2. misc-audio
  3. 1346485705

Some Thought on Cables and Tweaks

What is the mechanism by which a cable or tweak produces an audible difference in a system? It seems clear that the flow of electrons is being altered or colored in some way. We sometimes hear talk about the best cables doing nothing and we sometimes hear the word "neutral" when referring to cables but I personally feel these are both inaccurate descriptions. A cable cannot be doing nothing. The physics militates against this claim. And, frankly, I don't know what the word "neutral" means when referring to cables.

I don't think any tweak maker would claim their tweak was doing nothing or is “neutral”. I don't think that customers would line up for their products under those conditions. But I find it interesting that cable customers line up under those very same conditions. My question is this: what is the difference between a cable and a line tweak in this respect? After all, some tweaks are even incorporated into cables.

Has any cable maker or any audiophile or any physicist -- actually seen electrons during the process of being altered or colored? I doubt that anyone has. Can anyone say with complete accuracy what is actually going on in cables or tweaks to produce the results they produce? I doubt that anyone can. There are few cable or tweak makers who will admit to this.

It seems as though the proof for what goes on with cables and tweaks is mostly empirical. The physics may be understood by some -- to one degree or another -- but the proof is in the pie. To tell you the truth, that's good enough for me as long as the resulting sound is good. I am not very intellectual when it comes to the sound of my system. But I am curious as to how much cable makers really know about what their cables are doing because most of the cables I have had in my system have been nothing to write home to Mama about.

Some cable makers and tweak makers produce more verbiage than you can shake a stick at to describe what their products do. How many cable makers or tweak makers really understand the physics of their products well enough to describe accurately what is going on with their products? I believe they have mostly arrived where they are at not through understanding the physics of cables and tweaks but by experimenting -- with metals -- with "geometries" (whatever that word means)-- with dialectrics -- with shielding. I believe most of the theories being promulgated for most of the cables and tweaks are an afterthought. The best makers come up with products that create great sound. The rest -- well, let's be kind and say run-of-the-mill.

There are a whole lot of audiophiles chasing a whole lot of cables and tweaks based on manufacturers’ claims. But how reliable are those claims that have high end audiophiles chasing one product after another? If even a fraction of those claims were true then there would be a lot less chasing going on. I mean, how many truly great cables and tweaks are there out there? A lot less than are advertised as being great. IMO.
sabai
sabai OP
2,027 posts
 
Ivan_nosnibor and Geoffkait,
Your points are well taken. Using a so-called "loom" from one well-known cable maker turned into what I will politely call the wrong decision for my system. The claimed synergy was pale in comparison to what it was when I mixed and matched.

Selling the concept of a "loom" is a very profitable thing. It is an easy concept for a maker to sell based on convenience and superior results. Unfortunately those hoped-for results may not be there and all youo are left with is the convenience that works mostly in favor of the maker. I have read "looms" work well for some audiophiles. They have not worked well in system.

Manufacturers can claim anything they wish based on whatever they wish. But you will never know the truth until you get their products into your system. I have had "looms" from two well-known cable makers. In one case, their highly heralded cables seriously constricted the sound stage and reduced most other parameters, as well, including low level detail and transparency. Their marketing is largely based on the charm of the owner and designer -- and all the hype they can muster with the active support of various audio reviewers. I learned a lot from this experience -- caveat emptor and don't believe everything you read in the reviews of prestigious audio reviewers.
mt10425
1,138 posts
 
One might think, by reading some posts here, that there were bus loads f cable "manufacturers". The reality is there are few "manufacturers" of cable, but bus loads of "assemblers". It would surprise many how often a new "special" cable is identical to dozens of others. It's called bulk cable. Oh yeah, there's that "made to our specifications" disclaimer. Few cast and draw their own wire. I've already posted a few times my thoughts about using "neutral" more/less as a descriptive term. I don't expect Some here to be objective about "magic beans".
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
It would not be terribly surprising if many cable makers did not actually
manufacture their own wire any more than it's no big surprise high end
amplifier manufacturers don't fabricate their own capacitors, resistors,
Tubes, transistors or wire, or that many high end speaker manufacturers
don't fabricate their own drivers. Nevertheless, there remain a great many
options for those cable companies that order wire, including type of metal,
purity of metal, gauge of wire, flat wire, round wire, oval wire, solid wire,
stranded wire, cryogenically treated wire, whether the wire must be labeled
for directionality, etc. Of course, the wire is not the only factor involved in
how the final product will sound. Ya got yer jacket, yer dielectric material,
yer connectors, welding or soldering method/technique, etc. Geez, it
almost seems like making cables is an art.
mt10425
1,138 posts
 
Hi Geoff. I expected you to side with the "art and a leap of faith" group. And you did. What you also did was express the thinking that many components, speakers and cables are just re-branding of OEM items. Obviously, there aren't as many "new" ideas and products as promoted.
ivan_nosnibor's avatar
ivan_nosnibor
1,055 posts
 
Geoffkait wrote:

"It's much more likely, rather than lowering resistance, crystals simply reduce vibration and/or reduce RFI in the system. I.e., wider audio bandwidth and lower noise result from better signal to noise ratio."

That is indeed how his products first started out (back in the '90's) and I used some of those too, but according to Alan he has actually since taken things to a whole 'nother level (his 2012 "Quantum" line) in order to maximize inductance (don't ask me how, he's not entirely letting the cat out of the bag) and thereby drop resistance throughout the system.

Cheers.
More to discover