What annoys me today in marketing and media that too often today then talking on hi-fi, science is replaced by bizarre belief structures and marketing fluff, leading to a decades-long stagnation of the audiophile domain. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Hi-fi world is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
Business for Engineers: Marketers Lie article points tout that marketing tells lies — falsehoods — things that serve to convey a false impression. Marketing’s purpose is to determining how the product will be branded, positioned, and sold. It seems that there too many snake oil rubbish products marketed in the name of hifi. It is irritating to watch the stupid people in the world be fooled.
In EEVblog #29 – Audiophile Audiophoolery video David L. Jones (from EEVBlog) cuts loose on the Golden Ear Audiophiles and all their Audiophoolery snake oil rubbish. The information presented in Dave’s unique non-scripted overly enthusiastic style! He’s an enthusiastic chap, but couldn’t agree more with many of the opinions he expressed: Directional cables, thousand dollar IEC power cables, and all that rubbish. Monster Cable gets mostered. Note what he says right at the end: “If you pay ridiculous money for these cable you will hear a difference, but don’t expect your friends to”. If you want to believe, you will.
My points on hifi-nonsense:
One of the tenets of audiophile systems is that they are assembled from components, allegedly so that the user can “choose” the best combination. This is pretty largely a myth. The main advantage of component systems is that the dealer can sell ridiculously expensive cables, hand-knitted by Peruvian virgins and soaked in snake oil, to connect it all up. Say goodbye to the noughties: Yesterday’s hi-fi biz is BUSTED, bro article asks are the days of floorstanders and separates numbered? If traditional two-channel audio does have a future, then it could be as the preserve of high resolution audio. Sony has taken the industry lead in High-Res Audio.
HIFI Cable Humbug and Snake oil etc. blog posting rightly points out that there is too much emphasis placed on spending huge sums of money on HIFI cables. Most of what is written about this subject is complete tripe. HIFI magazines promote myths about the benefits of all sorts of equipment. I am as amazed as the writer that that so called audiophiles and HIFI journalists can be fooled into thinking that very expensive speaker cables etc. improve performance. I generally agree – most of this expensive interconnect cable stuff is just plain overpriced.
I can agree that in analogue interconnect cables there are few cases where better cables can really result in cleaner sound, but usually getting any noticeable difference needs that the one you compare with was very bad yo start with (clearly too thin speaker wires with resistance, interconnect that picks interference etc..) or the equipment in the systems are so that they are overly-sensitive to cable characteristics (generally bad equipment designs can make for example cable capacitance affect 100 times or more than it should). Definitely too much snake oil. Good solid engineering is all that is required (like keep LCR low, Teflon or other good insulation, shielding if required, proper gauge for application and the distance traveled). Geometry is a factor but not in the same sense these yahoos preach and deceive.
In digital interconnect cables story is different than on those analogue interconnect cables. Generally in digital interconnect cables the communication either works, does not work or sometimes work unreliably. The digital cable either gets the bits to the other end or not, it does not magically alter the sound that goes through the cable. You need to have active electronics like digital signal processor to change the tone of the audio signal traveling on the digital cable, cable will just not do that.
But this digital interconnect cables characteristics has not stopped hifi marketers to make very expensive cable products that are marketed with unbelievable claims. Ethernet has come to audio world, so there are hifi Ethernet cables. How about 500 dollar Ethernet cable? That’s ridiculous. And it’s only 1.5 meters. Then how about $10,000 audiophile ethernet cable? Bias your dielectrics with the Dielectric-Bias ethernet cable from AudioQuest: “When insulation is unbiased, it slows down parts of the signal differently, a big problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio.” I see this as complete marketing crap speak. It seems that they’re made for gullible idiots. No professional would EVER waste money on those cables. Audioquest even produces iPhone sync cables in similar price ranges.
HIFI Cable insulators/supports (expensive blocks that keep cables few centimeters off the floor) are a product category I don’t get. They typically claim to offer incredible performance as well as appealing appearance. Conventional cable isolation theory holds that optimal cable performance can be achieved by elevating cables from the floor in an attempt to control vibrations and manage static fields. Typical cable elevators are made from electrically insulating materials such as wood, glass, plastic or ceramics. Most of these products claim superior performance based upon the materials or methods of elevation. I don’t get those claims.
