Rascal
Well-known member
:
... it's a pretty good business model though- separating fools from their money. Isn't it? I wish I could think of a a way to do it.
Natural-born tweeters guaranteed to put a smile on.
Need answer to simple question.
- Thread starter R.I.P
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Natural-born tweeters guaranteed to put a smile on.
Leporello
Well-known member
You should probably have added that it's not the fiber optic HDMI cable itself that's directional, it's the unidirectional transmitter and receiver. Please let's not start talking about which direction a Toslink cable goes.
The stuff from Nordost isn't even consistent. It's "grounded at the source, or output end"? Which is it?
I feel the need to reiterate that there could, under certain conditions, be an audible difference between connecting the cable one way and the other. But it has nothing to do with "direction" it has to do with shielding and grounding, about how each piece of equipment is grounded., and about what sort of hum and RF fields you are living in. Your mileage may vary, by a lot, there is no set "direction" such a cable should go.
When they talk about cables being non-directional until they are "broken in", the slang term for bovine excrement is too weak. And quantum tunneling? I know a few things about quantum tunneling. Just because you can drop a real scientific term doesn't mean you have any idea what it means, or that the wares you are selling have anything whatsoever to do with it. And even if there were diodes, they effect current direction, not signal direction (unless you are building something utilizing transmission line effects*, in which case, at audio frequencies, it would have to be miles and miles long). I have to re-quote Dr. Pauli: "Not only is this not right, it's not even wrong".
*I still marvel at how the Bird "Thru Line" works. I suspect, at 20khz, not very well.
Rascal
Well-known member
I offer the following clarification of what I said:
BS / snake oil / nonsense, though true, isn't really an adequate response. Even from me.
Scientific evidence is needed to defend any claim about any gear, including cables. I realize not everyone is well grounded in scientific method, but many here are. "It" is sometimes referred to as "measurements," but that's an improper and unflattering description. "Scientific" refers to a rigorous method of proving or disproving a hypothesis. It's OK to nit pick a proposed method. A good method should stand scrutiny. But, for certain, a void or missing method is totally unacceptable.
If a vendor claims that the only way to ascertain an effect is through listening, have him/her show evidence of scientific testing to prove that claim.
The same holds true for those who claim easily affordable solutions are as good as, if not better than, the high priced brands.
You shouldn't swallow a pill that didn't go through rigorous testing. You shouldn't automatically accept a generic without proof of its matching the brand-name prototype. And you shouldn't swallow a claim or purchase a product, especially a high priced one, without demanding to see the same sort of evidence.
Good News: There is a lot of accumulated evidence of the type I've spoken of, and responsible tests performed by competent reviewers using equipment and methods appropriate to the task at hand.
Just my two cents.
BS / snake oil / nonsense, though true, isn't really an adequate response. Even from me.
Scientific evidence is needed to defend any claim about any gear, including cables. I realize not everyone is well grounded in scientific method, but many here are. "It" is sometimes referred to as "measurements," but that's an improper and unflattering description. "Scientific" refers to a rigorous method of proving or disproving a hypothesis. It's OK to nit pick a proposed method. A good method should stand scrutiny. But, for certain, a void or missing method is totally unacceptable.
If a vendor claims that the only way to ascertain an effect is through listening, have him/her show evidence of scientific testing to prove that claim.
The same holds true for those who claim easily affordable solutions are as good as, if not better than, the high priced brands.
You shouldn't swallow a pill that didn't go through rigorous testing. You shouldn't automatically accept a generic without proof of its matching the brand-name prototype. And you shouldn't swallow a claim or purchase a product, especially a high priced one, without demanding to see the same sort of evidence.
Good News: There is a lot of accumulated evidence of the type I've spoken of, and responsible tests performed by competent reviewers using equipment and methods appropriate to the task at hand.
Just my two cents.
amey01
Well-known member
If you want to pull wool over people's eyes, just throw in the word "quantum", haha.
