If you make claims about speaker cables, prove it. That's what I'm asking. I'm also saying that the reasons we can't is that we are hearing things to subtle to be measured.
I call BS.
I call BS.
How I would measure cables
Hi everyone,
There’s been a lot of talk about "science" and cables. To me it sounds a lot like free energy, and cold fusion scams. With few exceptions, they invoke a lot of physics, without ever tying it back down to actual results. Fancy words, and lots of them.
In the fusion/energy camps this has become so common that they use a very simple method to find fraud. Like the discovery of the Enron scam, we have learned to compare input to output. Enron was first discovered to be a fraud by simply looking at the income and comparing it to claimed money generated. And oh how they howled that we just didn’t understand the business model.
So, with perpetual motion, fusion, dark matter conversion generators, and what have you, they have a simple test. Compare energy in versus energy out over time. The funny thing is, if any of these things actually worked, you’d think they’d make money by selling energy, but they don’t, they make money by getting you to invest or buy their equipment.
Anyway, point is, we live at a time where 96kHz/32 bit AD converters are common place, and commonly used in signal testing and analysis. If _ANY_ cable actually was worth high prices it would be super simple to test the output. For instance, record the signal at the speaker terminals for an entire performance you believe shows how good cable A vs. cable B is. Then go in and locate the difference. Perhaps it is frequency, perhaps timing, perhaps amplitude. It’s a lot of data for the 1970s, but all this would fit on anyone’s laptop now and be relatively easy to analyze.
I don’t have the time or energy to do this, anymore than I have the time to measure the power of the latest perpetual motion gizmo, however, this is affordable and practical for most manufacturers to accomplish. That none have done this, except a little done by Analysis Plus (with severe constraints) is why I will always remain somewhat with the skeptics and the "that’s way too expensive for a cable" camp.
So my point is, if you make cables you think do something cool, and worthwhile, I encourage you to undertake this type of basic research, maybe even define how testing should be done so others can follow and we can compare. For the rest of the world, I strongly encourage skepticism and to ask yourself repeatedly if what you are hearing really is worth the cost, or whether the same amount of money is better spent on a vacation.
If you want things which are clearly better than cables, room acoustic treatments by far are much easier to hear, prove they work, and end up with reliably great results.
Best,
E
There’s been a lot of talk about "science" and cables. To me it sounds a lot like free energy, and cold fusion scams. With few exceptions, they invoke a lot of physics, without ever tying it back down to actual results. Fancy words, and lots of them.
In the fusion/energy camps this has become so common that they use a very simple method to find fraud. Like the discovery of the Enron scam, we have learned to compare input to output. Enron was first discovered to be a fraud by simply looking at the income and comparing it to claimed money generated. And oh how they howled that we just didn’t understand the business model.
So, with perpetual motion, fusion, dark matter conversion generators, and what have you, they have a simple test. Compare energy in versus energy out over time. The funny thing is, if any of these things actually worked, you’d think they’d make money by selling energy, but they don’t, they make money by getting you to invest or buy their equipment.
Anyway, point is, we live at a time where 96kHz/32 bit AD converters are common place, and commonly used in signal testing and analysis. If _ANY_ cable actually was worth high prices it would be super simple to test the output. For instance, record the signal at the speaker terminals for an entire performance you believe shows how good cable A vs. cable B is. Then go in and locate the difference. Perhaps it is frequency, perhaps timing, perhaps amplitude. It’s a lot of data for the 1970s, but all this would fit on anyone’s laptop now and be relatively easy to analyze.
I don’t have the time or energy to do this, anymore than I have the time to measure the power of the latest perpetual motion gizmo, however, this is affordable and practical for most manufacturers to accomplish. That none have done this, except a little done by Analysis Plus (with severe constraints) is why I will always remain somewhat with the skeptics and the "that’s way too expensive for a cable" camp.
So my point is, if you make cables you think do something cool, and worthwhile, I encourage you to undertake this type of basic research, maybe even define how testing should be done so others can follow and we can compare. For the rest of the world, I strongly encourage skepticism and to ask yourself repeatedly if what you are hearing really is worth the cost, or whether the same amount of money is better spent on a vacation.
If you want things which are clearly better than cables, room acoustic treatments by far are much easier to hear, prove they work, and end up with reliably great results.
Best,
E
- ...
- 32 posts total
erik_squires If you make claims about speaker cables, prove it.Whatever claims I have made about speaker cables have been proven to my satisfaction. You are free to do the same. Or, good luck getting others to do your work for you. I'm also saying that the reasons we can't is that we are hearing things to subtle to be measured.But you state in your OP that it would be "super easy" to do these tests. So which is it? Super easy? Or too subtle to measure? |
erik, Thank you for the rational, reasonable post And, yes, as you rightly identify: cleeds is as usual trying to shift the burden of proof. Of course, the skepticism many have about cables comes from actual knowledge of the theories and practical applications of electrical theory. That's why so many EE's disparage audiophile claims. They aren't doing it from their armchair: they often discuss in detail electrical theory and practice, to show why audiophile cables come with suspicious claims. Consumers often don't have the requisite technical knowledge to vet the seductive technical boasts of cable manufacturers, so the best we can do is look to consensus of experts, and notice who is making the arguments based on bad logic or inherently suspicious grounds.As you point out: it's a suspicious feature of high end cable manufacturers that they invoke all sorts of physical, scientific phenomena in their claims, yet almost never give measurable, scientific data supporting that they have solved the purported problem. It goes straight to marketing instead. But...again as you rightly point out...when a high end cable manufacturer makes claims about their cable, technical or otherwise, especially extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is NOT on the consumer's shoulders to disprove the claims; it's on the manufacturer to support the claim. Shifting the burden of proof has always been the modus operandi of people defending bogus claims. |
Here is Nelson Pass giving it a go: https://www.passlabs.com/press/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil |
- 32 posts total