Along with green magic markers on CDs and audio bricks is another item called the wire conditioner. The claim is that unused wires do not sound the same as wires that have been used for a period of time. I don’t get this product category. And I don’t believe claims in the line like “Natural Quartz crystals along with proprietary materials cause a molecular restructuring of the media, which reduces stress, and significantly improves its mechanical, acoustic, electric, and optical characteristics.” All sounds like just pure marketing with no real benefits.
CD no evil, hear no evil. But the key thing about the CD was that it represented an obvious leap from earlier recording media that simply weren’t good enough for delivery of post-produced material to the consumer to one that was. Once you have made that leap, there is no requirement to go further. The 16 bits of CD were effectively extended to 18 bits by the development of noise shaping, which allows over 100dB signal to noise ratio. That falls a bit short of the 140dB maximum range of human hearing, but that has never been a real goal. If you improve the digital media, the sound quality limiting problem became the transducers; the headphones and the speakers.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article says that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. I can agree with this. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article makes good points on design, DSPs and the debunking of traditional hi-fi. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Legacy loudspeakers are omni-directional at low frequencies, but as frequency rises, the radiation becomes more directional until at the highest frequencies the sound only emerges directly forwards. Thus to enjoy the full frequency range, the listener has to sit in the so-called sweet spot. As a result legacy loudspeakers with sweet spots need extensive room treatment to soak up the deficient off-axis sound. New tools that can change speaker system designs in the future are omni-directional speakers and DSP-based room correction. It’s a scenario ripe for “disruption”.
Computers have become an integrated part of many audio setups. Back in the day integrated audio solutions in PCs had trouble earning respect. Ode To Sound Blaster: Are Discrete Audio Cards Still Worth the Investment? posting tells that it’s been 25 years since the first Sound Blaster card was introduced (a pretty remarkable feat considering the diminished reliance on discrete audio in PCs) and many enthusiasts still consider a sound card an essential piece to the PC building puzzle. It seems that in general onboard sound is finally “Good Enough”, and has been “Good Enough” for a long time now. For most users it is hard to justify the high price of special sound card on PC anymore. There are still some PCs with bad sound hardware on motherboard and buttload of cheap USB adapters with very poor performance. However, what if you want the best sound possible, the lowest noise possible, and don’t really game or use the various audio enhancements? You just want a plain-vanilla sound card, but with the highest quality audio (products typically made for music makers). You can find some really good USB solutions that will blow on-board audio out of the water for about $100 or so.
Although solid-state technology overwhelmingly dominates today’s world of electronics, vacuum tubes are holding out in two small but vibrant areas. Some people like the sound of tubes. The Cool Sound of Tubes article says that a commercially viable number of people find that they prefer the sound produced by tubed equipment in three areas: musical-instrument (MI) amplifiers (mainly guitar amps), some processing devices used in recording studios, and a small but growing percentage of high-fidelity equipment at the high end of the audiophile market. Keep those filaments lit, Design your own Vacuum Tube Audio Equipment article claims that vacuum tubes do sound better than transistors (before you hate in the comments check out this scholarly article on the topic). The difficulty is cost; tube gear is very expensive because it uses lots of copper, iron, often point-to-point wired by hand, and requires a heavy metal chassis to support all of these parts. With this high cost and relative simplicity of circuitry (compared to modern electronics) comes good justification for building your own gear. Maybe this is one of the last frontiers of do-it-yourself that is actually worth doing.
2,351 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
I think they are pretending that finding a lower k factor by using multiple conductors is going to help the AC resistance.
