[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif "... they will freely dispense anecdotal evidence regarding how "cable vendors make exorbitant profits," and how "the same quality cables can be made for a small fraction of what these manufacturers are charging." Shouldn't the "skeptics" be bound by their own evidentiary standards?

Well, you are correct there, I have not researched the cost of making anything but standard cables (of which I've made hundreds) I suppose if the companies are machining their own connectors, and maybe ordering custom colors from the wire company, or weave wrap folks it might cost them significantly more. Not to mention, I don't think they are able to get guys to solder these things for .85 cents an hour these days, labor must be a huge factor. Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a $250 interconnect in my system. Could I make that cheaper than $250, with the same quality, given everything that would be involved, and considering my opportunity cost (which people always ignore)? I don't think so.

I'll concede that as well. I think 'DIY Cables' probably have significant value for the hobbyist, but I doubt they are made for much less as one offs.
Not only that, HECK YES I'll pay a paint company 15% more than I could 'do it myself.' I'd be receiving a better, more consistent paint job, done in 1/8th the time, and I don't have to stand on a 30-foot ladder in the hot sun all day...
BUT - Depending on the sales volume of a given company, wouldn't you think that efficiency and economy of scale might play huge factors? Making the first cable of a new design might cost them $2,200, but the other 2,499 cables in that run would be for $36.72 for example...
I don't think I can argue realistically that boutique cable companies are out there making vast profit, if they were, others would do the same for a bit less, etc. It is capitalism after all, and everyone has the right to make money.

What I do say though is that the value of said cables is questionable at best, a sham at worst if it is considered from the standpoint of audible improvement only. The cables certainly look nice, for which a significant premium is paid. There is no sonic improvement over a decent off the rack cable.

 

[koven]

Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by koven /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?

I electrically tested a Zu cable it offered no substantive differences in FR or noise above a $2.49 monoprice cable - I could not tell them apart in blind testing either

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorentz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Comparing cables to cars, I think the speakers/headphones are more like wheels and tires, the amp being the car engine and gearing, source being the gas and injection, and cables being the minor but important parts that connect them together. Something something.

Your analogy works also, but my point wasn't to compare cables to cars. What I mean to say is that there is some benefit to better construction, but that benefit can only go so far. At some point measurable improvement is so small as to be insignificant. That benefit may also be more than just improved sound. Durability and looks are reasonable criteria as well.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I could not tell them apart in blind testing either

Try taking your mittens off first.

se

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Try taking your mittens off first. se

Well, the Zu was indeed incredibly inflexible but audibly no different from stocky, post #227 in "my cable test enterprise" thread has samples recorded via Zu and stock cables to date nobody has been able to reliably tell them apart. since 93% of the time the difference is < 0.01db and 96% of the time it is < 0.1db that is hardly surprising

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, the Zu was indeed incredibly inflexible but audibly no different from stocky, post #227 in "my cable test enterprise" thread has samples recorded via Zu and stock cables to date nobody has been able to reliably tell them apart. since 93% of the time the difference is < 0.01db and 96% of the time it is < 0.1db that is hardly surprising

And of course any cable differences due to simple resistance, capacitance and inductance wouldn't be of any surprise anyway.

se

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by koven /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?

I used to think I heard a difference, but later confirmed there is none over common off the rack ones. Boy they sure look nice, and snug down onto the jacks tightly though. I'll keep 'em just for that.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by koven /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?

Are you asking about their headphone cables, interconnects, or power cables? There are quite a few posts on Head-Fi about the headphone cables, which a lot of people seem to think quite highly of. There are fewer posts, I think, regarding the interconnects and power cables.

It's a little tricky searching for posts on Zu cables, because the Head-Fi search function will not let you search for a term with only two letters, like "Zu." And that's really the keyword you need to use. As an alternative, you can do a Google search, and limit the results to the Head-Fi.org domain. That will yield a lot of "for sale" posts for the sale forums, but also quite a few posts with substantive comments on Zu cables.

Also, there's little point in asking if they are "snakeoil." A "skeptic" will tell you that any cable that costs more than $25 (or whatever) is "snakeoil" (i.e., in terms of whether it makes an audible difference). A "believer" would never use the term "snakeoil" even if they thought the Zu cable or another cable sounded like krap.

 

[colonelkernel8]

In my honest opinion, cables are a myth.

I will provide one argument:

If cable manufacturers actually knew what they were doing, why is research needed to reveal the supposed effects of their cables after they have been on the market? Shouldn't they already know this information?

As an example, does Texas Instruments release products off the cuff and then have specs released after the fact? No, they evaluate needs based on existing technical specifications prior to even beginning design of a product.

I hope that the tone of this post does not offend anyone.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my honest opinion, cables are a myth. I will provide one argument: If cable manufacturers actually knew what they were doing, why is research needed to reveal the supposed effects of their cables after they have been on the market? Shouldn't they already know this information? As an example, does Texas Instruments release products off the cuff and then have specs released after the fact? No, they evaluate needs based on existing technical specifications prior to even beginning design of a product. I hope that the tone of this post does not offend anyone.

I don't agree with your argument, but your post doesn't offend me. Thanks for contributing to the argument in a tactful way.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Furthermore, if there are no specifications used as benchmarks, how are "better" products designed? When a company releases a "new and improved" cable, what about it makes it better? That it's thicker and uses a pretty cable sleeve?

 

[Donald North]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my honest opinion, cables are a myth. I will provide one argument: If cable manufacturers actually knew what they were doing, why is research needed to reveal the supposed effects of their cables after they have been on the market? Shouldn't they already know this information? As an example, does Texas Instruments release products off the cuff and then have specs released after the fact? No, they evaluate needs based on existing technical specifications prior to even beginning design of a product. I hope that the tone of this post does not offend anyone.

Some cable companies, for example, design and develop their cables to be low capacitance. They don't discover after the fact that they are low capacitance.

I personally feel there are much better ways for the same out-of-pocket money to improve one's hi-fi than with cables. However I do know some instances where specific cables will provide measurable differences and benefits. Example: Tube preamp with high output impedance driving long interconnect cables to monoblock amplifiers. Let's say the preamp's output impedance is 7Kohm - it doesn't have a low impedance output buffer or follower. Interconnect cables are 20 feet long with 100pF/foot capacitance (common for generic low cost interconnect cables). This combination forms a low pass filter at -3dB at 11,370Hz! This WILL be audible. To improve, change to lower capacitance cables or different preamp with lower output impedance.

 

[Donald North]

Here's another example: You don't use an active preamp and instead use a passive preamp like a potentiometer in a box. The pot's impedance is 50K - common amplifier input impedance. The output impedance of the pot will vary from near 0 to 12.5Kohm, depending on setting (worst case is -6dB from max). This pot feeds the same long 20 feet, 100pF/ft cables. Depending on volume setting, the high frequency low pass filter will vary in corner frequency from infinity (theoretically) to 6366Hz! To improve, use a lower capacitance cable or passive preamp with lower input impedance. If the latter, then this can start challenging the drive capability of the source components' analog outputs.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some cable companies, for example, design and develop their cables to be low capacitance. They don't discover after the fact that they are low capacitance. I personally feel there are much better ways for the same out-of-pocket money to improve one's hi-fi than with cables. However I do know some instances where specific cables will provide measurable differences and benefits. Example: Tube preamp with high output impedance driving long interconnect cables to monoblock amplifiers. Let's say the preamp's output impedance is 7Kohm - it doesn't have a low impedance output buffer or follower. Interconnect cables are 20 feet long with 100pF/foot capacitance (common for generic low cost interconnect cables). This combination forms a low pass filter at -3dB at 11,370Hz! This WILL be audible. To improve, change to lower capacitance cables or different preamp with lower output impedance.

My gripe isn't with honest companies building high performance cables for situations such as this. My gripe is with companies that sell 1 meter lengths of cable boasting such things as "mass dampening" and "EMI absorbing sand" and "speed of light technology" for $1000+. Capacitance is a measurable specification that can be minimized through engineering. Adding weights to a cable because you think it will make it sounds better is not engineering, I am certain that you understand this.

Moreover, such things as speaker cable and headphone cable, the signal on this path is post amplification and cannot reasonably affect sound.

Also, power cables, digital cables, and garbage such as that.