So how does that pan out if your system is an iPod with a dock - say the total cost is $800. That means potentially over $100 for a mains cable?
The cable conundrum
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
Not so fast
So now we've moved a step away from religion, which is one step in the right direction in my estimation. But 'thinks'?
Well might I point out that your use of "hears" as in
is synonymous with "believes", anyway. You're using the word "hears" in some sort of philosophical, New-Age-y sense that allows for it to have nothing to do with sound. So, if the audiophile is expecting an expensive cable to sound good, that's what he 'hears' and this is what passes as "evidence" in your world.
I still ask the question: what is it that you think (believe) the cable manufacturers know that sets their products apart from 'zip wire'? They don't promote their cables on the grounds of inductance or capacitance, because they measure the same as zip wire. So the implication for why you should divert 15% of your system's cost away from the amplification, sources and speakers (that's why I give a "rat's ass" by the way!) must be based on something they're not telling us. What do you think (believe) that something might be?
You're not pointing out, you're claiming here as there's no evidence being pointed to.
You're correct here in at least one aspect, I'm using 'hears' in a philosophical way coz that's the way I think. But the claim that hearing has nothing to do with sound is a suspect one. I'm a constructivist - what we hear is constructed by our unconscious mind out of vibrations which enter our ears. So sound is indeed quite distinct from vibration - the former being a (conscious) percept, the latter something in the world beyond our mind. The bridge between the two being our unconscious.
Nope, it pretty much counts as evidence in everyone's worlds actually. There's no way of telling a priori whether something presented to our senses is as the result of placebo, or optical illusion or any other artifact of the unconscious processes underlying our perception. Go on YouTube and search for 'The McGurk Effect' for an example. So no, I don't say "because its evidence therefore its infallible" and that's probably where you've introduced some distortion of your own (due to your own underlying subconscious processes). Notice I don't try to deny the world you've created based on your lack of understanding here - however its very much your misunderstanding that its somehow my world which is out of kilter here.
I'm not yet interested in this question - as you've not offered an answer to my earlier question in relation to its falsifiability.
@opus
I'm asking the question about the people who 'design' and manufacture cables, because the technical arguments are a red herring and ultimately no more objective than religious, or your pseudo-philosophical, approaches. (I hear your inductance, and I'll raise you an interference-absorbing weave based on ancient celtic knots). If "hearing" is substituted for "perception" or "holistic experience" then we really are on very shaky ground.
In the real world, people's credentials are studied, rather than what they say or do, especially if they don't actually appear to do or say very much, or claim that what they are doing is a secret, only known to themselves. Or describe what they do in vague hand-wavey terms and marketing-speak. If a friend of yours wanted to give all their cash to a 'clairvoyant' they'd just met, you might start by asking some questions about the person, rather than the voices that your friend had "heard" at a seance, for example.
I'm asking the question about the people who 'design' and manufacture cables, because the technical arguments are a red herring and ultimately no more objective than religious, or your pseudo-philosophical, approaches. (I hear your inductance, and I'll raise you an interference-absorbing weave based on ancient celtic knots). If "hearing" is substituted for "perception" or "holistic experience" then we really are on very shaky ground.
In the real world, people's credentials are studied, rather than what they say or do, especially if they don't actually appear to do or say very much, or claim that what they are doing is a secret, only known to themselves. Or describe what they do in vague hand-wavey terms and marketing-speak. If a friend of yours wanted to give all their cash to a 'clairvoyant' they'd just met, you might start by asking some questions about the person, rather than the voices that your friend had "heard" at a seance, for example.
I note that you have quite some way to go in philosophy if that's the best characterization of my approach you can come up with
Indeed, rather a big 'if'. You're denying then that an audiophile who says he hears something which he puts down to cables is actually hearing something? That its some kind of fantasy? If you are then that's certainly a hypothesis but as such needs to be testable. I don't doubt you'll not have come up with a test if that indeed is your position.
We've already established (based on evidence of your words on this thread) that your world is at least in part an imaginary one. So you're on shaky ground when you pontificate about the 'real world'. Peoples credentials matter less than their actions in my world. Which is why I've pointed out that the words of these guys don't cut much ice (if any) with me. That's not to say though that their cables can't do something to the sound - even if only by placebo. Or even by some method of operation that they themselves don't understand.
I'm not sure why seances here are relevant?
You are addressing sound reproduction, that is per si a perceptual activity. No cable manufacturer can use science to prove his cables sound better than other cables - this is not and never was the question. You seem to be very happy exploiting their pseudo-scientific marketing exaggerations, that are most of the time bogus. But this does not deny the main question - cables can sound different and can improve audio systems.
I hope that after exhausting cables you move to other equipments - amplifiers, source equipment and may be rooms.
EDIT by "cables can sound different" I meant your system can sound different when you change cables, and the choice of proper cables will improve the sound quality of the system.
Last edited:
How are we using the term "sound" in this instance? Do we mean as in possibly placebo (see above), or a real physical difference?