It doesn’t make any sense to me because the frequency in the equation is in Megahertz.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-3/more-on-the-skin-effect/
Tomi Engdahl says:
What kills me about most of these snake oil cable companies is that they don’t make anything… they don’t have a production or wire making facility they source the wire from big providers such as Belden and others and assemble it in their facility to make an overpriced marketing product.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Adam Peach With balanced, audio cables, the signal wires always consist of a twisted pair surrounded by a shield. Practically everything that’s been recorded in nearly a century has followed that principle… If the conductors are terminated properly, there would be never be any discernible issues.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Seriously, everybody I know, myself included… we always made our own cables with shielded Mogami & Neutrik…. for live sound, in the studio, and for video production sound… sound quality was never compromised by the cables… and not once have I ever heard of anyone having an issue with AC hum, RFI, frequency response, high end roll off, cross-talk from adjacent cables, or microphonics. Give us all a break!
Braidding shielded cables like that is just a gimmick.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Schuyler Hupp Good point well made – anyone who has ever wired up a live gig or a studio will tell you the same. What it demonstrates is they don’t understand the basic principles of using XLR/ Neutral in the first place.
Tomi Engdahl says:
We are pretty easy to fool, that a cardboard picnic plate on the end of a solenoid we call a loudspeaker isn’t a concert piano or any other part of a orchestra. Charlie is right it all happens in our brains. You wouldn’t believe the the frequency resonse difference of top end studio reference loudspeakers from different manufacturers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
If you’re that sure 24-bit sounds better, let’s put it to the test: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/03/golden-ears-take-audio-challenges-find-out/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/listening-digital-compressed-music-harm/
Tomi Engdahl says:
8 Things Real Audio Engineers Wish Audiophiles Knew Before Wasting Money on Audio Myths
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/real-audio-engineers-wish-audiophiles-knew/
Tomi Engdahl says:
6. Professional Studios Use Basic Cables
A lot of audiophiles add thousand-dollar cables to the final meter, as they believe it improves the sound. But most studios don’t run on exotic wire. They mostly rely on balanced copper cables from brands like Mogami, Canare, or Belden.
These are chosen for durability and electrical consistency. For instance, they look at:
Capacitance: usually under 70 pF/m to keep high-frequency loss negligible.
Shielding: braided or foil, sometimes star-quad, to reduce hum and RF noise.
Connectors: solid XLR or TRS plugs that maintain low contact resistance.
Balanced lines plus gear with a high common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) mean signals stay clean over hundreds of feet. In that context, claims about “fast” or “slow” cables don’t hold up. In fact, electricity in copper moves at roughly two-thirds the speed of light, so 1 m adds only ~5 ns of delay.
At 20 kHz (a 50 μs cycle), that’s 0.01% of one cycle, and completely inaudible.
That doesn’t mean cables never matter, though. High-impedance guitar pickups interact with cable capacitance, phono cartridges need specific loading, and poor shielding can invite hum.
But in pro line-level systems, standard spec-compliant cable is more than enough. Engineers care about build quality, not boutique marketing.
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/real-audio-engineers-wish-audiophiles-knew/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://sw1xad.co.uk/technology_post/delta-sigma-vs-non-oversampling-r2r-dac-designs/#R2R%20DAC%20Designs
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.gearpatrol.com/audio/sonus-faber-amati-supreme/
Tomi Engdahl says:
For some people, music doesn’t connect with any of the brain’s reward circuits
Neuroscientists find people who don’t enjoy music, study their brain activity.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/08/for-some-people-music-doesnt-connect-with-any-of-the-brains-reward-circuits/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/bose-901-loved-hated-speaker-hifi-history/
Tomi Engdahl says:
A Critical Resistor Pitfall You Didn’t Know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9UQY1oVAZE
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.omgevcable.com/ev-charging-cables/393.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.gearpatrol.com/briefings/today-in-gear/today-in-gear-september-2-2025/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://rasantekaudio.com/cables/the-most-expensive-speaker-cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://rasantekaudio.com/cables/why-hi-end-speaker-cables-and-audio-cables-matter/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Monty Montgomery of Xiph.Org Foundation busts some common beliefs about digital signal and high-resolution audio in a recently-resurfaced video from 2012. While it may seem dated, the topics he covers are still been rounding the audiophile forums to date.
Here, he suggests that high-end DACs that claim to improve sound quality may not actually make that much of a difference.
Here’s everything you need to know about his experiment and the results: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/05/modern-dacs-worth-audio-expert/
Tomi Engdahl says:
And Monty knows what he talks about.
OK, the write-up of his video is a bit silly. “This resulted in what he claims is a validation that even a standard 16-bit/44.1kHz digital audio (like on CDs) can accurately capture and reproduce all frequencies humans can hear without any quality loss.”
The Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem that actually states pretty much exactly that doesn’t need validation. It is a theorem – a statement that has been proven formally. Not a theory, as some audiophools seem to think.
Tomi Engdahl says:
There is a difference on how well different amplifiers/electronics do filtering, some do it well and some not do filtering so well. Of your incoming power is noisy and amplifier is one with not so good built in power supply, it is possible to hear external power filter to have some effect. If incoming power is clean and devices well built, no effect if power filter or not. I have has two devices and several locations where power filtering has helped. One was my DIY amplifier located on same building that has powerful HAM radio station in it. Other was home hifi amplifier as part of mobile DJ PA system, without filter there was strong annoying pops from light controls and with filter there was still some noises but at low enough that system was usable. None of the filters have been expensive audiophool products but mains power filtering components used in industrial electronics or IT systems.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How deep are you in the audiophile rabbit hole?
Find out here: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/02/stages-falling-audiophile-rabbit-hole/
Tomi Engdahl says:
CDs are now the hottest audiophile flex in 2025, at least according to YouTube: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/04/cds-becoming-hottest-audiophile-flex/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here are the 10 mainstream audio brands that are worth owning even without hi-fi cred, as voted by thousands of audiophiles: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/mainstream-audio-brands-worth-owning-audiophiles/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here are the 10 best vintage CD players that still beat modern units, as voted by audiophiles: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/best-vintage-cd-players-beat-modern-units/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mark Levinson, known for pioneering high-end audio technologies since the early 1970s, recently shared his critique of the luxury audio market.
In a video interview with Audiophile Junkie, Levinson shared his frustration with what he sees as “mafia” tactics in the industry.
According to him, these tactics focus on making money at the expense of sound quality and real innovation.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/05/audiophile-icon-calls-mafia-tactics-luxury-audio/
Tomi Engdahl says:
MIT team records elusive ‘second sound,’ a hallmark of quantum fluids. https://bit.ly/47yxVt3
Tomi Engdahl says:
Can’t find your brand?
Here’s more: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/04/tell-your-headphones-and-who-you-are/
Tomi Engdahl says:
These albums top audiophile surveys for both sound quality and timeless impact.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/albums-everyone-listen-life-audiophiles/
Tomi Engdahl says:
good cables are fine but the law of diminishing returns is pretty steep on cables.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Spotify finally joins the lossless race after 8 years, but its version leaves key gaps audiophiles are quick to point out.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/spotify-hifi-compared-tidal-apple-qobuz/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://rasantekaudio.com/cables/the-most-expensive-speaker-cables/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAMxz2JjbGNrAzHPF2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAAEef2NETNL7S70trvSqYlenDfOmvuXkGDSZrXtXFjasElPSA-gW42xoU7LRg_U_aem_lL9KOFQVMU6ThewlRtBHXw
The Most Expensive Speaker Cables: Luxury Audio at Its Finest
Selina
March 19, 2025
speaker cable
In the world of high-end audio, the importance of speaker cables is often a topic of debate among audiophiles. Some believe that the right speaker cables can significantly improve sound quality, while others are more skeptical. However, for audiophiles and enthusiasts who spare no expense in pursuit of perfect sound quality, quality speaker cables are an essential component of their equipment. These most expensive speaker cables are designed using the highest quality materials, cutting-edge technology, and superb craftsmanship to ensure that every musical detail is faithfully reproduced.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://rasantekaudio.com/cables/top-8-best-audiophile-cables/?fbclid=IwVERDUAMx0B9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHn9jREzS-0u9La70qmJXpw3zpr7l5Bg0ma17VxY2rBJT0gPoFuNsaFOy0YP1_aem_lL9KOFQVMU6ThewlRtBHXw
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://rasantekaudio.com/connectors/banana-connector-sizes-explained/?fbclid=IwVERDUAMx0DlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHn9jREzS-0u9La70qmJXpw3zpr7l5Bg0ma17VxY2rBJT0gPoFuNsaFOy0YP1_aem_lL9KOFQVMU6ThewlRtBHXw
Tomi Engdahl says:
Unshielded? What’s the philosophy behind that?
