OT: Why premium cables cost so much
Back to post
Comments
farss
wrote on 3/19/2008, 5:21 AM
Well seeing as we're on audio and things that can't be measured and yet can be heard there's plenty of talk about Protools summing algorithms compared to Vegas's. The double blind tests seem to show Vegas comes off worse, nulling the results shows nothing down to -100dB, go figure.
Getting back to cables. I can't really say much either way about cables. But I'd hazard a guess compared to things like mic placement they're pretty low down in the order of things that make a big difference. Also the test methodolgy is very suspect in this case, so far off as to border on the really bad. Firstly it's not double blind, secondly human opinion of sound is a very poor way to judge quality of reproduction, we prefer what is familiar to what is accurate. Even more difficult t is how do we define what is accurate, should it sound like it did in seat 43 row B or seat 45 row C.
Your drug analogy reveals the flaw in your argument. A difference was found, just that at first we weren't looking in the right place. The mysteries of accurate sound reproduction are well understood and the answer is simple, it's so diificult as to be impossible. Tweaking things with cables might well get a sound we prefer but it's irrelevant if you're after accuracy. The test for accuracy is simple enough. You should not be able to tell the difference between the real and the recorded. I'm not talking about when you suspend disbelief, I mean when try as hard as you can you cannot tell the difference.
Now that I think about it of course cables would make a difference. They have R,L, and C. At the most simplistic level if the values are different between a stereo pair you'll have phase errors, so sure, you'll hear a difference if you've got really good, well trained ears. You'd get the same moving the speakers a millimeter or moving your head, I trust you had your heads in cranial clamps while you did your "tests"?
Bob.
Getting back to cables. I can't really say much either way about cables. But I'd hazard a guess compared to things like mic placement they're pretty low down in the order of things that make a big difference. Also the test methodolgy is very suspect in this case, so far off as to border on the really bad. Firstly it's not double blind, secondly human opinion of sound is a very poor way to judge quality of reproduction, we prefer what is familiar to what is accurate. Even more difficult t is how do we define what is accurate, should it sound like it did in seat 43 row B or seat 45 row C.
Your drug analogy reveals the flaw in your argument. A difference was found, just that at first we weren't looking in the right place. The mysteries of accurate sound reproduction are well understood and the answer is simple, it's so diificult as to be impossible. Tweaking things with cables might well get a sound we prefer but it's irrelevant if you're after accuracy. The test for accuracy is simple enough. You should not be able to tell the difference between the real and the recorded. I'm not talking about when you suspend disbelief, I mean when try as hard as you can you cannot tell the difference.
Now that I think about it of course cables would make a difference. They have R,L, and C. At the most simplistic level if the values are different between a stereo pair you'll have phase errors, so sure, you'll hear a difference if you've got really good, well trained ears. You'd get the same moving the speakers a millimeter or moving your head, I trust you had your heads in cranial clamps while you did your "tests"?
Bob.
drmathprog
wrote on 3/19/2008, 6:10 AM
'' came across this item yesterday. Seems a audiophile is worried whether he should cut off the excess speaker wire going to a nearby speaker, or just coil the wire in the hopes of keeping the distance traveled the same for the pair of speakers. ."
Man, I feel for that guy! My whole listening experience is ruined whenever the audio in one channel is delayed by more than a few ten-thousandths of a nanosecond.! :-)
Man, I feel for that guy! My whole listening experience is ruined whenever the audio in one channel is delayed by more than a few ten-thousandths of a nanosecond.! :-)
AlanC
wrote on 3/19/2008, 6:44 AM
Whatever happened to Wow and Flutter and Rumble???
In the U.K. there is a device called the Mosquito that can be installed to deter kids gathering in public places. It emits a continuous high frequency sound that only younger people can hear. It drives the kids potty and they move away from the area but adults can't hear it.
http://www.compoundsecurity.co.uk/The Mosquito[/link]
In the U.K. there is a device called the Mosquito that can be installed to deter kids gathering in public places. It emits a continuous high frequency sound that only younger people can hear. It drives the kids potty and they move away from the area but adults can't hear it.
http://www.compoundsecurity.co.uk/The Mosquito[/link]
JJKizak
wrote on 3/19/2008, 6:48 AM
Noting listening to the huge kluge of cable hookups and distribution systems (selection of 25 different amp/preamp/speaker/cd/dvd/tt/ combinations) and the many problems this creates in an audio store, and even the location of the speakers, I would not accept any change in sound quality by changing cables unless it was my system in the home. My hearing is from 19 hz. to 12.5 khz. and falls off like the Titanic after 12.5 khz. At best it was 16.4 khz. at 25 years old.
