The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

Gee, talk about gatecrashing a persons thread. All I wanted was a little quiet time in skeptics corner with listeners who hold a similar view on this particular subject.

 

Still no response to this suggestion of Julf's though:

 

"I suggest another test that can be done easily - and provides answers that can be verified beyond individual listening rooms. What we need is someone who has a high-quality, high-res ADC/sound card to record the output of a good DAC playing a piece of music - and record it twice, once using a cheap, generic cable and once using a fancy, audiophile cable. Better yet, record the piece three times - picking one of the two cables randomly for the third recording. Then make all three recordings available online, and let CA members do a blind ABX. Do this with enough people and multiple music samples, and you should get a pretty reliable result."

 

What do you reckon?

I reckon for any such test to have any meaning, the cables need to be shipped around to each tester, along with the test files on a USB stick, and played on the tester's own systems. That means for any kind of analysis to be done, the equipment of each system has to be recorded, and the environmental conditions, as well as the tester's opinions.

And it would require a fairly large sample to derive much meaning from. Two or three testings won't do, it needs two or three hundred testers. Then you stand a good chance of deriving some significant data from the results, and perhaps being able to draw a tentative conclusion.

At least you stand a good chance of being able to design a better test to target whatever the initial data suggests is happening. (Or not happening.)

There is no simple answer to this, nor is there a "cut and dried" answer. Perhaps a Kickstarter program is what is needed to finance a true test, but...

Really - the simple answer is to let people listen and decide what to buy for themselves. Cheaper answer too.

I find this idea there is some kind of conspiracy or "swindle" going on to be unlikely in the extreme, but am open to solid hard cold facts that prove it.

The "swindle theory" is an extraordinary claim in and of itself, and requires extraordinary proof. Moreso in fact, than the idea that different cables sound different.

-Paul

In the end, anyone can try to sell you anything they want for any amount they like:

Coconut-Audio Rattlesnake Grim Reaper power 10m US Extreme Reference | AC Cables | AudiogoN - The High-end Audio Community

(make sure to see their other products)

So, if I wanted to I could try to sell a "modified" soda can for $500, call it a resonator or some %$#@ and wait for a buyer. If you bite then I'm happy about the sale. Heck, I'm trying to make money. But you don't have to bite.

All that said, it can be disheartening on some moral level (to me at least). But then again, $40,000 and $50,000 tube amplifiers seem pretty obscene to me as well.

I remembered I do have an MIT cable. Digital AVT3 in this case. Admittedly not one of their expensive offerings. It has and I am quoting MIT:

MIT's patented Digital Terminator Technology—Eliminates jitter-based distortions found in all other cables, delivering natural timbre & precise imaging.? New micro-componentry networks located in RCA housing eliminate need for network box.

Here is a link to their site:

AVt 3 Digital Interconnect | Audio Interconnects | Available in Stores | MIT Cables

And attached is a picture of those patented micro-components in the RCA housing. Click to enlarge.

That is a one ohm resistor in series with the center lead. There is nothing in the other end nor along the cable. It measured 250 microfarads in capacitance which is about what you expect for a coax cable like this. It looks the same as metal film resistors RS sells for like $4 for 20 if I recall correctly. Admittedly this is a sub $100 cable. But at a minimum the patented network is very hyped here. I think purchasers would imagine more involved in a patented network than this.

Maybe it helps though I am not sure what articulation would relate to SPDIF. I think it is a matter of having invested in the idea of MIT networked cables and they just want it to include digital too. At the very least, all you DIY folks can go get the one ohm resistor and do a networked up grade if you are using simple 75 ohm cables of one sort or another.

In the end, anyone can try to sell you anything they want for any amount they like:

 

Coconut-Audio Rattlesnake Grim Reaper power 10m US Extreme Reference | AC Cables | AudiogoN - The High-end Audio Community

 

(make sure to see their other products)

 

So, if I wanted to I could try to sell a "modified" soda can for $500, call it a resonator or some %$#@ and wait for a buyer. If you bite then I'm happy about the sale. Heck, I'm trying to make money. But you don't have to bite.

 

All that said, it can be disheartening on some moral level (to me at least). But then again, $40,000 and $50,000 tube amplifiers seem pretty obscene to me as well.

I have to say, I just do not understand why folks would be "bothered" by the availability of such products? Does a half million dollar Bentley bother you, how about multi million dollar yachts? Expensive homes? No one is forced to purchase such things, so who cares. If the existence of such things bothers one, perhaps there is something more to consider...

"Does a half million dollar Bentley bother you..."

Not nearly as much as 30 feet of power cable being sold for a little less than a fifth of that (and that's not his retail price!). I mean, c'mon, this is some seriously laughable %$#@.

But barrows, I'm with you. Trust me, we're on the same page (see "But you don't have to bite").

 

The "swindle theory" is an extraordinary claim in and of itself, and requires extraordinary proof. Moreso in fact, than the idea that different cables sound different.

 

-Paul

The proposed blog title "The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle" is simply an eye catching headline to get people onto the blog page, that's all. Make it boring and no one will go there or read it. I don't actually think there is much, if any commercial/retail swindling going on at all. Even in the cable companies, those developing these products probably themselves believe the stuff they put out.

The real and fascinating swindle is how our brains con us via the various systems that operate under our conscious awareness. These aren't gratuitous cons though, as they nearly always have a survival value factor or an evolutionary advantage factor somewhere in there. The confusion arises because they are automatic processes that we have no control over or even knowledge of.

 

I suggest another test that can be done easily - and provides answers that can be verified beyond individual listening rooms. What we need is someone who has a high-quality, high-res ADC/sound card to record the output of a good DAC playing a piece of music - and record it twice, once using a cheap, generic cable and once using a fancy, audiophile cable. Better yet, record the piece three times - picking one of the two cables randomly for the third recording. Then make all three recordings available online, and let CA members do a blind ABX. Do this with enough people and multiple music samples, and you should get a pretty reliable result. But what would we then argue about?

That's what's missing isn't it. I have a pretty good ADC in my Lynx L22 pro sound card. With a set of binaural mics, I can record my stereo/room and make comparisons like I am starting here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/wanna-listen-my-stereo-12492/ Folks may be suprised at the resolution of the recording. Maybe another experiment to see if we can hear any sonic differences.

The proposed blog title "The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle" is simply an eye catching headline to get people onto the blog page, that's all. Make it boring and no one will go there or read it. I don't actually think there is much, if any commercial/retail swindling going on at all. Even in the cable companies, those developing these products probably themselves believe the stuff they put out.

The real and fascinating swindle is how our brains con us via the various systems that operate under our conscious awareness. These aren't gratuitous cons though, as they nearly always have a survival value factor or an evolutionary advantage factor somewhere in there. The confusion arises because they are automatic processes that we have no control over or even knowledge of.

Yes, that is the real fascination to me as well.

I have said I hear these things other people describe myself. Cannot fail to hear them. I just don't believe myself without question. I think this thought ends up scaring some people. After all if you go from trust your hearing to I don't think I can always trust my hearing it can lead to some doubt about a good many perceptions.

Yes, that is the real fascination to me as well.

 

I have said I hear these things other people describe myself. Cannot fail to hear them. I just don't believe myself without question. I think this thought ends up scaring some people. After all if you go from trust your hearing to I don't think I can always trust my hearing it can lead to some doubt about a good many perceptions.

Gosh, is that light red, or do I jut think it is red? Perhaps it only looks red to me but if I run a blind test on it, people might not be able to tell the difference between it and that other light, which is green I think.

If I only think it is red, perhaps I had best ignore it. I don't need to stop for it because my mind is just tricking me into thinking it is red.

(Crash!)