Edit: looking at it, I can imagine both strands are individually shielded and you connect the shields on both ends to ground?
Garmt van der Zel No Garmt, totally un-shielded. The ‘balanced’ circuit design of the XLR, using 3 conductor wires already provides excellent noise mitigation, which is why it’s the professional industry-standard used in recording studios etc.
Anything extra, such as that implemented in my ‘Braided One’ or ‘World of Twist’ XLR cables are additional insurances against noise but also add their own sonic attributes due to the conductor wire composition and resultant capacitance.
The Crystal Clear XLR has very low capacitance and enables headroom capacity in the higher frequency range. But the effect can be incredibly subjective andhighly dependant on the synergy between components and cable, which is why I always suggest trying/testing it before committing to purchasing it.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JDs2n3gKK/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Some of the brands on this list completely changed audio history, yet barely get talked about.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/audio-brands-deserve-recognition-thousands-audiophiles/
Tomi Engdahl says:
The characteristic impedance of balanced, 2-wire twisted pair audio cable usually falls between 50 ohms and as much as 190 ohms
Tomi Engdahl says:
Just use tube preamps if you like harmonic distortion. For power amps it is not really usefull anymore. But then again, a hobby is a hobby.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here’s what the science says about very high frequencies, what engineers measure when ultrasonics are present, and why some people say they can still hear a difference: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/science-ended-super-tweeter-myth-new-studies/
Tomi Engdahl says:
People couldn’t spot the difference between the original vs. the compressed file in blind tests: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/scientists-develop-new-compression-no-loss/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vandersteen argues timing cues get lost in digital but survive in analog playback.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/hifi-legend-vinyl-information-digital/
Tomi Engdahl says:
You probably know Philips for lightbulbs and electric toothbrushes, but this Dutch company actually shaped how we listen to music. For one, they co-invented the compact cassette in 1963 and the compact disc in the early 1980s with Sony.
Here’s the full list of the 20 most underrated audio brands, according to audiophiles: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/audio-brands-deserve-recognition-thousands-audiophiles/
Tomi Engdahl says:
I think he is right, the information an analog signal however is only really quantifiable once it is sampled, so that’s down to the sample rate it’s captured at. Analog essentially has as much “information” as you want it to have, as it’s continuous.
Tomi Engdahl says:
You can think that way about the sound source, but what you record that “limitless” analog information to – any analog media – will lose and distort a significant amount of that original information due to the limitations of the media. The continuous signal you get out is considerably different from your ideal analog source.
Tomi Engdahl says:
His perspective challenges the idea that DSP is the smartest way to handle imperfect rooms.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/digital-room-correction-drains-music-warns-engineer/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Headphonesty ,A true music lover, the absolute audiophile, deals directly by earing a raw room, and install his system, due to his skills. No room treatment, once his choices were as according to the rooms size and conditions, other that bad choices, that make morons start the room treatment mambojambo, aiming pure insanity to cover up their irrational mistakes… ( just me saying… )
Tomi Engdahl says:
We knew that. Software compensation can’t possibly correct for all the nuances of room acoustics, and will introduce its own timing discrepancies and digital artifacts.
An audio engineer would be better off learning the acoustic characteristics of his/her particular listening environment, and compensate for it naturally in the mixing/mastering process.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Depends how you EQ with DSP. Sometimes there is no DSP EQ with problems, full DSP EQ with all corrected flat response but sounds not the best, and somewhere middle ground where most serious problems are corrected with good sounds and does not take out life from music. Usually automatic EQ with DSPs try to over-correct, manual adjustment is often needed for best results.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Analog playback adds wow and flutter, riaa filter and vinyl needle non-idealities cause their own non-idealities – digital does not add those irregularities