in the cart. We use the Hagerman Frydaddy breakin machine...

www.morrowaudio.com

A break in service for cables? And he charges you more to break them in for longer? Seems very shady to me even amongst cable manufacturers! Not even AudioQuest is greedy enough to charge people for a break in service for cables. Like.. ok saying that cables make a sound difference is one thing and we can all argue about it here, but break in for cables making a difference and then charging for it? Wow.

Also...

4. What are the improvements between models as I move up higher?​

You can expect a 15% to 20% improvement in sound for each level as you move up the line. The improvements are in soundstage, resolution, realism, musical presentation, impact, etc.

Examples...

15% to 20% improvement for the SP2 compared to the SP1.

15% to 20% improvement for the SP3 compared to the SP2.

15% to 20% improvement for the SP4 compared to the SP3, etc.

There's a precise % of improvement for each cable level... despite the fact that Morrow Audio themselves claim that soundstage, resolution, impact, 'musical presentation' etc can't be measured and are qualitative! So.. how the heck is he getting these % measurements from??

 

[Bruce Morgen]

no just something ive been practicing doing on cables. i personally want something with the least amount of resistance.

....which is a function of conductor material, gauge (diameter), and length -- not other measurable characteristics that have no impact on performance at the low frequencies and impedances involved in connecting a passive speaker system to an amplifier.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

There's a precise % of improvement for each cable level... despite the fact that Morrow Audio themselves claim that soundstage, resolution, impact, 'musical presentation' etc can't be measured and are qualitative! So.. how the heck is he getting these % measurements from??

They originate from where the sun never shines, of course -- IOW, more marketing codswallop.

 

[tomtoo]

no just something ive been practicing doing on cables. i personally want something with the least amount of resistance.

Thats easy just good cooper anvd high diameter.

no, and to simplify my stance:
the way i choose my components obviously is by how they sound persay.
this is highly applicable from the signal to preamp to power amp compliment i enjoy.

the one single major factor i NOW believe, is if doesn't matter is i have a 200 dollar cable or a 3000+ dollar cable. i simply take a decent volt meter and i test the cables from end to end. i generally lead my decisions on that the the lowest values possible. i just want a cable from quality material that doesn't have as much resistance as the "other cable"

How long are your cable runs? What mm^2 or awg you use?

 

[livinon2wheels]

Well according to the guy from Morrow Audio...



The reason why they don't show measurements is because what they are claiming to improve, can't be measured, only 'experienced'!

This isn't a direct quote, so don't flame me because I paraphrased something our fearless leader here at ASR said or implied in one (or more) of his equipment reviews. The gist was that some of the equipment nowadays is so good that getting meaningful distortion measurements is almost impossible because its right at the threshold of the ability of the measuring equipment to resolve to that level. I submit that if the cables connected to the equipment under test had ANY bearing or effect on the quality of the measurement or added to the results measured Amir would have discovered this as he has tested thousands of pieces of gear here, some of which was clean enough that how it was connected became important. Further if the cables made any difference he surely would have said something in the review that referenced that notion. I have never read a review however that said that if we used Cardas cables for example, the equipment measured much better. (not picking on Cardas any more than any other cable manufacturer because they are all guilty as sin of selling BS) If you can make lab measurements using 'standard' cables that equal or best the equipment manufacturer's specs, then how is it possible the cables are subtracting in some way from the test results? I definitely call BS on all the cable crap that's out there. It just doesn't matter to any appreciable degree. Speaker placement makes more difference than ANY other change (in any given listening room) you might make IMHO, with the exception perhaps of room treatments.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Like.. ok saying that cables make a sound difference is one thing and we can all argue about it here, ...

No, we really can't.
There is NOTHING of substance to discuss as long as the cable isn't corrupting the signal with whacky LCR values.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

I see you own some Morrow Audio cables. Regardless of what you think of the sound quality difference of their cables, you must admit there are some things quite suspect about this company. For example:

Cable Break-in Service (not discountable)

NOTE: This service cannot be performed on our Ethernet, HDMI and Toslink cables. Save wear and tear on your equipment with our cable break-in service. 3, 5, 10 and 20 day service is available. Service applies to your entire order that is in the cart. We use the Hagerman Frydaddy breakin machine...

www.morrowaudio.com

A break in service for cables? And he charges you more to break them in for longer? Seems very shady to me even amongst cable manufacturers! Not even AudioQuest is greedy enough to charge people for a break in service for cables. Like.. ok saying that cables make a sound difference is one thing and we can all argue about it here, but break in for cables making a difference and then charging for it? Wow.

Also...



There's a precise % of improvement for each cable level... despite the fact that Morrow Audio themselves claim that soundstage, resolution, impact, 'musical presentation' etc can't be measured and are qualitative! So.. how the heck is he getting these % measurements from??

to the first point. AGREED. and i do think i may be able to build better for less.

to the second point you made i have zero opinion bc i crank mine up for long periods of time so i can "burn mine in" if its a valid thing persay.

to the third thing you mentioned i asked the guy on the phone about that exact same thing - his response was sorta muddy as in its interpreted wrong - he claimed the improvement is the improved addition of cable mass. like how much more it was as a improvement. which i agree is subjectively inaccurate, and could have been worded very different.

 

[gofishus]

I would work on the principle that everything you have read and believed about audio up to this point is a lie or at best disingenuous.
Keith

Ok here let me list these out then based on what 'audiophiles' have told me... and what my understanding is of each.

1. The end reproduction equipment makes an audible difference. i.e headphones, speakers. True. We all know speakers and headphones themselves sound different, pretty universally agreed upon.
2. The source of the audio makes an audible difference ie. Spotify vs Tidal vs mp3 vs CD vs Vinyl vs FLAC file vs DSD etc. True.. up to a point. There is definitely benefits from higher resolution audio.. up to a point. I cannot say once we get past CD level that everyone can then distinguish a difference between FLAC and DSD for example.
3. The DAC makes an audible difference i.e AKM vs ESS vs R2R etc. The more expensive the DAC and the more higher level the chip, the better. True.. up to a point. A better DAC will definitely improve sound quality up to a point coming from a low quality DAC, but when it comes to the 'flagship' tier DACs and upper tier DACs, I'm not really sure how many people can tell a difference.
4. The amplifier makes an audible difference i.e class A vs class AB vs class D, architecture etc. Not sure. For power, of course it does. But as for improving the sound? I have heard people say that more expensive amplifiers improve the sound.. but how and why? An amplifier ideally has one job and that is to amplify the signal. Any colorations to the sound are either intentional (tube amps) or if not intentional, then it's a defect in the amplifier. An amplifier should ideally not impart any coloration of it's own to the audio quality and even if it does - how can it actually 'improve' the sound?
5. Room correction software makes an audible difference i.e Dirac vs Audyssey vs Anthem etc True. I believe there is a measurable difference between different room correction software.
6. Cables make an audible difference. False. That's what we have been showing here in this thread, and many others. Differences in how we perceive sound between cables is a result of placebo effect and priming our brains.
7. Burn in / Break in makes an audible difference. Yes and No. It makes a difference for speakers and headphones because there are physical drivers inside these devices. For amplifiers, DACs and cables, I am not so certain as to what the mechanism is behind how burn in or break in improves the sound on these.
8. Isolation equipment makes an audible difference. i.e using isolation feet or spikes for audio equipment improves soundstage and detail etc Not sure. I think it may improve some aspects but it might not be totally audible. For speakers and turntables it makes sense, but isolation stands for amplifiers? Not sure.
9. Room treatment makes an audible difference. True. I personally haven't done it, but I believe people have measured the differences in treating their room acoustically.

Are there any conclusions I made here that are incorrect? or any other missing variables? Let me know.

 

[tomtoo]

No, we really can't.
There is NOTHING of substance to discuss as long as the cable isn't corrupting the signal with whacky LCR values.

Great!! Again for all yes cables have different LCR and this changes FR. Usually just a tiny bit. Nothing to discuss about and for sure nothing to spend gazillions for. Thats science thats facts. No silver sound from silver cable and no golden sound from golden cable.

 

[madrac]

gofishus as to 8, I think it depends on what isolation equipment and what component(s). For example, when I would turn up my system while listening to LPs, there would be feedback via the turntable. I put a Symposium Acoustics Segue ISO platform under it and, voila, no more feedback even at obscenely loud volumes. Under other equipment, eg amp or Oppo, I've got either a SA Segue, Svelte or Roller Block Jrs. and can't hear any audible difference.

 

[Killingbeans]

i do not believe new cables are exemplary examples yet, as i am on the fence still about cable break in.

But... why? What on earth would change over time? It makes zero sense.

if you wanted to take the ten best cables on the market and dish them out against a cheapo cable. you would need ten systems all lined up and wired with only a cable change. you cant just swap cables or do a a/b with different hardware and expect people to figure it out.

Terrible idea, no offence.

Those ten systems would need to be placed identically in ten identical rooms with identical acoustics. And that wouldn't work either since no two speakers are identical. They are all manufactured to perform within a tolerance, but 100% audibly identical performance is pratically impossible.

A ten way switch box in a single system makes infinitely more sense. Unless you'd claim that a switch box would "pollute" the experience. In that case, there's no hope for a reasonable discussion.

Even better, just measure the RCL parameters the cables and calculate how it it interacts with the in- and output impedances of your gear. That's all you really need.

 

[HalSF]

For me there's something sad and almost intellectually sinful about the way audiophile manias like the fixation on high-end cable and interconnects disregard the glorious scientific history of electronics in favor of a pugnacious and reductive drama of subjectivity and conspicuous consumption.

When you consider the amazing history of electrical engineering and communications, of the vistas opened by James Clerk Maxwell's classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, of the development of the telegraph and telephony and radio, audio transmission and recording, and semiconductors and digital miniaturization — all built on mathematics and measurements — how strange is it to retreat to mysticism and alchemy?

A while back I was watching a debate unfold on another forum about the supposed benefits of audiophile USB cables, and I found myself venturing over to USB.org, where the standards for USB devices are maintained and updated, and I started browsing the 439-page PDF documentation of the 2024 USB-C cable and connector specs. To me, the clarity, elegance, and robustness of these standards are beautiful to contemplate. The impulse to downplay and shrug off that kind of rigorous beauty, and to substitute a belief that in some obscure corner, audiophile USB cable makers have independently discovered things that somehow improve upon these objective and proven standards, and somehow make music sound better, seems grotesque.

The worst thing to me about fancy cable thinking is this crippling of the sense of scientific wonder in favor of cheap magic tricks built on shiny objects and suggestibility. A series of scientific revolutions have given us devices and tools of near-miraculous precision and performance, and yet people are worshipping the idolatry of "I know what I'm hearing" at the altar of a Nordost sales brochure.

 

[Mnyb]

Ok here let me list these out then based on what 'audiophiles' have told me... and what my understanding is of each.

1. The end reproduction equipment makes an audible difference. i.e headphones, speakers. True. We all know speakers and headphones themselves sound different, pretty universally agreed upon.
2. The source of the audio makes an audible difference ie. Spotify vs Tidal vs mp3 vs CD vs Vinyl vs FLAC file vs DSD etc. True.. up to a point. There is definitely benefits from higher resolution audio.. up to a point. I cannot say once we get past CD level that everyone can then distinguish a difference between FLAC and DSD for example.
3. The DAC makes an audible difference i.e AKM vs ESS vs R2R etc. The more expensive the DAC and the more higher level the chip, the better. True.. up to a point. A better DAC will definitely improve sound quality up to a point coming from a low quality DAC, but when it comes to the 'flagship' tier DACs and upper tier DACs, I'm not really sure how many people can tell a difference.
4. The amplifier makes an audible difference i.e class A vs class AB vs class D, architecture etc. Not sure. For power, of course it does. But as for improving the sound? I have heard people say that more expensive amplifiers improve the sound.. but how and why? An amplifier ideally has one job and that is to amplify the signal. Any colorations to the sound are either intentional (tube amps) or if not intentional, then it's a defect in the amplifier. An amplifier should ideally not impart any coloration of it's own to the audio quality and even if it does - how can it actually 'improve' the sound?
5. Room correction software makes an audible difference i.e Dirac vs Audyssey vs Anthem etc True. I believe there is a measurable difference between different room correction software.
6. Cables make an audible difference. False. That's what we have been showing here in this thread, and many others. Differences in how we perceive sound between cables is a result of placebo effect and priming our brains.
7. Burn in / Break in makes an audible difference. Yes and No. It makes a difference for speakers and headphones because there are physical drivers inside these devices. For amplifiers, DACs and cables, I am not so certain as to what the mechanism is behind how burn in or break in improves the sound on these.
8. Isolation equipment makes an audible difference. i.e using isolation feet or spikes for speakers improves soundstage and detail etc Not sure. I think it may improve some aspects but it might not be totally audible.
9. Room treatment makes an audible difference. True. I personally haven't done it, but I believe people have measured the differences in treating their room acoustically.

Are there any conclusions I made here that are incorrect? or any other missing variables? Let me know.

Yes well designed DAC’s have probably been indistinguishable from each other for maybe 30 years and no hope in telling different chips ESS or AKM apart implementation is everything . It follows logicaly if you think a bit , a crude idea the CD itself and god old 16/44.1 is around -96dB ( better with noise shaping ) the actual recording on the CD much much worse intrinsic sound quality. Almost all DAC’s Amir ever tested beats the CD system thus all can in practice flawlessly reproduce any CD , nothing missing or obscured or skewed.

 

[Anton S]

This thread reminds me of one of Mark Twain's old quips: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

 

[tomtoo]

Ok here let me list these out then based on what 'audiophiles' have told me... and what my understanding is of each.

