Are High-End Cables a Scam?
- Thread starter Robert
- Start date
Now I am curious - what type of blind tests did you carry?
Anyway it is fine that you consider "that differences between cables are minute enough to be deemed insignificant" - can we assume they are audible and we just discussing scale?
BTW, what do you mean by "complete rejection of Science" ? As far as I know high end audio is not a science. Some people use the generic words "Science of audio" as "knowledge of audio", but as sound reproduction is a perceptual process the tools to make it scientific are not just measurements - you also need models.
Last edited:
I'm reading your assertion that "there is no science in audio" and I've just got to believe many have a 180 degree difference of opinion. It must be semantics as to what we all define as "science" or "science in audio" because one very plausible way of reading your statement leads to the inescapable conclusion you have indeed completely rejected science. If there is *no science in audio*, then what is left? Chaos? Randomness? Fantasy?
I'm also not sure what you mean when you post that "some people use the generic words 'science of audio'" = "knowledge of audio". I'm concerned you're raising a classic strawman argument, but I don't know since I just don't understand what you mean by "science of audio" and "knowledge of audio".
As you well know, it is the scientific method itself in which some believe and others don't, particularly when it comes to cables. Those in the latter camp, I'm afraid, are *rejecting science*.
Hello all,
I love audio more than most folks obviously or I wouldn't be here. However I still simply consider myself an enthusiast, just not as obsessed as others. Cable debates are usually a "cat and dog" fight that lose sight of what's really important. I've had my fair share of wrestling with high-end cables. In the begining I felt those higher priced cables did indeed improve SQ. But, like the saying "what goes up must come down" at this point in time I'm not sure if I was just fooling myself.
I ask myself, "what do I think I'm hearing that can't be measured" ??? Deeper bass, sweeter midrange and cleaner highs.... what about soundstage and imaging ??? With the exception of the former I'm unsure of how one measures soundstage and imaging. Perhaps that's all just preference. I'm sure there are guidelines that will explain such things I just haven't researched well enough.
What I can't get over is... I have yet to see any real evidence or science from high-end cable makers as to why or how their cables work. The usual reasoning is that "not enough is yet known to explain" or "there is no known way to measure". Which leaves me to ask, how do you know what you are doing is doing anything at all ? How do you currently know how to design, build, and achieve the same results for the customer ? Seems like a lot is missing here. If the improvements are clearly audible yet un-measurable, where does that leave me....
I'm all for improving SQ and would be happy to use high-end cables that honestly do so, but at this point in time I don't see a whole lot of good reasoning to.
I love audio more than most folks obviously or I wouldn't be here. However I still simply consider myself an enthusiast, just not as obsessed as others. Cable debates are usually a "cat and dog" fight that lose sight of what's really important. I've had my fair share of wrestling with high-end cables. In the begining I felt those higher priced cables did indeed improve SQ. But, like the saying "what goes up must come down" at this point in time I'm not sure if I was just fooling myself.
I ask myself, "what do I think I'm hearing that can't be measured" ??? Deeper bass, sweeter midrange and cleaner highs.... what about soundstage and imaging ??? With the exception of the former I'm unsure of how one measures soundstage and imaging. Perhaps that's all just preference. I'm sure there are guidelines that will explain such things I just haven't researched well enough.
What I can't get over is... I have yet to see any real evidence or science from high-end cable makers as to why or how their cables work. The usual reasoning is that "not enough is yet known to explain" or "there is no known way to measure". Which leaves me to ask, how do you know what you are doing is doing anything at all ? How do you currently know how to design, build, and achieve the same results for the customer ? Seems like a lot is missing here. If the improvements are clearly audible yet un-measurable, where does that leave me....
I'm all for improving SQ and would be happy to use high-end cables that honestly do so, but at this point in time I don't see a whole lot of good reasoning to.
I'm reading your assertion that "there is no science in audio" and I've just got to believe many have a 180 degree difference of opinion. It must be semantics as to what we all define as "science" or "science in audio" because one very plausible way of reading your statement leads to the inescapable conclusion you have indeed completely rejected science. If there is *no science in audio*, then what is left? Chaos? Randomness? Fantasy?
I'm also not sure what you mean when you post that "some people use the generic words 'science of audio'" = "knowledge of audio". I'm concerned you're raising a classic strawman argument, but I don't know since I just don't understand what you mean by "science of audio" and "knowledge of audio".
As you well know, it is the scientific method itself in which some believe and others don't, particularly when it comes to cables. Those in the latter camp, I'm afraid, are *rejecting science*.
I should have been more careful in my words - I wanted to say that high end audio is not a science, not that there is no science in audio. As you are correctly stating it is the scientific method that distinguishes the science from knowledge - I have yet to see a formulation of high end audio using the scientific method.
I have now edited my previous post.
"High end audio is not a science" may be a different choice of language, and again it may be semantics involved here (IMO one of the leading causes of food fights), but again there are many who hold a 180 degree different perspective. I suspect many would hold that high end audio reproduction IS a scientific endeavor, which includes, amongst other things, measurements, modeling, and listening. To those that share this opinion, excluding any of the parts is a complete rejection of the whole, ie, a complete rejection of science.