Rascal said:
I'll even be more lenient than that. You don't even have to prove it with measurements - just FFS come up with a cogent reason why something sounds better. And FFS, try to do it without throwing in the parlance "quantum" (tunneling, dots, atoms, whatever) or "secret" (engineering, modifications, refinement, tuning).
Geez
Last edited:
amey01
Well-known member
As I said in an earlier post - if (**IF**) the current were flowing one way better than the other way, it would be an eminently flawed product. It would be adding distortion!! You would not be getting a sinewave out.
So best they think a little harder about this preposterous claim that they are making. By saying their product is "directional" they are for all intents and purposes saying that their product is not fit for purpose.
Rascal
Well-known member
Here's a link to a physics forum discussing the claim that copper wires may be directional:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-copper-conductor-directional.975195/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-copper-conductor-directional.975195/
Rascal
Well-known member
I don't know what is meant by "something sounds better," but you knew I'd say that, right?
For me, a cogent reason would be one summarizing a scientific method or process, but you knew I'd say that as well.
It's not the "quantum" parlance that bothers me. What bothers me is that the claim isn't defended scientifically.
I hope I've been cogent.
amey01
Well-known member
I don't know what is meant by "something sounds better," but you knew I'd say that, right?
For me, a cogent reason would be one summarizing a scientific method or process, but you knew I'd say that as well.
It's not the "quantum" parlance that bothers me. What bothers me is that the claim isn't defended scientifically.
I hope I've been cogent.
I don't disagree.
But, these shysters want your/our money, so they had best deliver something in return.
There is plenty of scientific method bandied around - even as simple as green ink absorbs red light. But it doesn't mean it will change one iota of what you hear out the other end. Quite evidently, given no one paints their CDs with green pen any more.
I don't hear quantums or red light or any of their other crap.
I hear a frequency, time / phase shift, amplitude change, or distortion. That's it.
With audio, it's really easy, because there is a single waveform going into the system. So you have a baseline. You know what should be coming out.
There can be no voodoo or magic, because there is only one waveform going into the system. So it is pretty easy to measure what you've got coming out, and compare the two.
I don't doubt that there are other aspects to it - maybe which we are not yet aware of - but they are irrelevant, simply because we are not putting those components into the system! (when we're talking recorded sound (live sound is another matter).
I wonder how many of us buy certain wires because they are directional, or that's a major determining factor? I buy the Wireworld brand because I was introduced to it by my local hi-fi store and they are affordable. I don't spend a lot of $$ on them. I buy their mid grade at best. They all seem to be directional but I didn't even know they where when I bought my first set, and dont really believe in it anyways. It just so happens my wires have it.
I have a BS in Biology and taught high school physics, Chemistry, and Biology. So I'm with you guys, I want some scientific evidence and a plausible hypothesis or theory to explain this. Since I'm not spending huge amounts of cash on my wires it doesn't really matter much to me if the wires are directional or not.
I'd like to see research demonstrate why $20,000 speaker wires sound better than $1000 ones. So for me I question even more than the directionality claims.
I have a BS in Biology and taught high school physics, Chemistry, and Biology. So I'm with you guys, I want some scientific evidence and a plausible hypothesis or theory to explain this. Since I'm not spending huge amounts of cash on my wires it doesn't really matter much to me if the wires are directional or not.
I'd like to see research demonstrate why $20,000 speaker wires sound better than $1000 ones. So for me I question even more than the directionality claims.
Russr
Well-known member
Agreed, but I'd take it down a notch more and compare $20K cables to $1K cables to $100 el-cheapo (yet verifiable) OFC cables. I think the "law of diminishing returns" is somehow used to appeal to inherent snobbishness/one-upping the Joneses"... there's no logical reason to spend 10X - 200X on a cable that MAYBE results in a 0.001% improvement if it can be measured AT ALL at AUDIO FREQUENCIES.
