Have You Heard Exotic Audio Cables Improve Sound Quality? - Page 8

My point was that if a person does not know what to listen for, with regard to stereophonic performance, why would you have any confidence in whether they say they did or did not hear a difference in two cables?

Of course science has advanced since then, particularly with regard to low noise cable designs, low noise amplifier designs and low noise source equipment. But you missed the point. The point was that the inventors of home stereo systems stressed the need for trained listeners for the evaluation of stereo equipment.

Wire composition was not addressed in this particular paper. The relevance is as explained above.

Tests with the Fast Fourier Transform function of an oscilloscope have shown differences in the harmonic structure and noise spectrum of different cables. Sometimes differences in the time domain oscilloscope plots can be seen.

Electric current interacts with both the conductor metal at the molecular and atomic levels. Cables with different conductor composition and with different insulation, with different dielectric characteristics, will have different noise figures. The noise characteristics of a cable may produce audible differences.

I remember back in the 1970s Delco did a study of just how much power was needed for car stereos -- citing extensive research in real world driving, laboratory analysis, and selected listener experience they decided that anything more than 2 watts RMS was unneeded.

Well, that seemed ridiculous at the time, and looking back it still does -- but maybe it was the right answer to a different question.

Bell Labs, from the snippets above was all about sound localization by listeners. OK -- does that make a better sounding stereo or sound system? Could a system produce five star localization and a terrible listening experience? I dare say yes. The study produced an answer, but what was the question?

IMHO listening quality should be the emphasis -- SQ brings in myriad electromechanical variables that technical shamans weave into their versions of truth, but listening quality puts all that aside and focuses on the experience of the listener. I've heard too many systems with great specs, glowing reputations, and fantastic curb appear that just sound bad. That's not fair, they often sound OK enough, just not good enough to deserve my coin. Back in the day I mustered the cash for a six figure system -- Levinson, Revel, crazy expensive cables -- great specs, good rep -- when I sat down and listened, really listened, I couldn't do it. Lesser by reputation and certainly by cost sounded better.

Listening Quality -- nothing else matters no matter what the experts say or who they are.

That said, no one as yet has found a way to quantify LQ so it can be stamped on the side of system and sold. Maybe it is possible. Wines seem to have settled into a decent rating system. Not that an unrated wine can't spank a 90+ vintage, but I can say I have never not enjoyed a wine with a 90+ rating. So there is hope.

Back to fancy cables -- would I rather listen to a system with cables that look great on a oscilloscope or cables that give me a better listening quality? Great sine wave, so so sound or terrible sine wave, pleasing sound?

Seems obvious to me, but I am often told I have the wrong attitude -- and I do, in that have no doubt.

Of course I might feel differently if I owned an oscilloscope and ran it while enjoying music. Hey, I could get rid of my projector and screen -- heck why not the speakers, too? All I need is the scope and a clean signal generator. If the scope looks good, all is well.

Sorry, over the top -- my bad.

Cable differences are inevitable of one looks hard enough, but are there any differences anywhere NEAR audible?

Dielectrics can impact "noise figures" (as you put it) that are observable in high-frequency applications (FAR above audible). No impact is evident anywhere in the neighborhood of audible frequencies.

Structural Return Loss analysis also shows no audibly-detectable loss within the relevant frequency range unless the cable in question is flawed.

Time-domain return loss will be significantly greater for any cable that has an attached connector (of any type), but still inaudible unless that connection is flawed.
Edited by Fat Dave - 3/5/13 at 4:08pm

Certainly good points (if a bit extreme). However, it is pretty easy to explain theoretically why all of those things might look different to some people and it's easy to measure. With fancy speaker cable can you come up with a theory for why they are doing anything better?? What about for digital interconnects and USB cables? Care to explain how a cable could magically lift the veil off the treble when you are sending it a half dozen different digital formats across it?? Or when the bits sent and received over a USB cable after handshaking and all end up being the same about how the same bits are better bits from the $400 USB cable?

