Are audiophiles still out of their minds?

Wattsperchannel 6-19-2016 5:34 pm EDT
I can’t think of a scenario where a combination of the variables you list would make well designed AC wires perform worse than romex (save for an extreme example of a reduced voltage drop leaving voltage above the component spec which, frankly, is hard for me to conceive).... Can you be specific with a scenario I am missing.

One example would involve ground loops, which as I’m sure you realize can cause or contribute to high frequency noise as well as low frequency hum, and in digital applications can cause or contribute to jitter.

See pages 31 to 35 of the following paper, by Bill Whitlock of Jensen Transformers:

https://centralindianaaes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/indy-aes-2012-seminar-w-notes-v1-0.pdf

As you’ll see, he explains that "what drives 99% of all ground loops" is imperfect cancellation at the safety ground conductor of the magnetic fields surrounding the hot and neutral conductors, resulting in voltages being induced in the safety ground conductor. As he indicates, Romex is particularly good in that regard, because of its uniform geometry. The $24/foot wire is described as having noise-rejecting geometry, which would seem to suggest that the hot and neutral are twisted or interwoven in some manner. Will that geometry be as good as Romex in terms of the uniformity across its length of the physical relationship between the two current conductors and the safety ground conductor? Who knows, but it certainly seems questionable.

Also, I recall seeing numbers on the inductance of Romex, which were somewhat highish. And the twisted or interwoven geometry of the expensive wire would seem to suggest that it has significantly lower inductance. While that geometry can be expected to be advantageous to the high priced wire with respect to pickup of radiated RFI, might the higher inductance of Romex be advantageous with respect to filtering of high frequency noise that may be present on the incoming AC? Again, who knows? But as I’m sure you realize, higher inductance means progressively higher impedance at progressively higher frequencies, and therefore more opposition to the flow of high frequency noise currents. How this tradeoff may net out in any particular application could very conceivably depend on the particular spectral characteristics (frequency distribution) of the noise and RFI that may be present.  And perhaps also on the unknown capacitances of the two kinds of wire.

On the other hand, though, higher inductance means more opposition to abrupt changes in demand for current, such as may occur in power amplifiers to a greater or lesser degree depending on their bias class. How much significance the presumably higher inductance of Romex may have in that regard, if any, figures to be highly dependent on the bias class of the particular amp. As well as on the length of the wiring, since inductance is proportional to length.

And of course different components will differ in their susceptibility to ground loop issues, in part due to how and through what impedance their internal circuit ground and chassis/AC safety ground are interconnected. And in part due to whether a given component is interconnected to other components via balanced or unbalanced connections, and if the connections are balanced whether the shield of the interconnect cable is connected to the circuit ground or chassis/AC safety ground in each of the interconnected components.

And beyond all that is the possibility that results that are "better" from an objective standpoint may not be preferable subjectively. For example, relative to digital applications see this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio, in which he states:

Another interesting thing about audibility of jitter is it’s ability to mask other sibilance in a system. Sometimes, when the jitter is reduced in a system, other component sibilance is now obvious and even more objectionable than the original jitter was.

And with regard to analog applications I have seen it said by a number of writers that low level high frequency noise can from a subjective standpoint sometimes result in improved perception of hall ambience, and an increased perception of "air."

The bottom line, as I said earlier: It’s all very unpredictable, and figures to be very system, location, and listener dependent.

Regards,
-- Al

Dracule1 wrote,

"Geoff, you really like to troll don’t you? Looking for fights where they don’t exist. This is your MO. Every time I’ve seen you argue with Al, you’ve come up short handed."

Your mixed metaphors roll off me like a duck out of water.

Hmm, I can spend one million for a watch no bigger than a silver dollar.
How about $50M for a Gulfstream Jet? Are these worth it?? Maybe but quality always costs
Why all the fuss, If it offends you, that is your problem. You can say these are a rip off however that is to denigrate all the hardworking engineers and metallurgists who do the science to extract the most out of these cables.

Al, 

I understand your points. I guess I was presuming if a person was going to take the step of using a wire with superior properties (capacitance, inductance et. al.) they would take the steps to engineer the system holistically.

Taking things one point at a time.

1) Ground Loops-- The key to avoiding ground loops is ensuring equal electrical potential at each receptacle ground. The concept that the emi rejection method of a premium spec wire (be it twisting or otherwise) would cause a variation in potential, I suppose is possible, but to me that would indicate the wire by definition was  not premium spec. to begin with. Certainly there are wires with tighter geometric tolerances than romex that would quickly render this concern moot as far as the pursuit of improved overall performance is concerned. (As an aside I use a furutech star ground harness which runs directly from my 5 neutrals 3 feet behind my listening wall  to a 1" solid copper 8' grounding rod. It does the trick.) 
 
2) RFI/EMI Filtering-- Of course romex has higher inductance and of course inductance cleans up high frequencies but that would be a blunt (backwards) approach to addressing the problem. I would much prefer wire with both inductance and capacitance thereby maximizing current delivery and clean things up with a purpose built device. ( I use a 75 amp Torus ahead of my 20' 10 gauge Furutech lines. It cleans things up with precision as opposed to hoping my wire is long enough and poorly engineered enough to solve the problem.)

3) Bad is Good Rationalization-- Regarding Steve's stuff, the arguement that taking sound engineering steps to improve the performance of one aspect of a system is a bad idea because it might display the other areas of the system that need improvement has never made any sense to me as it relates to audio or system design generally. How does one ever make progress employing such a mindset?

4) Analog Signals and LCR Tuning-- Yes lots can be done to dial in bandwidth and noise on analog signals to taste. That is why I specifically referred to AC wires in my question.

5) System Predictability-- I would agree predictability is low if system inputs are somewhat randomly assembled, but I would argue results become far more linear (and in fact measurable) when proper science is used in the initial system specification. Again, this holds true in audio as well as system design generally.

Instead of going off subject, why don't we get back on track.  Earlier I posted a list of why I think megaexpensive cables are not worth their price. I hear nothing but silence from those  who oppose my views. It's irrelevant what people pay for watches, cars, Gulf Stream jets, etc.  That wasn't the subject of my original post.  If you feel justified paying for mega expensive cables because they sound good to you despite my contention there are cheaper alternatives, then you don't have to respond. You've made up your mind so happy listening.  However, if someone can justify the issues I have with expensive cables (listed below), I would sincerely like to hear your views.  No more personal attacks, smart ass remarks, and psychoanalysis from either side. 


First, the raw materials needed for expensive cables are easily obtained, are cheap in the quantities needed, and are only few, namely metal wire, connector, and dielectric. How expensive is copper or even silver wire that goes into an expensive 1 meter of IC or 8’ feet of speaker cable? Cost of most dielectric and shielding is almost nothing.

Second, the engineering of expensive audio cables is not sophisticated compared to amplifiers, DACs, speakers, although cable manufacturers will claim otherwise.  I'm not talking about cables used in some components of high energy physics particle colliders (eg, CERN) that my physicist friends have told me about.  They do require sophisticated engineering and manufacturing and are probably expensive for a reason.

Third, markup of expensive audio cable is probably the highest in the industry for no good reason. If you can provide a good reason, please let us know.

Fourth, there is no consistent evidence published or otherwise that expensive cables sound better than inexpensive ones, coat hangers excluded.  I with other audiophiles have conducted blinded AB testing, and there has never been consistent preference for expensive cables ($5k+ speaker cables and ICs) over relatively inexpensive ones ($300-$2k). I do find differences in sound among cables, but price has never been the consistent factor. If you contend blinded AB testing is flawed, then provide an alternative.

Fifth, manufacturing of these expensive, highly marketed audio cables is cheap compared to most high end gear. As far as I know, there is no cable geometry that a machine can't wind. And cables can be made tens of thousands of feet easily by machines. Actually, I think some of the more boutique, one man operations spend more time hand making his wire (hand polishing the wire, making and applying the dielectric by hand, etc).

I would love to hear your responses.