JJK
JJK
4eyes
wrote on 3/19/2008, 7:42 AM
I use good cables because of the mechanical reliability required for the environment. Especially if someone lives close to the ocean.
Eventually cheap cables fail on the mechanical side, connections etc. A real headache on commercial jobs where there are 30 or more stacked cables.
Even on residential applications I'll stay with good cables.
My experience Radio Shack cables usually fail over extended use on the mechanical connection side (not a great mechanical connection).
I have to admit though that for the price Radio Shack cables don't play out to bad though for the average household consumer.
I'll only use Radio Shack cables for a quick temporary setup if forced to do so.
Not sure about others but even on my home system it's a real hassle to get to the back of my apps after all the cables are in place and then try to find the cable that has a loose ground or intermittent loss of signal.
Eventually cheap cables fail on the mechanical side, connections etc. A real headache on commercial jobs where there are 30 or more stacked cables.
Even on residential applications I'll stay with good cables.
My experience Radio Shack cables usually fail over extended use on the mechanical connection side (not a great mechanical connection).
I have to admit though that for the price Radio Shack cables don't play out to bad though for the average household consumer.
I'll only use Radio Shack cables for a quick temporary setup if forced to do so.
Not sure about others but even on my home system it's a real hassle to get to the back of my apps after all the cables are in place and then try to find the cable that has a loose ground or intermittent loss of signal.
deusx
wrote on 3/19/2008, 7:44 AM
don't screw with sound.
There is alot more to it than science, and most people still do not understand what it is. Why do vacuum tubes still sound much better in certain situations. Why does a hand wound guitar pickup sound different than the machine wound one, even if you try to make them exactly the same ( same materials, same number ow windings ).
I'm by no means an authority on hearing, and my hearing is at best below average to average, but I can hear the difference in sound when using guitar picks made of different materials ( all other things being equal ).
I'm sure there is a dfference in sound between a $5 and $55 cable as well. There is more to it than just specs. Some of the things are ridiculous ( like $500 wooden knobs that will make your system sound better ), but .............................
There is alot more to it than science, and most people still do not understand what it is. Why do vacuum tubes still sound much better in certain situations. Why does a hand wound guitar pickup sound different than the machine wound one, even if you try to make them exactly the same ( same materials, same number ow windings ).
I'm by no means an authority on hearing, and my hearing is at best below average to average, but I can hear the difference in sound when using guitar picks made of different materials ( all other things being equal ).
I'm sure there is a dfference in sound between a $5 and $55 cable as well. There is more to it than just specs. Some of the things are ridiculous ( like $500 wooden knobs that will make your system sound better ), but .............................
4eyes
wrote on 3/19/2008, 7:56 AM
I think:
Vacuum tubes can handle more power (or mini bursts of power) without saturating/distorting the signal (generally).
The machines wind the coils tighter than a hand wound coil.
Vacuum tubes can handle more power (or mini bursts of power) without saturating/distorting the signal (generally).
The machines wind the coils tighter than a hand wound coil.
apit34356
wrote on 3/19/2008, 8:02 AM
vacuum tubes use internal heaters to lower the threshold energy for the electron to "leap", and the travel time is not instant. But more power thru the tube, better the performance vs a power transistor, where heavy current loads, generated more heat, degrading performance. Of course, degradation of the tube heater killed performance accordingly. Like the old saying, "some like it HOT!" ;-)
JJKizak
wrote on 3/19/2008, 8:42 AM
I got rid of my tube amp & preamp in 1985. The new solid state amp was much cleaner on the low end, had no hum, no hiss, no fan, no high frequency oscillation problems, no 6 month replacement of the warn out tubes, and could perform about 10,000 more functions. It had one fault----lightning fried it.
JJK
JJK
John_Cline
wrote on 3/19/2008, 9:41 AM
I own a McIntosh C24 Class-A preamp and an MC240 40 watt per channel tube amp from the early 60s. I have to say that despite the higher distortion, noise and next-to-no damping factor, this combination sounds more "musical" than anything I have ever owned.
Jay Gladwell
wrote on 3/19/2008, 10:17 AM
Alan, the video about the Mosquito was very interesting.
Thanks!
TLF
wrote on 3/19/2008, 10:18 AM
I've not read all the posts here, but I highly recommend you visit www.randi.org.
James Randi has been trying to get the editor of a hi fi magazine to undergo a blind test to see if he (the editor) can detect a difference between cables as he claims he can.
He'll receive $1Million if he can.
James Randi has been trying to get the editor of a hi fi magazine to undergo a blind test to see if he (the editor) can detect a difference between cables as he claims he can.
