Interconnect cable upgrade disapointment

Very nice, Blindjim.

Frank

Your background is similar to my own, yet quite more accomplished, and it accounts for the reasoning or perspectives you espouse. I too, agreed with it for an exceptional period of time. In fact I thought it a big laugh when the subject came around.

Great stuff blindjim. I would add however that it is possible to reconcile the math/physics with observations if one is prepared to accept that the system behaves as a whole.

If you change an IC and it sounds different then it does not automatically mean that the expensive materials in the special IC caused that change. It may have more to do with shield resistance and/or equipment problems ( ground loops ) than the quantity of silver or gold or oxygen free copper or cryogenic treatment in the IC wires.

So an engineer might still agree that an IC can make a difference but would disagree about why.

I would tend to blame the equipment ( a leaky or poor quality power supply or an imbalance in the signal wiring with respect to ground or poorly matched output and input impedances - ground imbalances from different house wall sockets etc. ). So a "brainwashed" engineer can still laugh in disbelief about crazy witch doctor cable treatments but still accept that differences can and certainly do occur. The key difference boils down to the WHY....simply put an audiophile may refuse to believe that the $5K pride and joy component is actually performing so poorly with another pride and joy $5K component that a mere interconnect change makes an audible difference (for example a twisted pair with no shield may perform better than a shielded IC and vice versa). Nevertheless the overwhelming desire is to attribute magical "audible" properties to the IC, which is, absent active components, just a piece of wire - an this is where I would laugh.

There was a joke about a man who answered an add for music teacher. He couldn't play any instrument, didn't like music and was partially deaf but he called them just to say that they shouldn't count on him.

That's pretty much the same when people who believe that cables make no difference post on CABLES forum.

I remember SS amps from late 60s or early 70s - very harsh sounding with excellent parameters. THD and IMD were so low that it was difficult to count zeros after decimal point but sound was horrible. They just did not know about TIM and effect of deep global negative feedback on sound. They called people who prefered sound of tubes "brainwashed" and "old fashioned".

Modesty! my fellow "scientists" and "engineers".

Modesty! my fellow "scientists" and "engineers".

I quite agree but didn't you mean to say "Honesty" ;-)

If one engineer said to another that one copper wire is pretty much as good as another at analog audio frequencies then surely the other would not think them arrogant, conceited or presumptuous?

If one audiophile said to another that his $5K audio cable is significantly better than another $200 cable then...

Shadorne - I try to be modest (and honest) and don't post any definitive opinions about analog gear since I don't have much experience there. I have problem with people who have zero cable experience but can tell for certain that there is no sonic difference.

There is a measurable difference between cables - but if we imagine that all parameters, that we know of, measure exactly same I still wouldn't claim that they cannot sound different.

Nobody said that $5k audio cable is significantly better than $200 cable but it is usually better. Is it worth to spend insane $5k? For some people it is the only way, they know of, to improve already near-perfect system. For others subtle sonic difference will be lost in less then perfect gear. I tend to overinvest in cables treating them as non-perishable goods.

Majority of people with cable experience will tell you that silver cables sound fast and bright compare to copper cables but "scientists" will educate us that metal cannot make difference. And that I call lack of modesty.