Cable "burning": Real or VooDoo ???

Jerie: What's your obsession with other people's gear? Is it evaluating performance by nameplate?

Jadem6: Please tell me what testing you find superior to DBT. If you can't tell me, perhaps you don't have a point to make?

Albertporter: And in what way am I not dedicated to music? Man, last week, Easter week, was my busiest time of the year musically.

I find solace in performance. And knowing and learning how to improve performance, the better to reproduce musical recordings. Knowing and learning involves understanding the technology, which involves the messy involvement with numbers and measurement and testing and experimenting. What's wrong with that?

If you've listened to recordings, attended concerts, gone to films, seen a Broadway show, or watched TV in the past 20 years there's a good chance you've heard some things I've been a part of developing.

Jadem6: I cannot question your ability to cut and paste. Certainly dielectrics have different properties. Knowing how they apply to audio cabling is key, and that's where you need to brush up, if possible. The purpose of a signal cable (IC or speaker) is to convey audio, in the form of electrical signals, from one component to another. The ideal cable will not affect the signal. Any cable will, though, because we are dealing with real properties of resistance, capacitance, and inductance. However, it's not at all difficult to make cable in such a way as to absolutely minimize the effects on the audio, although some people like high-capacitance cables that roll off the highs (because cables that don't would sound too "bright"). And it's not very expensive to do so, either. But there's not a lot of profit margin in selling cables inexpensively to the unsuspecting.

Will someone please conduct some tests? All we need is an electron microscope (one of you must have access to one) and some copper samples.

1. Have one control sample, one sample that you apply a signal to for 30 days, and one sample that you subject to mechanical stress followed by applying a signal for 30 days.

2. Get an image of what each sample looks like before the tests.

3. Get an image of what they look like after the tests.

Did the crystal structure change in any of them? Did orientation of crystals change? Did the magnitude of angles at crystal junctions change? Did the gaps between crystals change?

I'll be the first to admit I've heard some cables that sounded bright at first, but then "broke-in". But I'd like to see if anyone can find real evidence of such phenomena.

702, you are obviously coming from different side of the business. Our request for you to discuss your choices in equipment is to determine whether you actually listen to music.

If you are blessed to hear exclusively live performances, then that is just wonderful ( for you). The rest of us must contend with the parts and pieces that make up our systems in a never ending attempt at perfection. You continue to dismiss anyone's opinion that offers their experience as to the performance differences in cables (or whatever). The problem is that you never try to enter into our world, where we are trying to make it right with the tools we have at hand.

Perhaps at your place of employment numerical data is the only truth you need, as it allows your projects to pass or fail, becoming self fulfilling in your experiences. I have no clue as to what role you actually play in the audio community, as you are vague about that as well.

I do know that If you continue expressing your data only point of view, and never touch on the hard knock experiences of making your music system work, you will never get any converts. You are undoubtedly Intelligent and strong willed, but you obviously lack experience in the specific areas we are discussing at this site.

My comments about your lack of dedication to music refers to your insistence (particularly) of ABX testing. You never discuss the pleasure of new software, or the real life choices you have had to make to get your system right. You make it appear that you are not involved in our labor of love, but rather for the love of the scientific aspect, and the shelter it seems to provide you. I can never relate to someone who enjoys the numbers more than the experience of making long term choices that evolve the music toward greatness.

I have a true story to relate. My best friend spent much of his youth, racing cigarette boats. These are the ultra high speed variety, powered by large auto racing engines. One Sunday during a competition, he and his mechanic had spent two weeks prepping the "perfect' engine for their boat. The dyno tests proved that it had the most horsepower possible, the hull was the perfect design for the weight and drive system, and they had worked out the exact fuel mixture for the temperature and humidity. They felt absolutely assured that their work of art would sweep all the competitors aside.

The very first run, with perfect execution in every driving skill, they met with severe defeat. His mechanic charged over to the competitors boat, and returned with a report. "That guys engineering is absolute crap, he is using the wrong fuel injection, his camshaft is not the right grind for that engine, and drive train is a mismatch for the hull."

My friend just stared at him silently for a moment, and then replied, "Why don't you go explain all that to him, maybe he will give up and go home instead of sticking around here kicking our butt all day."

Often, the guy that keeps experimenting, focusing his experience, and continuing to discover and educate himself as to what works, wins the prize. Numerical data is just a guideline, it is not a substitute for long term listening, or the free exchange of ideas among those trying to solve the problems of musical reproduction.

In an attempt to add to Albert's well made points. First, in this labour of love I have learnt that faithfulness to the music is not measured well by any of the measures used in electrical engineering. We will all agree that "no distortion of the original signal" is what we want to achieve. But what we find is that most real speakers in real rooms have levels of measured distortion that are an order of magnitude greater than the distortion of a competent amp. And yet, I find that the kind of distortion introduced by an amp does far more damage to my musical enjoyment than do the distortions of most speakers. This may lead on to the conclusion that there are some forms of distortion that are worse than others, or to be more specific, that say 1% of 2nd order harmonic distortion is more benign than 0.1% of 9th order harmonic distortion. And such a finding (albeit subjective) would be very valuable. But this conclusion can only be arrived at by a mixture of measurement and listening. Without the listening part 702, your numbers are just numbers with no meaningful reference point in reality. Without listening, how do you know what level of distortion is acceptable, and how do you know whether that level is more or less acceptable depending on what type of distortion is involved, and how do you know whether a halving of distortion is meaningful or whether it needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude, or just 10%, to be meaningful for a listener. Your numbers create the illusion of some linear relationship, and some ability to sum those numbers, that I believe does not exist for a listener trying to enjoy music in the home - and you cannot prove me wrong on this point - except perhaps by listening. Second, my experience of ABX tests is that people hear the obvious tonal balance differences only, when listening for the short periods involved with ABX testing. But the distortions that cause an audiophile to tear his or her hair out and go on wild binges on the current cable of the month, are those less obvious ones, that emerge from a deeper familiarity, and a growing unease with the music making (or destroying) qualities of a piece of equipment. I would never trust an ABX test to select a piece of equipment - the suggestion is laughable - and maybe Albert has it right, that you just don't have enough listening experience with high-end audio gear to realise how laughable it is.

Albert and Redkiwi,

Both of you have made very sensible, intelligent posts. Mr 702, however, worships at the altar of numbers and you're not going to budge him.

Albert- your story about the racing boat reminds me of my checkered past when I was involved with fast cars. Cant' remember how many times two cars had identical bhp, torque curves, and drivers of the same physical mass. Yet when pitted against one another, there was always a winner. The hardline data types would say it should have been a dead heat every time. But it never was. Why? Obviously there was more going on there than the pure numbers would suggest.

Can we bury this already dead horse??