Dilemma: Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore that section of their review?

[kiteki]

The last time I bought a blu-ray player the salesman asked if I need a cable and said "No point using blu-ray if you don't have a cable!", I think their HDMI cables cost in a similar order to the blu-ray player itself.  Obviously salesmen and retailers can extract more profit from cables, just like they do with overpriced headphones and speakers.
 
These HDMI cables which are sold for more than $100 probably cost less than $10 for the shop.  It's clear that many consumers would be enjoying the exact same quality audio/visual with a $10 HDMI cable and they just threw $90 into the ocean.
 
If a gas station was selling regular gasoline for $10 and another identical gasoline with different marketing for $15 they'd most likely be dealt with somehow while audio/visual retailers are not.
 
So, in the case where two USB, HDMI, speaker or IEM cables are 100% identical underneath their external looks or marketing, then the salesmen are in fact selling $100 tap water or gasoline with fancy marketing and the same specs.  Clearly this type of selling technique has overflowed into headphones and speakers as well.  The result is that all these cables act/sound 100% identical and almost all headphones and speakers under let's say $400 from these retailers sound pretty much the same.  So, from this the typical consumer may deduct that there is nothing special about audio (it all sounds similar), that it's overpriced, and that it's full of marketing.  From their experience, they'd be correct on all counts.
 
Now, what do you think this typical consumer would think if they saw an LCD-2 headphone with a pure silver cable?  They most likely say it's junk and marketing, and if countered with some "audiophile jargon" like air, decay, attack, sound-stage, speed, tonality, voicing, realism, dynamic range and so on, they'd say that's all junk, marketing, poetry and psychoacoustics, and you can assess audio in totality with some basic scientific principles we've had about cables since the 19th century, and measuring the frequency response and THD+N of a headphone/speaker/IEM (or in extreme cases, something like CSD + IR).
 
So... I think that point of view makes sense, from the lesser experienced and salesman deceived consumer, however I don't know why it's so prevalent on head-fi (?).
 
Likewise I don't think users which keep attacking the scientists with ethical comments like "I like my expensive cables and I can hear a difference, so what's it to you?!" are really helping anything either, since they're overlooking the ethical sales issue like $100 tap water and by supporting it are sortof deceiving audio.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

The result is that all these cables act/sound 100% identical and almost all headphones and speakers under let's say $400 from these retailers sound pretty much the same.  So, from this the typical consumer may deduct that there is nothing special about audio (it all sounds similar), that it's overpriced, and that it's full of marketing.  From their experience, they'd be correct on all counts.
 
Now, what do you think this typical consumer would think if they saw an LCD-2 headphone with a pure silver cable?  They most likely say it's junk and marketing, and if countered with some "audiophile jargon" like air, decay, attack, sound-stage, speed, tonality, voicing, realism, dynamic range and so on, they'd say that's all junk, marketing, poetry and psychoacoustics, and you can assess audio in totality with some basic scientific principles we've had about cables since the 19th century, and measuring the frequency response and THD+N of a headphone/speaker/IEM (or in extreme cases, something like CSD + IR).
 
So... I think that point of view makes sense, from the lesser experienced and salesman deceived consumer, however I don't know why it's so prevalent on head-fi (?).

 
1. You are presuming that somewhere above that price point, there are cables which can and do sound better than those which cost under that price point. This is not born out by any objective evidence. ever. This is not a limitation of the experience of the consumers (essentially you are just arguing that we haven't tried *good enough* cables to hear/measure the differences). The fact is many of us have, and have still not heard the differences, or seen evidence of them. There is no need to test every possible new cable that comes to market unless they are proposing some vastly new technology (and backing up those claims) which supercedes our knowledge of how electricity actually works. 
 
2. It is prevalent on head-fi because all evidence to date, supports it.

 

[kiteki]

You really need to read my post again, you concluded stuff from it completely different to what I was saying.  For starters what's this about price point?  I've said in earlier posts that a DIY silver cable actually costs relatively little and provided links.  I'm making a differentiation between selling tap water for $100 and selling purified water for $5, do you get it?  Also I never said the purified cable is actually going to sound better, I'm just making an important differentiation. 
 
Also as for "2." in the USB cable thread you eventually admitted don't have any evidence/it doesn't exist and were going to send around a survey to your friends and peers.
 