1. The end reproduction equipment makes an audible difference. i.e headphones, speakers. True. We all know speakers and headphones themselves sound different, pretty universally agreed upon.

True like your room , distance from speaker and so on.

2. The source of the audio makes an audible difference ie. Spotify vs Tidal vs mp3 vs CD vs Vinyl vs FLAC file vs DSD etc. True.. up to a point. There is definitely benefits from higher resolution audio.. up to a point. I cannot say once we get past CD level that everyone can then distinguish a difference between FLAC and DSD for example.
3. The DAC makes an audible difference i.e AKM vs ESS vs R2R etc. The more expensive the DAC and the more higher level the chip, the better. True.. up to a point. A better DAC will definitely improve sound quality up to a point coming from a low quality DAC, but when it comes to the 'flagship' tier DACs and upper tier DACs, I'm not really sure how many people can tell a difference.

All over CD audio is hard to differ. Everybody who tells he can do has to proof.

4. The amplifier makes an audible difference i.e class A vs class AB vs class D, architecture etc. Not sure. For power, of course it does. But as for improving the sound? I have heard people say that more expensive amplifiers improve the sound.. but how and why? An amplifier ideally has one job and that is to amplify the signal. Any colorations to the sound are either intentional (tube amps) or if not intentional, then it's a defect in the amplifier. An amplifier should ideally not impart any coloration of it's own to the audio quality and even if it does - how can it actually 'improve' the sound?

Amps are very hard. A good amp in his healthy parameters does not realy differ much from a other. Proplems can be phono inputs there can be real differences.

5 can . Room correction software makes an audible difference i.e Dirac vs Audyssey vs Anthem etc True. I believe there is a measurable difference between different room correction software.

All correction software can have a big impact. Come on its there job.

6. Cables make an audible difference. False. That's what we have been showing here in this thread, and many others. Differences in how we perceive sound between cables is a result of placebo effect and priming our brains.

True they can have. But no voodoo. Its all good old LCR and damping factor.

7. Burn in / Break in makes an audible difference. Yes and No. It makes a difference for speakers and headphones because there are physical drivers inside these devices. For amplifiers, DACs and cables, I am not so certain as to what the mechanism is behind how burn in or break in improves the sound on these.

Ok thats not easy but one thing for sure. Not for cables. Propably not for amps and DACs. Maybe a little for speakers and headphones.But if so a bad sign for
product quality. Couse what tells you it gets not more worse over a longer time? If even a short break in periode can change sound so much?

8. Isolation equipment makes an audible difference. i.e using isolation feet or spikes for speakers improves soundstage and detail etc Not sure. I think it may improve some aspects but it might not be totally audible.

For turntables for sure. All the rest a thing to talk about. Decoupling speakers from the floor? Yes can have some influence.

9. Room treatment makes an audible difference. True. I personally haven't done it, but I believe people have measured the differences in treating their room acoustically.

Sure the room and damping of it has huge influence

Are there any conclusions I made here that are incorrect? or any other missing variables? Let me know.

Here are my 5cents.

 

[gofishus]

gofishus as to 8, I think it depends on what isolation equipment and what component(s). For example, when I would turn up my system while listening to LPs, there would be feedback via the turntable. I put a Symposium Acoustics Segue ISO platform under it and, voila, no more feedback even at obscenely loud volumes. Under other equipment, eg amp or Oppo, I've got either a SA Segue, Svelte or Roller Block Jrs. and can't hear any audible difference.

Yeah for example something like this ... excerpt from https://avisolation.com/product/m3x2-isolation-base/

Overengineered much?

Like I understand for record players and speakers yes they are affected by vibrations and resonance.. but amplifiers and DACs? those are solid state and have no moving parts.

 

[Jim Taylor]

i think these things:

i believe that to perform a test

i do believe cables have a range.

i do think it would be impossible

now i do think from a stastic scale,

Lotta beliefs there, but no scientific data. Beliefs are another word for opinions, and opinions aren't scientific conclusions.

the test procedure i would agree could actually validate blindly is....

That procedure is as rigorously controlled as a fart in a hailstorm.

 

[TurtlePaul]

Ok here let me list these out then based on what 'audiophiles' have told me... and what my understanding is of each.

1 - 9

Are there any conclusions I made here that are incorrect? or any other missing variables? Let me know.

This is the way to summarize electronics:

Every good DAC or amp sounds alike but in 2024 there are still a lot of bad electronics.

 

[Overseas]

All good, not broken cables are like glasses for wine. You can drink the same wine and pretend it tastes different from Bohemia glasses than from regular cheap glass.

 

[akamatsu]

Complete bullshit.
Keith

I think this thread could've ended with this first reply. I go with the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. No proof? Ignore.