He'll receive $1Million if he can.
riredale
wrote on 3/19/2008, 3:56 PM
James Randi is a remarkable fellow, and can usually be counted on to bring science and logic to debunk quackery of all sorts, from speaker wires to bending spoons to ESP.
I majored in EE in school and was very familiar with vacuum tubes, since they were the dominant force up until the late '60's for many applications. Man, we were so glad to be able to get away from them, with their fragility, heat, supporting circuitry and transformers, high voltages, hum, and failure rates. One characteristic of tubes is useful for audio, though: when a signal is driven beyond the linear response part of the curve, the waveform deformation is gradual, not "clipped" like a P-N semiconductor device. The distortion produces different harmonics, and to many the tube distortions are less irritating. Still, the engineer will argue that you shouldn't be driving either device into its nonlinear range in the first place.
The other thing is the coolness factor. Back in those days a transistor was the ultimate in coolness, just because it was rare, expensive, and different. Today, tubes are cool to a whole new generation largely for the same reasons.
One final note: I have vivid memories of being a 12 year old boy, interested in electronics, visiting a neighbor with my dad. The neighbor was a friendly old guy who enjoyed Ham Radio. He had an enormous quad antenna outside his house and a homebuilt 1KW (the legal limit) AM transmitter in his spare bedroom, which had been turned into his "shack." The amber glow coming from that floor-to-ceiling black rack, filled with vacuum tubes, was most impressive, as was the heat. Then, when he clicked the microphone switch and all the house lights dimmed and a sinister "hum" came from the transmitter rack, I was hooked. I HAD to be a Ham operator.
I majored in EE in school and was very familiar with vacuum tubes, since they were the dominant force up until the late '60's for many applications. Man, we were so glad to be able to get away from them, with their fragility, heat, supporting circuitry and transformers, high voltages, hum, and failure rates. One characteristic of tubes is useful for audio, though: when a signal is driven beyond the linear response part of the curve, the waveform deformation is gradual, not "clipped" like a P-N semiconductor device. The distortion produces different harmonics, and to many the tube distortions are less irritating. Still, the engineer will argue that you shouldn't be driving either device into its nonlinear range in the first place.
The other thing is the coolness factor. Back in those days a transistor was the ultimate in coolness, just because it was rare, expensive, and different. Today, tubes are cool to a whole new generation largely for the same reasons.
One final note: I have vivid memories of being a 12 year old boy, interested in electronics, visiting a neighbor with my dad. The neighbor was a friendly old guy who enjoyed Ham Radio. He had an enormous quad antenna outside his house and a homebuilt 1KW (the legal limit) AM transmitter in his spare bedroom, which had been turned into his "shack." The amber glow coming from that floor-to-ceiling black rack, filled with vacuum tubes, was most impressive, as was the heat. Then, when he clicked the microphone switch and all the house lights dimmed and a sinister "hum" came from the transmitter rack, I was hooked. I HAD to be a Ham operator.
ushere
wrote on 3/19/2008, 4:43 PM
we have an intercom system between the house and studio, some 60mts away.
i find that using the more expensive waxed string between the two tin cans much more superior to the simple twine bought in any old store.
unfortunately it doesn't seem to work when i connect it to my speakers.
any suggestions?
leslie
i find that using the more expensive waxed string between the two tin cans much more superior to the simple twine bought in any old store.
unfortunately it doesn't seem to work when i connect it to my speakers.
any suggestions?
leslie
Coursedesign
wrote on 3/19/2008, 4:49 PM
any suggestions?
Yes, don't compare by listening yourself to the different kinds of strings.
Just ask an authority figure if it is possible that waxed string could sound better than twine. If they say "no," then you know you have the right answer, regardless of what you are hearing.
Yes, don't compare by listening yourself to the different kinds of strings.
Just ask an authority figure if it is possible that waxed string could sound better than twine. If they say "no," then you know you have the right answer, regardless of what you are hearing.
johnmeyer
wrote on 3/19/2008, 4:50 PM
Ah, a fellow EE!
I've replaced a lot of tubes, but never designed with them. I think I read somewhere that one reason for the difference in the characteristics of tube distortion compared to various solid state amplifiers is that the tube transfer function tends to generate even harmonics, and many solid state designs generate odd order harmonics, the later being more objectionable because even harmonics are "in tune" with the music. Of course there are so many solid state designs, (class "A," class "B" etc.) and also technologies (bipolar, mosfet, etc.) that it is difficult to make too many general statements.
As for ham radio, my dad and brother were both hams. We had a forty foot tower in the back yard and a huge tri-band antenna on a rotor at the top of that tower. For me, the excitement was listening in when they worked Antarctica, or someone behind the Iron Curtain. I never got the bug because I was too introverted, but I was totally fascinated by science of it, and did actually study the Radio Amateur Handbook's technical sections, just for fun.
Oh, and as for the audio cables, the first double-blind study that I ever saw of Monster Cable (or it's earlier incarnations) vs. 14- or 16-gauge lamp wire was back around 1975. They put together one of these amazing audio setups like you get in the hotel suites at CES (where the real audiophiles go) and did an A/B test between lamp wire and specialty cable. Like the million dollar guy's bet, absolutely no one could tell any difference whatsoever. To do this test, you have to use really thick lamp wire, and you have to have A/B switches that are flawless and can switch the load without damaging anything. This is the toughest part of getting the test to work correctly.
I've replaced a lot of tubes, but never designed with them. I think I read somewhere that one reason for the difference in the characteristics of tube distortion compared to various solid state amplifiers is that the tube transfer function tends to generate even harmonics, and many solid state designs generate odd order harmonics, the later being more objectionable because even harmonics are "in tune" with the music. Of course there are so many solid state designs, (class "A," class "B" etc.) and also technologies (bipolar, mosfet, etc.) that it is difficult to make too many general statements.
As for ham radio, my dad and brother were both hams. We had a forty foot tower in the back yard and a huge tri-band antenna on a rotor at the top of that tower. For me, the excitement was listening in when they worked Antarctica, or someone behind the Iron Curtain. I never got the bug because I was too introverted, but I was totally fascinated by science of it, and did actually study the Radio Amateur Handbook's technical sections, just for fun.
Oh, and as for the audio cables, the first double-blind study that I ever saw of Monster Cable (or it's earlier incarnations) vs. 14- or 16-gauge lamp wire was back around 1975. They put together one of these amazing audio setups like you get in the hotel suites at CES (where the real audiophiles go) and did an A/B test between lamp wire and specialty cable. Like the million dollar guy's bet, absolutely no one could tell any difference whatsoever. To do this test, you have to use really thick lamp wire, and you have to have A/B switches that are flawless and can switch the load without damaging anything. This is the toughest part of getting the test to work correctly.
johnmeyer
wrote on 3/19/2008, 4:52 PM
i find that using the more expensive waxed string between the two tin cans much more superior to the simple twine bought in any old store.Yeah, less wax. It clogs up your ears.
Coursedesign
wrote on 3/19/2008, 10:11 PM
The test for accuracy is simple enough. You should not be able to tell the difference between the real and the recorded. I'm not talking about when you suspend disbelief, I mean when try as hard as you can you cannot tell the difference.
Well, I have never heard any system at any price that was capable of that.
Listen to a live violin, or a vocalist singing a capella, or a guitar, or a grand piano. It's not hard to make a reasonable facsimile, but fool somebody with trained ears, no way!
There is so much in sound that is not understood yet. Just think of the Stradivarius pursuit, where people have been testing different lacquers and all kinds of things, and they still can't get the same quality of sound even after centuries of work.
I don't have the foggiest idea what makes different signal cables sound different (not speaker cables, I have no opinion on those), but I trust my golden ears because they are finding differences as large as between live and recorded music.
A suggestion for those who are going to NAB: go to Sony's stand and check out their two portable Flash recorders, the PCM-D1 ($2,000) and the PCM-D50 ($500). Record a few seconds of room tone from the hall on each, and listen to both using the $99 ordinary headphones they provide.
If it takes you longer than one second to be blown away by the difference in the "air" of the two recordings, then stay with your boombox for listening to music. It is already fulfilling most of your potential for sound enjoyment, and you can save a lot of money.
Your drug analogy reveals the flaw in your argument. A difference was found, just that at first we weren't looking in the right place.
Why do you say there is a flaw in the argument?
In the drug comparison case, they were saying for years that there was absolutely no difference, and they got away with that statement, because the thousands of patients who got sick when they switched medicine brands were obviously "just sick in the head."
Until one day somebody found the specific difference through good research work.
Well, I have never heard any system at any price that was capable of that.
Listen to a live violin, or a vocalist singing a capella, or a guitar, or a grand piano. It's not hard to make a reasonable facsimile, but fool somebody with trained ears, no way!
There is so much in sound that is not understood yet. Just think of the Stradivarius pursuit, where people have been testing different lacquers and all kinds of things, and they still can't get the same quality of sound even after centuries of work.
I don't have the foggiest idea what makes different signal cables sound different (not speaker cables, I have no opinion on those), but I trust my golden ears because they are finding differences as large as between live and recorded music.