I don't know what MIT is doing. I tend to agree with opus111's comments. I am reminded how hard it was to show someone why the "hideous" 5000 ppm/degC (or whatever, I think that may be the number for gold instead of copper) tempco of his speaker wires did not in fact cause terrible thermal distortion he was sure he could hear...
ack -- Are you speaking of interconnect or speaker cables? Either way, power factor depends upon the load, and power loss in speaker cables is in the mud compared to speakers. What I can easily believe is that a network added to a cable (interconnect or speaker) can change the sound. The change will depend upon the source and load, of course. I am not sure PF enters into it, though any network would also change the effective PF as well. It sounds like they are addressing a real effect, one that can be measured, but one that does not seem to make a practical difference.
Look back at the T-line equations and you will see that the phase angle depends upon resistance (R) and I suspect that is causing the phase angle to change. I wonder what superconducting speaker cables would cost, along with the nitrogen or hydrogen dewar...
Bottom line is I am not sure I can contribute any more to this discussion. I will follow as it is interesting, but most of these threads end with irreconcilable differences and I prefer to part friends.
However, if you can nail down some specifics about what you hear, I would be glad to work with opus111 to gen up a model that might explain it. I am curious. Amp, speakers, and what you hear as differences would be welcome.
First, to reiterate, they seem to be concerned more about inductance than capacitance, though the patents are apparently adjusting both: The net effect of parasitic resistance normally seen in audio cables is the loss of one-half of one degree, to one and one-half degrees off the capacitance phase angle. Typical values for parasitic resistances (Rp) are usually on the order of several Mohms, though these too can be frequency dependent and vary widely. However, -89.5° is a typical non-ideal capacitance phase-angle value for an audio cable when measured at audio frequencies. Therefore, the capacitive component of high-quality audio cable normally does not vary far from the ideal within the audio frequency range. This is not the case with the inductive component, as we will see next.
Second, they calculate power factors at 100Hz and at 20kHz, which are respectively: PF = cos(5.00) = 0.996 [ack: approaching 1 - VERY poor] and PF = cos(82.199) = 0.136
Third, to answer opus's question on the test equipment they used, the white paper refers to a Hewlett-Packard 4284A Precision LC R analyzer. Under computer control, measurements were taken from 20Hz to 20kHz, with resolutions as high as 2000 points. The oscillator output level was set to 1 volt. From these measurements, the power factor was calculated and plotted. A test and measurement note: Measuring a multi-gauge audio cable is more complicated than measuring a zip-cord-type cable. In a multi-gauge cable, each gauge conductor must be measured separately and the data re-assembled mathematically. They then show plots of various cables which I won't repeat here, but it's clear that, if true, various cables would emphasize and de-emphasize certain frequencies based on the alleged power factor measurements at those frequencies. I see no further details on the tests themselves.
Fourth, on Don's question: am I talking about interconnects or speaker cables... The papers don't make the distinction, but I did replace one at a time. After replacing the interconnects I noticed a slight drop in the bass and nothing else, but it turned out the cables were not broken in. The situation with the speaker cables was more dramatic, and once they also broke in, switching between interconnects revealed a slight veiling with the old ones. Based on the fact that the Spectral amps need a lot more input current to be driven properly than most others (100mA for rated power), I _surmised_ earlier in this thread that perhaps MIT's claims are perhaps more relevant where there is plenty of voltage and current, i.e. speaker cables (and in my special case, also interconnects but to a lesser degree).
Finally, having said that, here's how I summarized to others my listening observations (and am including their response as well) of the new Matrix cables vs the older Spectral/MIT cables:
1) Very dynamic - this was the most surprising trait, as a cable is least expected to enable (or suppress) dynamics.
2) Higher resolution than the old Spectral cables - exceptionally well-defined soundstage; wow
3) Proper amplitude with every note - makes the old ones sound like they are chopping off the amplitude
4) Tight, extended, non-hifi, articulate and properly positioned in the soundstage bass - this is impressive, especially with organ, where each individual bass note has all the pitch definition I would expect to hear; but also with properly recorded bass drums
5) All of the above render an exceptional truth of timbre - simply stunning with electrostatics
Response: I could not have articulated that better, well said. I agree with each point. Your comments regarding dynamics especially stood out. I remember talking with a friend about the bass...where was it before!? It seems all the energy was there, it had to be. Somehow the cables focus that energy and it translates into significantly more/better extension.
I would love for anyone to be able to explain these observations scientifically, though I am also willing to accept that perhaps the network components' quality in the boxes of the old cables is simply lesser...
There are many threads in these forums that are based on a basic suspicion of other people's motives (anything to do with politics, economics, banking, Apple etc.) yet no one seems curious about the masterminds behind the $1000 cables that they fork out for on the basis of something they seemingly are happy to acknowledge could be a placebo. I would like to think that if I ever showed signs of wanting to spend thousands of dollars on a placebo, my friends would try to stop me doing anything too hasty! If they could persuade me to look at things differently, I might be just as happy and fulfilled, while being a hell of a lot richer.
Apology not required - I didn't expect you to
That's all right.
Sorry for mentioning "friends" earlier, by the way. Insensitive of me. That must have hurt.
Anyway, take care, ciao for now.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |