Goeffkait wrote:
"We should implement a don't ask don't tell policy. ;-)"
OK, then I won't ask you. ;-)
"We should implement a don't ask don't tell policy. ;-)"
OK, then I won't ask you. ;-)
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.
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.
- ...
- 29 posts total
09-01-12: SabaiHello Sabai - I agree with you that the meaning of the term 'neutral' is controversial. Personally, I understand 'neutral' to mean 'degree of absence of coloration.' And I understand 'coloration' to mean 'audible inaccuracy.' If neutrality is thought of as a matter of degree, then the fact that all components (including cables) are colored doesn't invalidate 'neutrality' as a concept. Even though all components are colored, some are less colored (i.e. more neutral) than others. IMO, of course. In a long and contentious thread, I proposed that the neutrality of a component, including cables, can be judged with the following method... If, after changing a system element, (1) individual pieces of music sound more unique, and (2) your music collection sounds more diverse, then your system is contributing less of its own signature to the music. And less signature means more neutral.That method implies that judgments about neutrality are always relative, never absolute. But a relative judgment can still be valuable, IMO. As to the question of why there is so much disagreement about cables, I believe the answer is that the audible characteristics of cables are largely extrinsic, and therefore system-dependent. This is of course a common observation about cables, and to a lesser extent about other components. IME, what is true for cables is true for tweaks. Their audible characteristics are largely extrinsic, and therefore largely system-dependent. Perhaps even more so than cables. That may partly explain why there is so much disagreement about tweaks. Bryon |
you can measure some parameters associated with cables. but there are probably some which cannot be measured, which is why objective measurement does not fully correlate with listening. as for tweaks, who knows what to measure. i think one has to be an empiricist and use tweaks and listen. remember the placebo effect and also the ear's ability to detect differences. |
- 29 posts total