With speakers and even amps you could offer reasons and in many cases (some things are not so easy to measure and some things people don't think to measure granted) produce easily taken measurments but with cables.... and with ones handling digital bit formats...........
Edited by skibum5000 - 3/5/13 at 4:05pm

I personally know a former Bell Labs researcher and he says all you need is basic cable with enough gauge and no damage.

Remember too that we are dealing with audio frequencies.
Edited by skibum5000 - 3/5/13 at 4:08pm

Once again what does that have to do with 14k speaker wire???

Then showing us the transfer function should be doable, yes?

Still no "expensive cables made things worse" poll option.

Pity that the poll is so biased towards pretending that wires matter.

Is your hypothesis that hearing loss causes delusions, such as imagining one can reliably and stably distinguish one wire from another by sound alone?

I could buy that.

We have more modern studies of listener stability. Olive (or perhaps Toole and Olive) did a study comparing trained to untrained listeners. The difference was merely that untrained listeners required more reps.
Edited by DS-21 - 3/5/13 at 7:13pm

It is not a "scientific hypothesis". It is a fact that hearing loss will affect the outcome. Not everyone hears the same thing or focus on the same tone.

And trained listeners are still reasonably subject to a well designed SBT and even DBT. To use your own point: Trained listeners should have a lower threshold and shorter repetition interval to come to some sort of result whether positive or negative.
Edited by Jinjuku - 3/5/13 at 8:04pm

Great discussion still. I find myself checking back here to find something new that I didn't know before or laugh at some of the hilarious comments. I have an actual story believe it or not where I heard an improvement in sound by investing in a slightly more expensive cable.

I purchased a car stereo system and opted for the cheaper RCA cables. Once installed, my subwoofers were giving off a slight hum. I had gone through everything and thought that the RCA cables were either damaged or not shielded properly. Spent a few more bucks on a better shielded cable and the hum was no more.

Find me an audio cable that makes country music sound better (or bearable) and I will give you a thousand bucks.

Enjoyed reading the thread. Why is that several who seem to think these silly cables are worth megabucks insist on telling us each piece of equipment they're connecting? Trying to impress us with their wallets? They're sure not impressing me with their intellect.

The only thing I ever learned from these discussions at AVS is us poor audiophools get no respect!

For the smarts ones, I hope you at least clean your cable ends and component/speaker connections now and then. And if your speaker wire turns green throw it out and get new!

My comment was not in response to the cost of cables or expensive cables sounding better than less expensive cables. My comment was people see and hear things differently. The fact that some individuals do not perceive differences (or the differences are not measurable) does not imply differences don't exist. The fact that I don't see the "rainbow" effect in DLP projectors doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I'm not aware of a piece of equipment that measures the "rainbow" effect (but that doesn't mean such equipment doesn't exist or that the "rainbow" effect doesn't exist). I also don't know of a piece of equipment that measures or defines sound images in space or a sound stage created by speakers but that doesn't mean those things don't exist. Like DarqueKnight tried to explain, some individuals listen or can listen for certain attributes when comparing cables or any other audio equipment. Those attributes MAY allow one to distinguish differences between cables, or not. Which sounds better is open to each individual. I have demonstrated in my system and other's systems I could distinguish when certain cables were in the system. I did NOT say distinguish ALL brands of cables from one another. Certain cables. And the cables were under $1000. I say in my system because the first thing people will want to do is a double blind test. The only system I know inside and out as far as sound is my system in my room. Not some arbitrary system setup in a diiferent room for testing purposes. It's fairly easy for me to notice changes in the sound in my system in my room. Which is also why I only demo equipment at home. I'm not concerned how a cable or piece of equipment sounds in the showroom or a hotel suite. I want to know how something sounds in my system in my room. If I discern a difference with a new cable, so be it. If not, so be it. Whether the difference is scientifically measurable does not matter to me. All that matters to me is my system brings me enjoyment.
Edited by aceg1 - 3/6/13 at 11:12am

Light up a big phatty and that transitor radio sounds good.