BUT KNOWING THAT YOU'VE SPENT MORE ON A SET OF CABLES THAN A CHEAP FAMILY CAR... priceless...???
Rascal
Well-known member
I don't agree. What I hear isn't all that simple.
First, I don't listen to pure tones. In reality, there are no pure sine waveforms, no pure monotonic sine waves with spectra made up of a singular line. No waveform that started in the infinite past and continues into the infinite future. More than my time span. It's not that simple. And not only are single-note waveforms complex and riddled with non-harmonic related content, but ...
I listen to Chords. A lot of them And Polyphony. And Choruses. And when I listen I like hearing their so-called voices individually as well as melded together.
And I hear this phenomena in truly non-linear ways. My ear is not a Fourier analyzer. When two tones are played together, I hear beats, well enough so that I can tune a piano's unisons.
But no matter. I want to make us both happy, and I see ways to do it, so humor me a bit more.
If I claim, "The outrageously expensive cable is markedly better than the far more reasonably priced cable," I should provide a test or evaluation of the samples so that BOTH of us are convinced.
Suppose I show that, for ANY chosen waveform fed to both cables simultaneously, the outputs of said cables are indistinguishable from one another. That is, the difference between the two is below any possibility of discernment. Isn't such a test a step in the right direction?
If a vendor claims his cable produces purer results than his competitor, or that his cable is directional and it matters, that vendor should be obliged to show that the competitor's cable is producing something different under identical test or evaluation conditions. If not test gear and measurements, then double-blind testing with a large numbers of audiophile listeners under controlled listening conditions.
It isn't enough for a grey beard to pontificate or wax poetic. Certainly not a salesperson in a lovely hi-fi showroom preaching this or that. It's not enough for a vendor to extol the virtues of its products. Nor even a bunch of well-intentioned enthusiasts on a discussion forum expressing opinions ad infinitum.
None of these really resolve the matter as well as an honest and proper scientific test.
Just my two cents.
Rascal
Well-known member
Thoughtful comments. Why do you think the Wireworld wires are directional?
WIreworld offers the following:
https://wireworldcable.com/blogs/news-tech/directionality-in-cables
But is this proof? In light of what I've already written, you should know my answer.
Last edited:
Rascal
Well-known member
Right. So the question remains, who's "at fault"? The vendor or the customer?
Examples of this sort of thing abound in hi-fi. It's nothing new. The good news is that there really are more than a few good fellows that make it their business to weed out the nonsense.
And I certainly encourage any steps taken toward a better understanding of scientific method and proper testing and evaluation.
Leporello
Well-known member
I actually don't have a problem with someone saying something sounds better than something else--to that person. But it's not a scientific statement, it's not "falsifiable". And the only way to falsify a statement that something sounds different from something else, to some person, is, to the best of my knowledge, a double blind controlled experiment. A positive result of such an experiment would verify, to a level of statistical certainty, that one thing sounds different from the other, to that person. A negative result does not, by itself, verify anything. Many more experiments would be needed to verify, to a level of certainty, that the effect does not exist to any **** sapien ears and brains.I don't know what is meant by "something sounds better," but you knew I'd say that, right?
I mostly have fun with hi fi. I buy stuff that appears to me to be well engineered and supports the way I listen to music. I do not require every single purchasing decision I make to be subject to a double blind test. But when something being marketed runs so contrary to everything I have learned about science (I have degrees in physics and electrical engineering, and have been an electronics enthusiast since age 10 or so) as "directionality" in audio cables, and when the arguments supporting it so resemble Sir Bedevere's argument in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" that a woman who weighs the same as a duck must be a witch, I see red.
Russr
Well-known member
I decided a long time ago I was going to "go" with empirically provable science when it came to audio.
After observing the output signals from early CD players, and comparing with (pre-amplified, line levele output from) vinyl playback, I nixed my embryonic LP collection and started collecting CDs. I s'pose it takes the "romance" out of audio, but I hate feeling I should be convincing myself of subjective "opinions".
Now, back to you point... I agree with the quote above, BUT we should also remember that many products are "tuned" to sound "nice". Anyone remember DBX? Early BOSE systems? MP3 files? To the "untrained ear", some of these things sounded great, but in truth, they ravaged the audio signal. So even panel-based reviews CAN be manipulated.... just gimme the trace curves and I'll make my decisions on that!
The reason I lumped myself with ML and Bryston as a combination, is I want to hear what the recording studio/producers put out... good, bad or indifferent, that's what I want to hear. If "warmth" was recorded, I'll get it.. same for presence, etc. Invest time in speaker postioning and room set up, and that should do it...
Then, as a bonus, when we hear of $10,000 cable sets, I can sit back, listen to my second-hand SL3s, my 2nd-or-3rd hand 4B-STs, my sorta-beat-up Anthem AVM 50v, my $5/foot OFC hand-terminated speaker cables and my $100 Straightwire XLR interconnects, and grin, thinking I could get another 2 systems for the price of that cable....
Just my (hard-fought-for $0.02!)
Russ
Rascal
Well-known member
More on Wireworld (including claims of directionality).
Here's a web posting:
https://wireworldcable.com/blogs/news-tech/double-blind-testing?_pos=1&_psq=double&_ss=e&_v=1.0
It's plain Wireworld realizes there is a burden of responsibility to prove claims, but is this write-up alone an adequate proof? No. It's not enough to say, "We know what's needed and WE do it -- so YOU don't have to!" Where are the results, the documented evidence of their findings? A photo of cable test switches isn't enough.
In responsible science, test or evaluation results are presented in a way that can be duplicated and verified. I'd like to see those results.
Until then, at the risk of repeating myself, it's BS / snake oil / nonsense.
I'm not saying it's bad cable. My problem, rather, is with claims of superiority without evidence and examples of weird science (like directionality) that makes me want to clasp my wallet tightly.
Here's a web posting:
https://wireworldcable.com/blogs/news-tech/double-blind-testing?_pos=1&_psq=double&_ss=e&_v=1.0
It's plain Wireworld realizes there is a burden of responsibility to prove claims, but is this write-up alone an adequate proof? No. It's not enough to say, "We know what's needed and WE do it -- so YOU don't have to!" Where are the results, the documented evidence of their findings? A photo of cable test switches isn't enough.
In responsible science, test or evaluation results are presented in a way that can be duplicated and verified. I'd like to see those results.
Until then, at the risk of repeating myself, it's BS / snake oil / nonsense.
I'm not saying it's bad cable. My problem, rather, is with claims of superiority without evidence and examples of weird science (like directionality) that makes me want to clasp my wallet tightly.
Last edited:
I agree. I'm using an inexpensive monoprice speaker cable for my Focus center channel speaker. It sounds great. It's heavy gauge copper and built like some that cost 20x more. I have some other monoprice cables that are good too.
Yeah, I never even read that. I mainly bought them because my store recommended them and so far their recommendations have been good. The cables weren't real expensive, so I went ahead and spent more than usual. The store employees never even mentioned directionality.
I really don't believe its a factor. I had some hooked up in the wrong direction for months and didn't even realize. I switched them back when I noticed and it sounds no better. I go ahead and use them with the arrows going in the right direction just in case, lol. Kinda like how someone that's an atheist might pray to God if things get really bad. You never know!
This is the wire I use for my subwoofer. The cost isn't crazy, and I could have bought several stages lower and save money. The $71 for 10 ft seemed reasonable. Its directional. I probably could have spent half that on monoprice and not know the difference, but since the price difference isn't great, I went ahead and got the more expensive option. I'd never spend more than that though unless someone could prove to me another wire is better.
https://wireworldcable.com/products/copy-of-solstice-7-subwoofer-cable
Rascal
Well-known member
FWIW, I was using Monoprice speaker cable (from a roll) along with rotationally tightened but otherwise conventional Monoprice Banana connectors between my Montis ESLs and the power amp.
When I upgraded the power amp to the Benchmark AHB2, I found I heard a significant improvement in clarity and airiness with Benchmark's own Neutrik to clamping banana cables using Canare StarQuad wire. The audible improvement may be more attributable to the better connectors and their welded attachment to the wire rather than the wire itself, but I feel they're fairly priced for the type of components used and, as I said, they do indeed "sound better" than my home-rolled Monoprice cables. Each of my 15 ft cables cost a little over $100.
John Siau of Benchmark has said the following about his cables:
https://hometheaterhifi.com/editorial/oped/secrets-qa-with-john-siau-of-benchmark-media-systems/
"... Q: There is an abundance of high-priced cable manufacturers. You offer a line of high-quality cables that are reasonably priced. Have you conducted any objective or subjective testing to compare your cables with a high-priced offering?
A: We sell the same exact cables that we use when testing our finished products before they go out the door. We use these cables because they are extremely reliable and are completely transparent to our measurement equipment. Some alternative cables show measurable signal degradation, and we cannot use these cables for precision measurements. In my opinion, if a cable is not good enough for measurement purposes, we should not be selling it.
Q: Canare’s star-quad cables are used in your XLR & speaker cables. Please talk about the benefits of this geometry.
A: We sell star-quad speaker cables because they minimize the magnetic fields emitted by the cable. Reducing these fields minimizes the chances of interference with other devices and it reduces the inductance of the cable which reduces the high-frequency losses. A speaker cable must have a low resistance and a low inductance. The star-quad construction allows us to reduce the resistance without increasing the inductance. ..."
I don't deny the benefit of better designed and better made cables. I'm simply offering that there are honest vendors who make and sell quality cable assemblies for far less than the snake oil characters.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/collections/cables/products/benchmark-speaker-cable-nl2-to-banana-2-pole
When I upgraded the power amp to the Benchmark AHB2, I found I heard a significant improvement in clarity and airiness with Benchmark's own Neutrik to clamping banana cables using Canare StarQuad wire. The audible improvement may be more attributable to the better connectors and their welded attachment to the wire rather than the wire itself, but I feel they're fairly priced for the type of components used and, as I said, they do indeed "sound better" than my home-rolled Monoprice cables. Each of my 15 ft cables cost a little over $100.
John Siau of Benchmark has said the following about his cables:
https://hometheaterhifi.com/editorial/oped/secrets-qa-with-john-siau-of-benchmark-media-systems/
"... Q: There is an abundance of high-priced cable manufacturers. You offer a line of high-quality cables that are reasonably priced. Have you conducted any objective or subjective testing to compare your cables with a high-priced offering?
A: We sell the same exact cables that we use when testing our finished products before they go out the door. We use these cables because they are extremely reliable and are completely transparent to our measurement equipment. Some alternative cables show measurable signal degradation, and we cannot use these cables for precision measurements. In my opinion, if a cable is not good enough for measurement purposes, we should not be selling it.
Q: Canare’s star-quad cables are used in your XLR & speaker cables. Please talk about the benefits of this geometry.
A: We sell star-quad speaker cables because they minimize the magnetic fields emitted by the cable. Reducing these fields minimizes the chances of interference with other devices and it reduces the inductance of the cable which reduces the high-frequency losses. A speaker cable must have a low resistance and a low inductance. The star-quad construction allows us to reduce the resistance without increasing the inductance. ..."
I don't deny the benefit of better designed and better made cables. I'm simply offering that there are honest vendors who make and sell quality cable assemblies for far less than the snake oil characters.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/collections/cables/products/benchmark-speaker-cable-nl2-to-banana-2-pole
Last edited:
Similar threads