When some people say "to date all evidence supports it" they're sometimes referring to a $2 radioshack versus $200 monster cable test, they're not referring to using $5/foot silver cable at diyaudio.com.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

"The result is that all these cables act/sound 100% identical and almost all headphones and speakers under let's say $400 from these retailers sound pretty much the same.  So, from this the typical consumer may deduct that there is nothing special about audio (it all sounds similar), that it's overpriced, and that it's full of marketing.  From their experience, they'd be correct on all counts."
 

 
The price point was yours. Perhaps that is not what you intended, but it was how it came across to me.
 
Correct, I am still sending around that survey (though it dealt with different data and suppostitions than this - regarding the ability to determine sonic signatures and performance from datasheets on headphones), but you were the one saying the idea was prevalent on Head-fi. I simply agreed. It may be we are mis-communicating. 
 
 
 
Quote:

When some people say "to date all evidence supports it" they're sometimes referring to a $2 radioshack versus $200 monster cable test, they're not referring to using $5/foot silver cable at diyaudio.com.

 
 
Sure they are. For one, why would a silver cable perform any differently - it has only slightly reduced resistance for the same length and gauge - all other factors are identical. At BEST that means a slight difference in volume, nothing more. 

 

[DNZGamer]

I don't like working in absolutes. I think for me, it only matters that cables are generally proven to make differences so miniscule, it is almost impossible to reliably distinguish. In this situation, the DBTs are the most important source of information for me.
 
If they cannot be reliably distinguished, it means the pricing of high end cables is meaningless and pointless for sound quality which strikes it off of my consideration for audio equipment. It also strikes off the credibility of reviewers who discuss cables with very clear effects like better bass extension, bla bla bla. 
 
I personally am not concerned about the science behind it as I am not gonna educate myself on a new science just to confirm peoples findings. I only care that extremely discerning listeners cannot discern cables even with the most ridiculous high end setups that I can only dream of having and hence it makes up for most likely less than 1% of the SQ of any setup. 

 

[proton007]

Quote:

I don't like working in absolutes. I think for me, it only matters that cables are generally proven to make differences so miniscule, it is almost impossible to reliably distinguish. In this situation, the DBTs are the most important source of information for me.
 
If they cannot be reliably distinguished, it means the pricing of high end cables is meaningless and pointless for sound quality which strikes it off of my consideration for audio equipment. It also strikes off the credibility of reviewers who discuss cables with very clear effects like better bass extension, bla bla bla. 
 
I personally am not concerned about the science behind it as I am not gonna educate myself on a new science just to confirm peoples findings. I only care that extremely discerning listeners cannot discern cables even with the most ridiculous high end setups that I can only dream of having and hence it makes up for most likely less than 1% of the SQ of any setup. 

 
Well Said.
Just to add, more focus needs to be brought to other characteristics that a lot of listeners seem to miss, like room acoustics etc.

 

[DefQon]

Quote:

 
What are these more expensive cables meant to do (or claim to do) that their less expensive brethren did not? What makes them different and worth testing independently? Just the price? or do they claim some electrical performance difference that makes them worthy of that attention (and what makes their claims more reliable)?
 
The effects of the big 3 cable properties (resistance, capacitance, and inductance) are well known and predictable. Various metals performance in those areas is likewise known and predictable. 
 
If their claims do not significantly overturn known science in those areas, they are going to have a long row to hoe to show they are worth the bother (and dollars).

What I was saying is that most of the hype of so called "audiophile cables" are those that use $5k+ cables in their sound systems or relaying it between their source to amp to speakers. I haven't seen measurement's of these taken but would like to if there is one and my point of view is that it's worth testing them due to their price and so called claim's of what the cables can do, this way it will shut everyone up if what the company acclaims is false and no difference detected. From what I see most of this is just all debating.
 
This whole discussion is nothing but beating around the bush, it's sort of like those "Apple vs Android" thread's you see in other tech forum's and the likelyhood to get a proper answer without being questioned is putting me off and I'm leaning against neither sides. I'm not saying you expect a difference out of every cable, heck I've tried almost every cable under the tree (except those expensive high-end speaker cables and few other cables such as from Stefan Audio) and so far 1 cable has put out enough difference to crush the claims of cable's being a worthy of no difference (of course that is if you really want to spend 10x the price for return of 5% performance etc).
 
/unsubscribed.

