The "audiophile" cable test

[Vhond]

And what about speaker cable testing? Diameter, material, way of shielding, way of twisting, solid or separate strains?

 

[SIY]

Diameter, material, way of shielding, way of twisting, solid or separate strains

Diameter can matter for speaker cable, so specifying gauge is reasonable.

 

[Speedskater]

There are many considerations when choosing a cable (interconnect, mic, headphone, loudspeaker or power) other than audible or measurable differences.

 

[rank]

Wires, most electronic devices are not important.
Choose the simplest, good brands. I prefer separates: sources, preamps, amps.Don't spend too much on vinyl.

 

[Vhond]

Some say flat cable is better??

 

[SIY]

Some say flat cable is better??

For running behind baseboards or under carpet, absolutely.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

So, considering that all the "pricey cables makes a difference" is somewhere in the snake oil territory (not to mention the "night and day differences"!), there's something I find especially curious in this psychoacoustic phenomenon.

I have no particular difficulty understanding how someone who bought expensive cables convince themselves they sound amazing. Or even at a dealer's demo–the desire to hype yourself up, to get excited about a new component to buy...

But what's going on when they don't like it?

My closest audiophile friend is into this type of things (and it's quite frustrating for me that we can't talk about it). It has happened that he bought fancy cables and brought them back, a month later, because he didn't like how they sounded.

What are the little things that convinced him they don't sound good? How does one "unhype" themself subconsciously for this type of things? I naively thought that these beliefs only works in one direction, in the "it sounds even better" direction...

 

[Vhond]

For running behind baseboards or under carpet, absolutely.

I wasn't talking about room design but about physics ; )

 

[SIY]

I wasn't talking about room design but about physics ; )

Physics is irrelevant. The flat cables' advantage is room design.

 

[SIY]

But what's going on when they don't like it?

Exactly the same thing. Whim, psychology, unconscious biases.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Exactly the same thing. Whim, psychology, unconscious biases.

Oh, well, yes of course, it's fundamentally the same thing. But at the same time, in some perspective, it's the opposite. Don't you find that odd and interesting?

audiofools that abide by the "more expensive equals better quality" rule are pretty intuitive. It's quite easy to understand. Do you not find these biases to be a little more complex? I know I'm intrigued.

 

[SIY]

Oh, well, yes of course, it's fundamentally the same thing. But at the same time, in some perspective, it's the opposite. Don't you find that odd and interesting?

audiofools that abide by the "more expensive equals better quality" rule are pretty intuitive. It's quite easy to understand. Do you not find these biases to be a little more complex? I know I'm intrigued.

I'm just a dumb scientist. I gave up years ago trying to figure out how human minds work.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

I'm just a dumb scientist. I gave up years ago trying to figure out how human minds work.

Oh, well, I wasn't really expecting any definitive answers... I just wondered if others were curious like I am

 

[livinon2wheels]

It totally baffles me (yes that would be an infinite baffle ) what possesses people to believe the cable hype. I think much of it is driven by the notion that there are so many people who don't have a basic understanding of how electrical signals are transferred down a wire and what things can interfere with that happening. When you are technically challenged and someone tries to sell you something that is technically not necessary for the job at hand, you become an easy mark for BS explanations of imagined problems and supposed solutions. Sadly there are many who love music but lack a solid understanding of what it takes to reproduce it in a sound system at home. The voids in their knowledge leave them open to snake oil schemes and at the top of the list is all these high priced cables. They have money to spend and the desire to create a sound system but not enough knowledge to avoid the pitfalls that ensnare the uneducated enthusiasts. Some of them will eventually see the folly in their convictions but many will not. And there is the crux of the problem. The salesman said these would improve system clarity or whatever and when things are said with a straight face and apparent sincerity, many of us just believe and then the expectation is that we will hear the improvement...and lo and behold we think we do because otherwise we have to admit we were taken for a ride. Many people will go blissfully forward thinking this ridiculous expenditure made an audible difference. All we can do is try to educate the misinformed and steer them away from the scammers. The smart people will listen and learn, the dumb ones won't. You can't fix stupid.

 

[rank]

Hence the idea that I have adopted to move all publications devoid of any scientific basis to a trash can or rather a part of this forum that would be entirely devoted to subjectivism. This with several parts.
1) wires, 2) racks and platforms, 3) spikes, 4) tubes, class A, turntables (direct drive/belt/rim/mixed); suspended or not, tangential or pivoted tonearm, long or short, detachable headshell or not; magnet or moving coils; it's endless. A big part on speakers of course because it takes up space and it's rather cumbersome.

 

[SIY]

4) tubes

Ahem. Some people around here quite like tube technology but are not woo-woos and don't want to be dumped in a bin with them.

 

[livinon2wheels]

@SIY - I assume when you take the stance on tubes that you realize that is a subjective preference rather than stating that tubes are somehow 'better' or 'more accurate' (with tongue fully inserted in cheek) - I agree with rank that the subjective and objective should be separated or at least we should be able to agree what is subjective and objective....what do you think?