Burn...

lol - you got some shank, eh.

Just sayin', fidelity matters.

Shank would be the hand-made knife like someone in prison would do...so they could stick a shiv in ya! Dank is one way of referring to the ubiquitous weed, perhaps skunk another, but shank?

Good then let him do it blind. But I actually did better then suggest a blind test. I designed a simple FULLY SIGHTED test and I wouldn't even be there for it... I offered this over at one of Polk Audio Forums many cable burn in threads: 1. $100 friendly bet plus bragging rights, 2: Two sets of line level cables terminated however they wish (xlr,rca etc). One set burned in one set not and randomly labeled, 3: 30 days with the cables (I ship them on out).

Along with the cables an email would be sent with a password protected, encrypted, zip file with a key as to which cables were which.

You can't hand them any better situation. It is a totally sighted test with no one staring over your shoulder. Yet nothing but backpedaling. If JPS labs can send out cables that are per-burned in....

My one friends brother's uncle said that weed enhaces his jam out sessions. Even he has Bose 901! If It wasn't illegal I might try it!
Edited by Todd68 - 3/6/13 at 12:14pm

If you're illegal you should stop posting on the internet....they might find you.

If "it" wasn't illegal! It fixed I.

"It can't be measured or consistently observed by anyone but I just know the difference is there. Only to my ears in my room though. And it's immune to DBT." With all due respect, this is just special pleading. Do you at least acknowledge that just maybe your observations could be influenced by expectation bias? I agree. That is all that matters...to you (and me). But this argument isn't about a person quietly enjoying his equipment, it's about claims made by manufacturers and consumers alike that high-end cables improve sound quality.
Edited by repete66211 - 3/6/13 at 1:44pm

Even though most people agree with you regarding the nature of manufacturer's claims of increased fidelity - just take look at the poll results - you are incorrect about that being the main topic. Earlier in the thread it was clarified that the title is about personal experiences, not marketing claims. Check it out:

Edited by imagic - 3/6/13 at 1:18pm

I really, REALLY believed in the properties of exotic cables for years, and I tried pretty much everything I could. Besides auditioning many of the better commercial cables, I even hand-made several different varieties of exotics using pure silver wrapped helically around teflon or cotton rope, woven designs, overly-spaced connectors, all types of exotic insulators, you name it. I tried dozens of cables and made dozens more.

Before auditioning, I was CONVINCED that the silver would be brighter, and I was CONVINCED that the better conductors combined with more exotic insulators and a more noise-cancelling geometry would make a difference. When I listened to them, I still was convinced I heard a difference, though very slight. I would describe these differences to others listening, and then they thought maybe they could hear the same.

Then I started measuring, which I was convinced would show a difference, and would be the method I used to SELL my own designs, so I REALLY wanted to find and record those differences.

Once the voltage reached even a gentle level, everything measured identically until well over 100 KHz. The only difference I could find was in noise rejection with certain geometries, which was useless for speaker cables but may have helped for low-voltage interconnects, but even then would be inaudible in all but the most extreme cases.

I rejected my measurements as inadequate, convinced that there was still some transients or slight slope differences or overshoots that weren't showing in the audible spectrum on the meter but that the human brain could still process these tiny cues. I had read so many "reviews" and so much ad copy that I was absolutely convinced there was a difference. So I started ABX testing. First just switching between basic cable and one exotic, so that I could better train my ears and my fellow listeners to detect the differences.

Nope.

Complete failure. Choosing the exotic cables versus generic speaker wire was complete guesswork.

I really wanted to believe. I thought these cables were absolute works of art, and really wanted them to be influencing the sound in some way. They just didn't. No matter how many "golden-eared" test subjects I tried, NONE were successful in choosing the exotic versus generic, even in their own house with their own equipment and their own music.