Yes, I do agree with you about questioning what we perceive. But there is a point where you need to learn to trust your perceptions more than doubt them. Otherwise you wind up making poor choices.

Paul

Els:

"After all if you go from trust your hearing to I don't think I can always trust my hearing it can lead to some doubt about a good many perceptions."

Thanks for that! I do not always trust my perceptions, and that is a good thing. But, I have trained myself to be able to listen and evaluate audio components, and to take the necessary precautions to avoid being "fooled" by my own perceptions. It is easy, for instance, to sometimes "get it wrong" in short term A/B type comparisons. Longer term listening tests over multiple sessions are much more instructive as to sonic differences. Also making sure outside influences are minimized, and that the listener is well rested, not distracted, and under little pressure. Ultimately, when I take these precautions, and listen test multiple times over a longer term, I can be confident in my evaluations-and if this methodology does not reveal a true preference for one component over the other (despite a definite difference) then I would not make any change, or would choose the "simpler" solution, as to my belief that simple is better.

Gosh, is that light red, or do I jut think it is red? Perhaps it only looks red to me but if I run a blind test on it, people might not be able to tell the difference between it and that other light, which is green I think.

 

If I only think it is red, perhaps I had best ignore it. I don't need to stop for it because my mind is just tricking me into thinking it is red.

 

(Crash!)

 

Yes, I do agree with you about questioning what we perceive. But there is a point where you need to learn to trust your perceptions more than doubt them. Otherwise you wind up making poor choices.

 

Paul

And trusting them too much can lead to poor decisions as well. So?

Found MIT's description of the patent on that digital cable. Not surprisingly it doesn't say series a small resistor.

Digital interface cable - United States Patent 5,412,356

A single-ended digital interface cable and a balanced digital interface cable having a source end and a load end for propagating audio frequency signals in a digital format is disclosed. Each of the cables comprises a fixed capacitor or a capacitor and switch network which is coupled at or near the load end of the cables for providing a fixed bandwidth or for use in selectively controlling the bandwidth of the cables and a series resistance at each end thereof to dampen ringing.

Els:

 

I have trained myself to be able to listen and evaluate audio components, and to take the necessary precautions to avoid being "fooled" by my own perceptions.

I am sure you know quite a bit about audio. And I can understand how you would feel confident that this expertise will prevent you from being "fooled' by your own perceptions. This is a common and recurring theme from those in your camp I have noticed. However, I would say your confidence is misplaced. You are far less in control of what is going on than you imagine.

Who would have thought that 54 of Bordeaux's eminent wine experts would not be able to tell that the red wine they thought they were drinking was actually white wine with some red colouring added?

Wine "experts" are frauds

But it didn't appear we would receive too many taking part in the poll. Even though anonymous, I received about as many direct responses from those not wanting to use the poll as those who voted. Plus people didn't like the two choice variety of testing I used. I suppose a 3 choice version like Julf proposed would find more acceptance though analyzing the statistics of that are messier. But I haven't been motivated to attempt that again.

I would definitely do it, but right now I don't have a good enough ADC available, nor do I want to have to buy an expensive audiophile cable to compare to. But more than happy to do some of the legwork with logistics and statistics if somebody can do the recording part.

Amplifier oscillation is a real, electrical, problem with some cable/speaker combinations-the amplifier output stage-cable-and speaker creates a circuit, and some combinations thereof can make an amplifier unstable (oscillation). This is not some audiophile myth. Many amplifiers have zobel networks across their outputs in an attempt to keep them stable even under very different load conditions ( a zobel is an RC network, like what we have in MIT cables). I am not an EE, but I am sure Julf can confirm.

Yes, amplifier oscillation can be a problem with badly designed amplifiers, and zobel networks are widely used on transmission systems, but properly designed amps should not rely on external components (cables) to take care of that.

I have no interest in doing this kind of test, as it can only prove if their is a measureable difference, it cannot prove if their is a significant sonic difference that is not measurable by this test. Additionally, a sound card is woefully inadequate for testing high end audio systems, an AP2 is needed, and few folks have access to this equipment. And, in any case, what matters is what the system sounds like. Ultimately, we are going to enjoy our systems by listening to music, and that means system changes should be evaluated by listening to music. If one hears a difference, then that difference is relevant to that listener on that system, it is as simple as that. There is no need to "prove" anything any further than that. This is why I suggest that people listen for themselves, and, if you do not trust what you hear, then there is no reason for you to pursue high end audio reproduction anyway, get another hobby.

So you have no scientific curiosity? You don't think proving once for all that USB cables *do* make a difference has any value?

I reckon for any such test to have any meaning, the cables need to be shipped around to each tester, along with the test files on a USB stick, and played on the tester's own systems.

What issues do you see with the test I proposed? You can still use your own amp, speakers and room (by far the most important components), and listen as many times as you want and as long as you like. Is that not enough? And if it isn't, is something you can't hear except in absolutely ideal conditions, something worth worrying about?

That's what's missing isn't it. I have a pretty good ADC in my Lynx L22 pro sound card. With a set of binaural mics, I can record my stereo/room and make comparisons like I am starting here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/wanna-listen-my-stereo-12492/ Folks may be suprised at the resolution of the recording. Maybe another experiment to see if we can hear any sonic differences.

Appreciated the binaural files! So, could we twist your arm to help with this test, that might actually shine some light on the murky issue of USB cables?

Of course you are entitled to say whatever you would like:

"This is a common and recurring theme from those in your camp I have noticed. However, I would say your confidence is misplaced."

But the above statement is in error. I have been paid in the past to listen test various components and prototypes, and I took this work quite seriously. I took precautions to make sure I was not "fooled", and developed a specific methodology which worked for me. Statements such as the above reveal more about your own experiences than they do about mine.

I have noticed that many human beings seem to have a noted problem when it comes to expectations, and there seems to be a lack in the ability to operate, when necessary, outside of expectations. The ability to be objective seems to be almost a lost art in our society at large, hence we seem to have an entire culture where people often base their views and life, not on their own, individual, experiences, but based on some kind of perception of how they are viewed by others, and where they might, "fit in". It appears now that this way of living has gotten so bad, that we have people who can no longer even think, or act, for themselves, such a shame. I am not in a "camp", I report on my (considerable) experiences, not based on a "doctrine", but if and when there is a doctrine which does mesh with my experiences, I am not reluctant to agree with it.

But the above statement is in error. I have been paid in the past to listen test various components and prototypes, and I took this work quite seriously. I took precautions to make sure I was not "fooled", and developed a specific methodology which worked for me.

Sounds like we could all benefit from your methodology! Any chance of you sharing it with us? (and to avoid any cultural miscommunicatiosn - there is absolutely no sarcasm in my comment!)

I have noticed that many human beings seem to have a noted problem when it comes to expectations, and there seems to be a lack in the ability to operate, when necessary, outside of expectations. The ability to be objective seems to be almost a lost art in our society at large, hence we seem to have an entire culture where people often base their views and life, not on their own, individual, experiences, but based on some kind of perception of how they are viewed by others, and where they might, "fit in". It appears now that this way of living has gotten so bad, that we have people who can no longer even think, or act, for themselves, such a shame. I am not in a "camp", I report on my (considerable) experiences, not based on a "doctrine", but if and when there is a doctrine which does mesh with my experiences, I am not reluctant to agree with it.

I have to say that that paragraph is something I would like to print out on a poster an put it on my office wall. In courtesy to the copyright owner, I hereby acknowledge that I owe you a beverage of your choice if you ever find yourself in Amsterdam!

Well, thanks Julf... As far as listeining goes, I suspect that each of us may find things we can do differently, that is, what works for me, may not be the same for you. But a few things: blinded does not work for me, it just introduces stress which makes it harder to remain objective. Stress is really one of the main problems, along with expectations. If one is tired, dealing with work/relationship stress, or not having a good day, forget about listening for evaluation. Listen alone, I find things like group "shootouts" really distracting, and the presence of others and their opinions in the listening area is distracting at best.

I generally use some trusted tracks at first, but this just gets a baseline on overt differences. Longer term listening with a wide variety of music ultimately tells me more about how something sounds. Not to get all "groovy", but letting the music come to you really helps me, rather than trying to define the exact boundaries of the soundstage or get super analytical about what the differences are. One should accept that their system will sound different at different times, due to room temperature and humidity levels, not to mention AC quality variations, and temperature stability of components, and consider that these factors may be influencing the results. Of course, keep a reference system as constant as possible, and only change one variable at once.

I find it easier to evaluate the generalities first (does it sound "better", ie, do I get drawn into the musical interplay and the emotional power of the music more easily) before trying to decide what specific playback qualities might have changed.

More and more as I listen for pleasure, I find I move away from the analytical "wow, that soundstage is really precise" and more towards getting the gestalt of the music. I know things are really good when I find my mind engaged in feeling how two musicians are reacting to the subtle nature of the emphasis of their playing.

1. do not be stressed

2. be alone

3. empty away expectations

4. do not be hungry

5. do not be drunk

6. be well rested

7. darken room

8. close eyes (but only if it does not make you nervous)

9. listen to a wide variety of music over a long term when possible

When I worked at PS Audio I evaluated things both in PS' listening room, and at home. But I waited 'til after business hours to use the listening room when no one was around to avoid the distractions of "work". Using two systems I was familar with also helped me to have some additional perspective-I kind of miss that now.

Els:

 

 

 

Longer term listening tests over multiple sessions are much more instructive as to sonic differences. Also making sure outside influences are minimized, and that the listener is well rested, not distracted, and under little pressure. Ultimately, when I take these precautions, and listen test multiple times over a longer term, I can be confident in my evaluations-and if this methodology does not reveal a true preference for one component over the other (despite a definite difference) then I would not make any change, or would choose the "simpler" solution, as to my belief that simple is better.

Well said, and if I might.....If one must go through such rigorous preperations and conditions control to discern the slightest bit of difference, is the slight performance gain of any value in a recreational listening session? An analogy......say there's two stacks of 1$ bills...one quantity is a 1000, the other 1001. One can only take a single stack. Does one count each stack and take the larger quantity or does one just simply pick up whichever and go? IT would seem to me that time is more valuable than a buck in tHis case........and given the amount of long term listening it takes to even consider a preference, the less the value of that preference.

Oh....and BTW I understand amplifiers, speakers and crossover networks and circuits pretty well. Unless the amplifier was basically broken or the speakers network considerably flawed would such proposed circuits in interconnects provide an appreciable change to the performance. And I submit that if these interconnects are intended as active eQ for systems, how does the designer determine what freq,Q, or slope to apply? Maybe the goal is 'trial and error'? From a marketing perspective, this would make perfect sense where tHe end user would have to try many different interconnects until there's a tonal improvement. That's what tweaks are all about...no?

I might now refer to interconnects as 'Cable Meth' for those that like to tweak......or suffer from OCD.

Yes, Mayhem13, you have a point. Actually at one time MIT designed some cable just for Spectral systems. Also since then they have network boxes for interconnects that you choose settings based upon impedance and bandwidth of your equipment.

But then I do wonder, wouldn't be better to digitally prepare a signal for what happens, and pre-process it like happens for room correction? Of course to do that, you need something to measure and then correct for don't you. Which is where it all seems to breakdown.

I do wonder why stereophile and others don't do at least some modicum of simple measurements on cables and interconnects. They do it for SS equipment that really doesn't point up much unless it is broken. I would like to see that applied to cabling too. Now I think I know the reason why. Would be too much to hope I guess that years of measurements all turning out identically for all practical purposes might begin to get mainstream audiophiles attention.

Mayhem: it appears that you think I endorse the MIT cabling approach. If you read my posts carefully, you should find that this is not the case, all I am saying in their defense is that the networks they use are electrically relevant to such a circuit, once agin then: whether or not these networks make a difference is up to the listener to decide.

There have been amplifier/speaker combinations over the years which would oscillate, If you aware of audio history, I am sure that you are aware of this. Spectral, to the best of my knowledge still requires that there customers use either Spectral (made by MIT) or MIT cables with their amplifiers in order to insure that the output stage stays stable: this is due to the ultra wide bandwidth design of their amps, which they think is an advantage.

Els: Stereophile rarely reviews cables, probably because of the controversial nature of the subject as addressed here. Unfortunately, doing in depth measurements costs money and takes a lot of time... We can at least be happy that Stereophile does measure the audio electronics which they test, most do not.

I appreciate and am thankful for everyone who puts in the work to prove that there is no difference between cables. I find the null testing very fascinating and try to follow it.

In saying all that I don't believe there is any single cable manufacturer trying to "swindle" anyone. Are their margins ridiculous? Probably. But, I've only ever heard a cable manufacturer claim to improve the sound quality of your system. The "improvement" is always subjective. I can get sample cables from any number of vendors but none of them will send along test equipment with those cables.

My analogy is this: If you aren't feeling well and take an aspirin and that sort of works good. Then, next time you are not feeling well, I sell you two pills for $500 and this time you feel a lot better. I just sold you two aspirin pills at a silly margin but the packaging and marketing were different. Maybe I put some caffeine in there, maybe I didn't. Maybe you felt better because you _really_ wanted to get your $500 worth. Did I swindle you? Do you feel better? That's how I feel about super expensive cables. If someone is happier listening to one cable over the other then whatever they spent was worth it and the vendor should feel good about because the customer feels better.

Personally, I can tell the difference between cables and I don't always prefer the most expensive. But, I keep my budget in check because I know a $4000 speaker cable won't give me anywhere near the improvement spending $4000 to replace my amp will. I just spent > $1000 swapping all my interconnects. For me it was worth it because I now get a little bit more detail and low end out of my system. My girlfriend can't tell a bit of difference. Again, all subjective and depends on the individual. We shouldn't fault anyone for hearing or not hearing a difference including those profiting from those who, rightfully or wrongfully, say they can tell the difference. Because, in the end, all the testing I've seen says the difference isn't really there even though many many people will tell you differently.

So, please keep testing. Please keep debating. It at least keeps my budget in check so I dont buy too heavily into the super exotic stuff.

"Yes, amplifier oscillation can be a problem with badly designed amplifiers, and zobel networks are widely used on transmission systems, but properly designed amps should not rely on external components (cables) to take care of that.- Julf "

I agree with that in general, however a Zobel network is designed to work optimally with a selected loudspeaker impedance.

A few amplifiers use external Zobel networks IF required.Perhaps the manufacturers of the more expensive amplifiers should provide a way for the consumer to optimise the Zobel network to suit the speakers being used ?

"Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

I reckon for any such test to have any meaning, the cables need to be shipped around to each tester, along with the test files on a USB stick, and played on the tester's own systems."

I agree with Paul, and that is what I do these days wherever possible. Currently I have a Corsair Voyager GT being passed around the European members of another forum.

Julf refuses to accept the possibility of file degradation due to uploading and downloading etc. despite quite a few subjective reports to the contrary.Award winning Recording Engineer Cookie Marenco even provides her DSD downloads as Uncompressed Zips to reduce file degradation.Barry Diament even refuses to provide Lossless DLs to avoid file degradation,

and provides his high resolution material on DVD's burned to order with the user's preferred Non Lossless format.

Alex