A suggestion for those who are going to NAB: go to Sony's stand and check out their two portable Flash recorders, the PCM-D1 ($2,000) and the PCM-D50 ($500). Record a few seconds of room tone from the hall on each, and listen to both using the $99 ordinary headphones they provide.
If it takes you longer than one second to be blown away by the difference in the "air" of the two recordings, then stay with your boombox for listening to music. It is already fulfilling most of your potential for sound enjoyment, and you can save a lot of money.
Your drug analogy reveals the flaw in your argument. A difference was found, just that at first we weren't looking in the right place.
Why do you say there is a flaw in the argument?
In the drug comparison case, they were saying for years that there was absolutely no difference, and they got away with that statement, because the thousands of patients who got sick when they switched medicine brands were obviously "just sick in the head."
Until one day somebody found the specific difference through good research work.
LarryP
wrote on 3/20/2008, 5:00 AM
Google around for "ABX" testing of speaker cables. The results usually indicate no statistical difference until the wire starts getting too small.
There are also a number of articles floating around along the lines of expensive things look, taste, sound better etc.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/24/grape_expectations/
Also check out the writings of Don Norman.
There are also a number of articles floating around along the lines of expensive things look, taste, sound better etc.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/24/grape_expectations/
Also check out the writings of Don Norman.
Steven Myers
wrote on 3/20/2008, 5:14 AM
expensive things look, taste, sound better etc.
A recent study showed that expensive placebos were better painkillers than inexpensive ones.
Still, my truck really does run better right after I wash it.
A recent study showed that expensive placebos were better painkillers than inexpensive ones.
Still, my truck really does run better right after I wash it.
farss
wrote on 3/20/2008, 5:34 AM
"Until one day somebody found the specific difference through good research work."
i think that gets to the point. A lot of good research work has already been done with regard to audio reproduction. In the case of these cables I'd be pretty certain we could measure and therefore quantify the difference these cables make. Until that's done we can't see if they just make something sound better or if they're really making it more accurate. Is this 'air' that you speak of part of the original sound or a colouration that our ears prefer.
Bob.
i think that gets to the point. A lot of good research work has already been done with regard to audio reproduction. In the case of these cables I'd be pretty certain we could measure and therefore quantify the difference these cables make. Until that's done we can't see if they just make something sound better or if they're really making it more accurate. Is this 'air' that you speak of part of the original sound or a colouration that our ears prefer.
Bob.
jabloomf1230
wrote on 3/20/2008, 8:41 AM
"Still, my truck really does run better right after I wash it."
http://www.redcarpetpeoria.com/faqs.htm
Wade down through the FAQs. ;-)
http://www.redcarpetpeoria.com/faqs.htm
Wade down through the FAQs. ;-)
Coursedesign
wrote on 3/20/2008, 11:03 AM
Is this 'air' that you speak of part of the original sound or a colouration that our ears prefer.
Good question!
It is part of the original sound, because I hear it every day when listening to the sounds of traffic and people moving down the street, and when I listen to people singing a capella (3-5x/month) or play live instruments, but I very rarely hear it when listening to recorded sound because it requires a first class reproduction chain.
A related phenomenon: I have listened to church recordings of Bach organ concertos, where on most "stereos" I heard just the music, but on top flight setups I could hear what the church looked like, including exactly where there were objects sticking out from the walls. If it wasn't for the "air" I would not be able to perceive this greatly presence-increasing part of the sound reproduction.
I have probably spent as much time listening to recordings of all kinds as the time most here have spent in front of their computers. But I am not alone in appreciating "air" in professional recording, not by far. I'm sure there are many recording pros out there who could explain it more eloquently than I can.
Good question!
It is part of the original sound, because I hear it every day when listening to the sounds of traffic and people moving down the street, and when I listen to people singing a capella (3-5x/month) or play live instruments, but I very rarely hear it when listening to recorded sound because it requires a first class reproduction chain.
A related phenomenon: I have listened to church recordings of Bach organ concertos, where on most "stereos" I heard just the music, but on top flight setups I could hear what the church looked like, including exactly where there were objects sticking out from the walls. If it wasn't for the "air" I would not be able to perceive this greatly presence-increasing part of the sound reproduction.
I have probably spent as much time listening to recordings of all kinds as the time most here have spent in front of their computers. But I am not alone in appreciating "air" in professional recording, not by far. I'm sure there are many recording pros out there who could explain it more eloquently than I can.
apit34356
wrote on 3/20/2008, 11:32 AM
That's why Sony's acousticmirror is so nice '-)