The Science of Cables

Peter Belt? Did someone mention Peter Belt? What have you got against Peter Belt? What have you heard about Peter Belt? Does he freak you out? Be that as it may I don’t see the connection....

@glupson

taras22,

I will take "eye-catching" as description of sound as licentia poetica.

The only way those findings may be considered non-hyperbolic by more than a few

Hate to nitpick but I definitely wrote "ear-catching", that being said you can take it any way you feel you need to try to score a point. But here is another point in the bigger picture, I am not the only person to have that experience, in fact if you have the nerve ( and frankly I really don’t think you do) to wander over to the Schroeder Method thread you will find almost all those folks who have tried this idea are describing it as some form of spectacular.

So just wander over there and maybe double down and tell all those happy users that they are all either wrong, disingenuous, deaf, sheeple, or whatever. I’m sure given your vast experience with such matters you will quickly win them over and save them from some awful audio misfortune. And be sure to tell them you have personally not experienced the sonic effects of this idea but as glupson the great you just have this gut feeling that this all is just more of that old-fashioned cable poppy-hooey. Believe you me at the end of the day they will love you for it.

@douglas_schroeder


I read your whole post, which seems an extension of your first paragraph:

Prof, no, I am saying there appears to be no measurable, objective basis for cultivation of an analogue rig. I see that the same largely subjective assessment is used by analogue lovers in their use and consumerism as cable users. My concern is not at all with the topic of distinction between signals/sound quality of analogue vs digital.
I find the question somewhat strangely put.

But I’d like to untangle what you would actually be asking and of whom.

IF you mean to level charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency in the audiophile world, you will certainly find large targets. Especially in the subjective-oriented audiophile world.

So if you want to say: "I evaluate whether cables make a difference by putting them in my system and seeing if I hear a difference. How can YOU be critical of me if that’s how YOU evaluate the rest of your analog system!"

And if this is your charge....I completely agree with you; there would be a lot of hypocrisy.

And I would say both sides (you and the people you are calling hypocritical) are using a suspect methodology for gaining reliable knowledge.

But...are you really lobbing your charge of hypocrisy at fellow purely-subjectivist audiophiles? It doesn’t seem to me they are the ones largely responsible for skepticism about cables in the first place.

On the other hand:

If you are saying that the case for someone having an analog system - and you seem to be targeting vinyl/turntables - is NO BETTER than the case you make for high end cables, then I’d certainly disagree.
Take loudspeakers.

There are controversies and arguments about loudspeaker design and goals, even among the most hard-nosed skeptical, degreed engineers.

But there is no controversy over whether speakers actually can and do sound different from one another. Why? Because the type of sonic results introduced in many choices in speaker design produce differences well in to the known audible range for human beings. (There’s plenty of science on human hearing, and also quite a bit correlating audibility and consequences of a range of audio parameters, distortions, etc).
Bias still comes in to play even with speakers - hence you get science by people such as Floyd Toole and Harman Kardon trying to remove bias when correlating speaker design choices with perception.


But the fact that speakers sound different from one another has such obvious and uncontroversial plausibility....through the most subjective to the most accredited objectivist...that reporting "i heard a difference between speaker X and Y" is entirely plausible.


The cable phenomenon isn’t like that. As you know, it is highly controversial. And the skepticism, tends to come those who: 1. Know what they are talking about in terms of electrical theory - Electrical Engineers tend to be in the skeptics camp. 2. People who pay attentionto the poor quality of arguments given for cable differences, especially AC cables.

So given:

1. The claims about cable differences are often disputed among people with the requisite knowledge to vet such claims and...


2. We know how much influence human bias has on our perception.
Then skepticism is a reasonable approach when people claim they know cable A sounds better than cable B because "I could hear the difference!"
it begs all credulity to accept that the problem of bias, so obvious in our every day dealings with each other, and so well established specifically scientifically, is something that we don’t have to bother with....just when it comes to our own pet hobby of audio.


So it’s far from a given that when someone says "I heard a big difference between cable A and B" there are good reasons to not immediately accept this, and retain skepticism, and ask for better than anecdotal evidence.



So...back to vinyl.  The relationship of vinyl/turntables to cables is similar to that of speakers to cables.


