Cables more hype than value?

Nonoise, your post is nonsensical. (BTW, it's Romex, not Nomex.) Why is it that you true believers are allowed to insult the intelligence and the veracity of us cable atheists, yet when someone like me answers you with the same sort of demeaning comments, we're derided?

As for your what's fixed and what's variable baloney, what you are implying is that a cable can somehow transform and improve the signal it carries. I have news for you, all a passive conductor can do is insert loss and distortion.

If you can hear it, and the differences are so night and day, why can't they be measured? Let me guess, there's some unknown factor in electrical theory we haven't discovered yet, that allows a passive cable to act as a positive transformation device?

That is an interesting twist you used there Irv. I've always associated the cable non-believers with the flat earth scientist. Since they are the ones who limit their minds to the boundries of what present day science can explain. Cable believers are more like those who thought the earth to be round before science could catch up and prove it.

Your association of people who do not believe the cable lie with those who believe in a flat earth runs contrary to how the term evolved. So-called flat-earthers are people who believe that the earth must be flat because they observe it to be, regardless of what the objective evidence reveals. In this regard, Jmcgrogan2, you are asserting that cables sound different because that is your perception, so by analogy you are indeed a flat-earther.

What I see as more... unattractive, is that you folks are so proud of your anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-logic stance, while you type away on a device that wouldn't exist if the understanding of circuit design was so lacking. Which do you think is a more challenging electrical design problem, the design of a cable for audio frequencies, or the microchips we are having this discussion courtesy of?

Irv, to say I believe in differences is not an insult but for you to hear it is?.
That's rich.

That would be like one religion saying another religion insults them just for being different. Presupposing a superior position can only lead to a falling of sorts. Now when one is called silly when one had nothing better to say, is an insult. My response is nothing more than a response to an insult.

There is a planet full of amp and speaker designers out there of repute who would disagree with you. Nothing non-sensical in that. They all have preferences in cabling based on their design. That speaks volumes.

Engaging those professionals at the next audio show you go to would go a long way provided some of them might be willing to discuss it with you.

As for your analogy of who is a flat earther, I disagree. A flat earther would say what is apparent is only what can be seen, so the earth would seem flat. Even before it could be observed otherwise, it was supposed that it wasn't. That would be those who believe otherwise, or in our case, the cable difference believers.

All the best,
Nonoise

Irv, to say I believe in differences is not an insult but for you to hear it is?.
That's rich.

Oh come now, Nonoise, I'm not talking about the discussion of possible differences being bandied about, I was referring to the insults and negativity, which you true believers seem to want to reserve for yourselves. Let's see, I've been called immature, that I lack experience, that I lack listening ability, that I'm closed-minded, and that's just you. And, of course, I'm an ass, according to my new friend Bandy. (Well, that might be true.)

And what is the net of your argument, that you and other believers say so? And that some of them design amplifiers and speakers? This is evidence? All this is evidence of is mass delusion, or perhaps just some people saying what sells in some cases. Anyone that builds amps using hook-up wire you buy by the spool knows that the signal on that cheap-o wire, the wire that's just stranded copper with some teflon wrapped around it, is carrying the same signal as that special geometry, proprietary mix of various vintages of copper and silver, with four layers of some special insulation, and perhaps a battery-powered dielectric. Believe me they know. So do the speaker guys. They're building crossovers, and they know too. Oh yeah, they're choosing all of this so carefully. Especially the tube amp guys with their steel-pinned tubes and sockets that have mechanical play in them.

Why is it that the cable fallacy soldiers on when there is not one valid theory about why such differences exist, or even one test case that shows anyone was able to tell the difference between cables, no less which one is actually better, any more than one would expect by random chance? Yet we have people who claim that not only are there differences, but that they can design cables to sound a certain way. Which is more likely, that cable vendors know some secrets no one else does, or that they just make stuff up that markets well, like funny geometries or some special mix of conductor materials, and says whatever it takes to make the sale?

The following was written before seeing Irv’s most recent post, the last paragraph of which touches on aspects of this controversy that are somewhat similar:

In the midst of all the disagreement, I think that there is one thing pretty much everyone would agree on. If in fact there are audibly significant differences among cables, those differences are not fully explainable on the basis of generally recognized science.

On the one hand, the effects that resistance, inductance, and capacitance will have under some circumstances are readily explainable, and can be analyzed quantitatively. The role that cables may play in ground loop effects, emi/rfi pickup, and (at least in the case of digital cables) impedance mismatch effects, are readily explainable, although not readily predictable or quantifiable.

On the other hand, various explanations of the claimed benefits of high priced cables, involving things like strand jumping, metal purity, dielectric absorption, skin effect, time alignment, etc., while perhaps providing the basis for effective marketing literature, are either speculative or do not have established thresholds that quantitatively define the point separating what may be sonically significant from what is insignificant.

All of which raises an interesting question, that seems to be rarely if ever discussed. If cable differences are not fully explainable on the basis of generally recognized science, upon what principles and upon what basis do the cable designers design the cables?

The likely answer, as I see it: Upon some combination of trial and error, using a relatively limited number of systems; pet theories, whose applicability across a wide variety of systems is unproven; and, perhaps most significantly in the case of expensive cables, by overkilling every parameter that the cable designer considers to possibly be relevant. With the degree of overkill increasing as the price of the cable increases.

In earlier posts in this thread I addressed how system dependency, especially the dependency of many cable effects on technical characteristics of the components that are being connected, can be expected to loosen the correlation between cable performance and cable price. Each of the three approaches to cable design and development that are listed in the preceding paragraph can be expected to further loosen that correlation.

Regards,
-- Al