We should also be able to agree what is technically discernible audibly and then be able to separate fact from fiction, or at least agree to an objective range of numbers that represent an approximate boundary between what we can hear and what we cannot. For example lets say that harmonic distortion below 0.01% is inaudible or that the range between 0.1% and 0.01% represent the range for onset of perceived distortion for most people. Its not absolute, but is a good first approximation. What might be an interesting discussion is how people describe the perceived distortion... words that come to mind are grainy, strained, shrill, strident, etc. But when someone says their set of Cardas cables opens up the sound stage and reveals more detail in the musical layers...thats when I start calling BS at the top of my lungs.

I think among the great minds on this forum we should be able to put together a fairly comprehensive list of things that make audible differences and also a list of things that don't like the list that rank started...and I applaud his list of items that probably totally belong in the snake oil category. I think one could say tubes and class A are in a gray area and from a purely technical point of view, the argument between tangential tracking and conventional tone arms, while hotly debated, is a valid one. Tangential is clearly better in theory but in practice, it probably doesn't make much difference.

Many of these debates are like the ones about Porsche's rear engine design being 'inferior' to a mid engine design due to its excessive polar moment of inertia...in actual practice it is just two different approaches that when properly developed result in very very fast and great handling cars. It becomes an exercise for brains that have the free time to ponder the possibilities and implications of both designs.
Perhaps a special section of this forum should be dedicated to things labeled snake oil with legitimate explanations under each category as to why they are...what do you guys think?

 

[rank]

Ahem. Some people around here quite like tube technology but are not woo-woos and don't want to be dumped in a bin with them.

I had "tubes" myself but uh they are useless, they are more expensive and there are problems. The bass seemed to me less good than my two Haflers, well the Cochet and the Selac were not very well known but even with the ARC it seemed the case to me. And the price ratio was 1 to 15 (for the ARC eh).
So it could be for the design (but the ARC did not show the tubes), the weight, well I don't know but there is no technical argument. On the contrary.
But it must have made not so much distortion at about 40W, because if I remember correctly it used transistors too (very simple device, huey, far from the well-known ideal, "a straight wire with gain"). Well is it audible for some or not, to listen. Single ended assemblies make more but I have no real experience with them.

 

[rank]

@SIY - I assume when you take the stance on tubes that you realize that is a subjective preference rather than stating that tubes are somehow 'better' or 'more accurate' (with tongue fully inserted in cheek) - I agree with rank that the subjective and objective should be separated or at least we should be able to agree what is subjective and objective....what do you think?

We should also be able to agree what is technically discernible audibly and then be able to separate fact from fiction, or at least agree to an objective range of numbers that represent an approximate boundary between what we can hear and what we cannot. For example lets say that harmonic distortion below 0.01% is inaudible or that the range between 0.1% and 0.01% represent the range for onset of perceived distortion for most people. Its not absolute, but is a good first approximation. What might be an interesting discussion is how people describe the perceived distortion... words that come to mind are grainy, strained, shrill, strident, etc. But when someone says their set of Cardas cables opens up the sound stage and reveals more detail in the musical layers...thats when I start calling BS at the top of my lungs.

I think among the great minds on this forum we should be able to put together a fairly comprehensive list of things that make audible differences and also a list of things that don't like the list that rank started...and I applaud his list of items that probably totally belong in the snake oil category. I think one could say tubes and class A are in a gray area and from a purely technical point of view, the argument between tangential tracking and conventional tone arms, while hotly debated, is a valid one. Tangential is clearly better in theory but in practice, it probably doesn't make much difference.

Many of these debates are like the ones about Porsche's rear engine design being 'inferior' to a mid engine design due to its excessive polar moment of inertia...in actual practice it is just two different approaches that when properly developed result in very very fast and great handling cars. It becomes an exercise for brains that have the free time to ponder the possibilities and implications of both designs.
Perhaps a special section of this forum should be dedicated to things labeled snake oil with legitimate explanations under each category as to why they are...what do you guys think?

The comparison with sport cars is a bit biased but admissible. Unless we do not consider driving as a pleasure but as a safe means of transport from one point to another. The debate then advances into philosophy: my partner watches a film not the TV, she listens to a song not the speakers, you see? "Normal" people are like this...

 

[egellings]

It totally baffles me (yes that would be an infinite baffle ) what possesses people to believe the cable hype. I think much of it is driven by the notion that there are so many people who don't have a basic understanding of how electrical signals are transferred down a wire and what things can interfere with that happening. When you are technically challenged and someone tries to sell you something that is technically not necessary for the job at hand, you become an easy mark for BS explanations of imagined problems and supposed solutions. Sadly there are many who love music but lack a solid understanding of what it takes to reproduce it in a sound system at home. The voids in their knowledge leave them open to snake oil schemes and at the top of the list is all these high priced cables. They have money to spend and the desire to create a sound system but not enough knowledge to avoid the pitfalls that ensnare the uneducated enthusiasts. Some of them will eventually see the folly in their convictions but many will not. And there is the crux of the problem. The salesman said these would improve system clarity or whatever and when things are said with a straight face and apparent sincerity, many of us just believe and then the expectation is that we will hear the improvement...and lo and behold we think we do because otherwise we have to admit we were taken for a ride. Many people will go blissfully forward thinking this ridiculous expenditure made an audible difference. All we can do is try to educate the misinformed and steer them away from the scammers. The smart people will listen and learn, the dumb ones won't. You can't fix stupid.

Ignorance can be edited. Stupid is read only.