It is NOT a controversial claim that "We can hear differences between vinyl sources and a digital counterpart." I’ve never seen even the most diabolically "objectivist" engineer claim that vinyl and digital are by nature indistinguishable. In fact, they will more often tend to point out the MEASURABLE ways in which vinyl departs from accuracy, how distortion is intruded via the various kludge necessary to even get sound on to and off a vinyl disc. Like speakers, the types of distortions and deviations that can occur in the analog/vinyl manufacture-to-playback system are generally well understood and uncontroversial among engineers. And most fall within known audible parameters. Mastering often changes the bass signal, changes the high balance (de-essing etc), can produce additional cross-talk, puts limits on dynamic range, introduces a range of other audible distortions, and there is nothing controversial or implausible in the way cartridges, for instance, can be set up in ways that alter the signal. Then there are all the ways vinyl mastered in the old analog way would differ from digital sources mastered today. Add to that all the mechanical/electrical ways in which turntables can deviate from accuracy, rumble, wow/flutter, how cartridges measure differently, etc The list of plausible ways a vinyl playback can sound different from a digital source is quite long.


So the phenomenon of vinyl playback sounding different is very much UNLIKE the cable controversy in all those important respects.

And, like the case with loudspeakers, if you report "I heard a difference between the sound of my vinyl record and the CD" you generally won’t get audio engineers, or even the most objectivist and experienced people in the field - e.g. Floyd Toole and others - decrying this as implausible. You are almost certain to be told "Yes...and if you prefer it, it’s because you prefer a form of distortion you think to be pleasant."


Now....as it happens, I’ve long been almost entirely digital for my source and have NEVER had the issues with digital that vinyl proselytizers have claimed ("can’t sound natural, musical" and all that b.s.). Digital is flat out capable of superior fidelity in terms of measurable deviations vs vinyl.


BUT...I’ve gotten in to vinyl big time in the last year and LOVE it. I often *prefer* the sound of many vinyl records to my digital source. Not always, but I’ve been surprised how often. Could some bias be infecting my perception? Absolutely! But...and this is the important part...like speakers, there are well acknowledged technical reasons why it is entirely plausible...and even expected....that I would hear some level of sonic deviations between vinyl and digital playback. In fact, given the analog/vinyl system tends to result in certain deviations/colorations in the output, you can RECORD the output from a vinyl vs CD, and SEE OBJECTIVELY the differences. Example of many:

http://themultiformous.blogspot.com/2017/01/vinyl-is-bullshit-or-how-i-learned-to.html

That puts the claims that vinyl/analog alters the signal on much firmer ground than claims often made by cable proselytizers or cable companies. Note, for instance in the case of AC cables, that you pretty much never get similar objective evidence in terms of demonstrating that musical output signal has been altered in any way (and in any audible way!) via the use of high end audio AC cables in a system.

It’s likely not for nothing that John Atkinson, for instance, will run detailed tests on speakers, amps, dacs etc, but doesn’t bother doing them for audio cables. I think he knows something ;-)

Prof, thank you for your response. I used a thorough, but simple comparison, so your first conclusion was correct when you said:

"IF you mean to level charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency in the audiophile world, you will certainly find large targets. Especially in the subjective-oriented audiophile world. 

So if you want to say: "I evaluate whether cables make a difference by putting them in my system and seeing if I hear a difference. How can YOU be critical of me if that’s how YOU evaluate the rest of your analog system!"

And if this is your charge....I completely agree with you; there would be a lot of hypocrisy. 

And I would say both sides (you and the people you are calling hypocritical) are using a suspect methodology for gaining reliable knowledge."

I think there are a lot of hypocritical analogue users out there, who condemn aftermarket cables while employ�ing similar principles and methods to affirm their analogue. I am not interested at all here, as I believe I said previously, in the digital/analogue debate. 

It seems to me that there does not exist an environment where the home audiophile can overcome the inability to operate from a purely scientific, objective basis. I would peg all audiophiles as being suspect of some form of bias, subjectivity, etc. myself included. I have a bias against cable skeptics.  ;) 

Wait! I was a cable skeptic at one time! LOL   :)