I still make cables, just for myself and friends, but the goals are much simpler - quality construction, good connections (when used), and nice aesthetics for the visible cables. Anything further is just mental masturbation.

Spend your money on components that actually DO make a difference.

Perhaps in the strictest meaning but I take it for granted that the safe way in which the poll was presented--careful not to offend either camp--was more for the sake of fostering discussion. I would argue the superior performance claimed by consumers is influenced by and therefore inseparable from marketing claims which, in spite of a later clarification, might be why they're mentioned in Scott's original post. Even so, I would be happy to remove the mention of manufacturers from that post if you'd like.

Yes. I agree under certain circumstances one's observations could be influenced by expectation bias. But not in this case. I consistently picked which cable was in HIS system. This was done after only hearing cable A for thirty seconds, cable B for thirty seconds, cable A for thirty seconds, and then cable B for thirty seconds to try and distinguish perceivable differences between the cables in HIS system (which I wasn't familiar with). The person then put in cable A or cable B at their discretion and played the same 30 second clip. I identified 4 out of 5 times whether cable A or B was in the system (the one I missed was where I didn't confirm the configuration of the system so I took his word for it). So clearly I heard something different. Or I guess it was just plain luck. I don't believe the results are immune to double blind test. My only qualifier was it would take at least myself several days or weeks to get a handle on the sound of a new system before I could discern minute changes in the sound. I don't see the issue performing a blind test on a person's own system. The person will either consistently identify the correct cable or not. If the person does consistently identify the correct cable, then clearly and statiscally the person is able to discern some type of difference between the two cables (whether measurable or not). Which sounds better is up to debate but clearly one of the cables has discernably "changed" the sound from the other cable. So to answer the poll, I have heard audio cables improve the sound quality of a system. I would not call them exotic or insanely expensive (under $1000). Would I pay $1000 for a pair of interconnects? Not at this stage.

It does not matter to me, if you want to be harsh it's up to you; I feel the same way about exotic cables and also I want to warn people not to be fools with their money. I see your point: You (figuratively speaking) get home with your new cables, you've got a brochure and a manual, perhaps instructions telling you to "break in" the cable. There's no doubt the marketing reinforces the perception, illusion, call it what you will. I just wanted to point out that Scott was asking for personal experiences. I loved the testimonial by "Fat Dave".

Ultimately, a Rolex does not do a better job of telling you what time it is than a Seiko or Timex. It just looks fancier and costs more doing it. Rolex owners will tell you that you can deep dive with the watch, but really how many divers wear a Rolex when they do it?
Edited by imagic - 3/6/13 at 2:19pm

The next time you visit your hi-end dealer store, take a look behind the speakers and equipment and see what there running. Ive seen either the "cheapest" speaker wire, while trying to sell me the most expensive brand becuase it will sound better or course. Even seen the "yellow and red" interconnects. When I asked why I should spend $100.00+ on more expensive I.C. and why I would hear a difference, the salesman said there were too many electronics close together therefore giving off interference. WHAT? and just standard power cables being used. Granted this was a lower end, hi-fi shop. Selling less expensive Rotel amps, Sony, Onkyo, etc. (Under the $2,000 price tag) But when I visit my hi-end dealer, B&W 800, Wilson Grands, etc. with Krell, Mcintosh amps, the replace most of their cables with expensive brands. Bet hey, if you can afford $80,000 speakers and $30,000 amps whats a $3,000 cable? I pissed off the Transparent rep when he was trying to prove power cables do make music sound better. I just happened to take in my standard eveyday power cable and swapped it out with a room full of people. hmmm, no difference. Would you believe some people still claimed they heard a difference. ughh, placebo effect.. I said, well Bryston still uses a standard power cable. The rep said but the "internal amp" is built to accept it. Whatever, bye

Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty. So it takes days of listening to be able to identify very minute differences and then only when comparing A to B? In other words, the two cables sound nearly identical and any differences that exist can only be identified when making a quick A & B switch. That must be exhausting.