In Biology a 5% difference is HUGE. Huge enough to make the difference between a human and an ape pretty obvious (in most cases anyway)
I don't know what the heck what I just said has to do with cables being a scam. Let's just say it was a strange way to say I agree with Ron's observations and that I am of the opinion that to reject any of the parts is to reject the whole.
I don't know what the heck what I just said has to do with cables being a scam. Let's just say it was a strange way to say I agree with Ron's observations and that I am of the opinion that to reject any of the parts is to reject the whole.
My point is that the debate about cables has never been scientific, as well as most discussions about high-end.
I would be very pleased if someone could show me I am wrong and present links or references to accessible written measurements, models and listening reports, made in agreement with the rules of the scientific method, that would establish high-end audio as a science.
I would be very pleased if someone could show me I am wrong and present links or references to accessible written measurements, models and listening reports, made in agreement with the rules of the scientific method, that would establish high-end audio as a science.
I believe the rule is just to follow it. Where people go astray at least ethically, is the part where you have to start all over again if you don't get the answer. Much easier to "creatively" re-interpret the data. As one can easily see bias is an issue in any human undertaking. It can be lessened but never removed.
Usually it takes me about three quarters of an hour to present the scientific method.
But you can see it at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
But you can see it at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
lol!in biology a 5% difference is huge. Huge enough to make the difference between a human and an ape pretty obvious (in most cases anyway)
The point is past a certain threshold the differences between cables are not perceptible and that established by science ... That is a scientific debate ... I will repeat that it is not that there are not differences between cables.. There are ... The debate is to me rather clear ... The debate tactics OTOH are far from correct.
The Science of Audio is correct and exists. It is not all-knowing ..Nothing is .. We don't know it all in anything ... We don't know it all in Physics, Biology , Chemistry, etc... We don't turn around and proclaim these as non-science because of knowledge gaps. Same with Audio .. We are learning ever more...
High End Audio is supposed to be the highest expression of Audio Reproduction, itself an application of Science .... So if it rejects science how can it progress? So those Audio components are simply oeuvre d'Arts .. Not applications of known and science?
Such debates position clearly point manufacturers of such (horrendous expensive) accessories to what they should continue doing: Continue to increase their price ... Their customers will find rationale for such ... Manufacturers don't need to prove anything .. their customers will fill the Grand Canyon Wide blanks ...
The main three issues I have seen with the cheapest (included or not) cables are poor build quality, poor shielding, and high capacitance. Poor build quality is an annoyance, and high capacitance affects mostly tube gear, but poor shielding can affect everything. Even SS components do not always have a low-impedance output at RF frequencies, leading to RFI, and large LF noise (like power cord radiation) can impact the very lowest-level signals. How much is audible will always be debated, but clearly some of us have massive amounts of dynamic range, thus better shielding will allow those folk to (get ready for it) "pig out".
OK. Please define the threshold in a way it is accepted by science.
Curious that now you claim that the rules of the scientific method are “far from correct”.
This is a classic and very poor and misleading argument. No one knows everything - in Physics, Biology , Chemistry, etc. But what we know was proved according to established rules – the so called scientific method – and then became Science. As the gaps are correctly filled Science grows. Surely there are many subjects related to audio reproduction that are science – but not the high-end audio.
Something being an application of science does not imply it is science – it is technology. BTW, I refereed several times the importance of empirical knowledge in audio in other threads. I believe that sometime in future high-end will try to be more scientific. Unhappily resources for developing this science are almost non-existent - who will spent large amounts of money is such a fringe area?
Now, you are just mixing market tactics and subjective appreciations in the discussion – a good way of arriving nowhere. The law of diminishing returns, that we both accept, is not surely “audio science”.
I am firm believer in science. But I feel that we should not use pseudo-scientific arguments to support our positions, even if they are respectable and valuable in debates.
No kidding, and there's a very good reason for that. Cable vendors understand well the frailty of human hearing, and placebo effect, and expectation bias. So why confuse a proven marketing strategy with actual evidence? The same applies to many / most other "tweak" products.
Everything about wire has been known for more than a century. Whatever can be heard by humans can be measured to ten times more accuracy and with far better repeatability. Even if there were some mysterious aspect of audio that "science" didn't know how to measure, it would have been revealed long ago in a null test. A null test with two wires is trivial to perform, and can prove beyond all doubt that signals passing through both wires arrive identically at the other end.
--Ethan
I purchase ALL my cables from MonoPrice dot com, and have been very happy with them. Wasted hundreds of $ in the past on Monster, then realized the Monster ate my cash, and I woke up. IMHO.
Acuity/AQ and Nordost have been working on creating a protocol to measure differences in various audio products including power cords, resonance control and power conditioning devices. I'm posting a link to the Nordost position description for those interested. I realize this is a very controversial area, but personally I do believe synergistic cabling, resonance control, and power conditioning provide a foundation to optimize the sound of a well thought out audio systemhttp://www.nordost.com/downloads/New%20Approaches%20To%20Audio%20Measurement.pdf.
Similar threads