 

[Magick Man]

What I was saying is that most of the hype of so called "audiophile cables" are those that use $5k+ cables in their sound systems or relaying it between their source to amp to speakers. I haven't seen measurement's of these taken but would like to if there is one and my point of view is that it's worth testing them due to their price and so called claim's of what the cables can do, this way it will shut everyone up if what the company acclaims is false and no difference detected. From what I see most of this is just all debating.

This whole discussion is nothing but beating around the bush, it's sort of like those "Apple vs Android" thread's you see in other tech forum's and the likelyhood to get a proper answer without being questioned is putting me off and I'm leaning against neither sides. I'm not saying you expect a difference out of every cable, heck I've tried almost every cable under the tree (except those expensive high-end speaker cables and few other cables such as from Stefan Audio) and so far 1 cable has put out enough difference to crush the claims of cable's being a worthy of no difference (of course that is if you really want to spend 10x the price for return of 5% performance etc).

/unsubscribed.

There's no "beating around the bush", we've been saying that they make no difference since this started. Seems rather direct to me. :rolleyes:

Personally, I'll say there is a chance that they do, it's about the same likelihood that aliens have visited the Earth and abducted humans for probing. Which is probably a little better than angels imprinting the face of the Virgin Mary on toast, or massive cold water loving dinosaurs living in Scottish lakes.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

I haven't seen measurement's of these taken but would like to if there is one and my point of view is that it's worth testing them due to their price and so called claim's of what the cables can do, this way it will shut everyone up if what the company acclaims is false and no difference detected. From what I see most of this is just all debating.
 

 
*shrug*
 
We have mountains of data showing no difference on all manner of cables and a wide range of prices, theories, and "proprietary connectors" etc. All that data countering false claims hasn't shut people up yet, I don't expect this would be any different...sadly.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

 
*shrug*
 
We have mountains of data showing no difference on all manner of cables and a wide range of prices, theories, and "proprietary connectors" etc. All that data countering false claims hasn't shut people up yet, I don't expect this would be any different...sadly.

 
You feel its only for cables? Its existed in most fields. "Upgrades" that no one has been able to prove actually work. But it is sad.

 

[Chris J]

Some of you guys are beating around the bush and saying no cable difference is backed up and proved by "science". I've search through a few threads and forums and reviews online through Google with invalid confirms on this, except for a few zip line vs audiophile cable comparison's, someone care to link me to one that actually has frequency graphs, distortion and noise balance etc of said cables making no difference? I'm not waving for either said, but I haven't found any credible sources (besides bias reviews and forums) saying such and such.

Anyway I found this: http://www.coreaudiotechnology.com/blog/?p=34 which is somewhat a slight interesting read.

You bring up some excellent points, the anti-cable camp seems to think they need not offer any evidence whatsoever.

However, that article is filled with BS, I don't even know where to start......the tube comments maybe?

 

[Chris J]

You really need to read my post again, you concluded stuff from it completely different to what I was saying.  For starters what's this about price point?  I've said in earlier posts that a DIY silver cable actually costs relatively little and provided links.  I'm making a differentiation between selling tap water for $100 and selling purified water for $5, do you get it?  Also I never said the purified cable is actually going to sound better, I'm just making an important differentiation. 

Also as for "2." in the USB cable thread you eventually admitted don't have any evidence/it doesn't exist and were going to send around a survey to your friends and peers.

When some people say "to date all evidence supports it" they're sometimes referring to a $2 radioshack versus $200 monster cable test, they're not referring to using $5/foot silver cable at diyaudio.com.

+1

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

You bring up some excellent points, the anti-cable camp seems to think they need not offer any evidence whatsoever.
 

 
The "anti-cable camp" is almost entirely about evidence. It is the pro-cable crew that has never produced evidence. If you've gotten this far into this thread and still say this with a straight face, I don't think we can have a useful conversation.

 

[KT66]

my evidence, - put my hand in my pocket, lots of Nordost and Townshend isolda in my main system, but then new it would cost $40k
 
2 wrong things posted here
 
1) Retail margin on cables is 25-45%  - no more unless they make them themselves
2) Audio engineers are not a way to measure anything, nor is there opinion to be trusted, I've done the job myself, play any new CD from the past 10 years and you'll easily realise
they don't give a fug about how music sounds.

 

[tmars78]

Quote:

 
You feel its only for cables? Its existed in most fields. "Upgrades" that no one has been able to prove actually work. But it is sad.

I don't think it is for only cables. I would put money on someone not being able to tell the difference between a $30 Walmart dvd player and a $10,000 CD transport if both are built properly.