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.
2,332 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Speaker Cables Really Don’t Make Much of a Difference?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR12Ttuxobs
In this video I actually measure cheap vs expensive cables using very precise test equipment connected to an amplifier and resistive loads as well as a loudspeaker to show the amplitude and distortion differences. The results may surprise you. Have you been sold a placebo when it comes to “high-end” cables? Watch this video to find out.
0:58 Test Equipment
2:31 Speaker Cables Under Test
4:10 DC Resistance of Cables
4:47 AC Resistance of Cables (Rac)
6:22 Inductance of Cables (Ls)
7:12 Capacitance of Cables (Cp)
7:59 Reference Equipment
9:22 Frequency Response & Distortion of Various Cables with 8-ohm load
12:19 Frequency Response & Distortion of Various Cables connected to Loudspeaker
14:30 Placebo Effect and Listening Bias
15:30 Burden of Proof is on the Cable Manufacturer
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables
Tomi Engdahl says:
Don’t Become a Victim of Audiophile “Wire Fraud”!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIv79_NRASw
Don’t become a victim of audiophile “wire fraud”. Beware of claims that sound too good to be true. Beware of pseudo-scientific language. Beware of any company, reviewer, or salesperson that describes the “sound” of an audio cable. If the “sound” of a cable is described in words such as richness, detail, width, or texture, hang onto your wallet. Beware of any promise that a cable will provide a quick fix for your sound system.
While every cable has some measurable impact on the electrical signal flowing through it, this impact is normally well below the threshold of audibility. Of all of the components in an audio chain, cables contribute the smallest errors. If you want to invest in great sound, cables will yield a very poor return on investment.
In this video we will compare the magnitude of the errors contributed by the cables to those of the electronics, the loudspeakers, the listening room, and the music delivery medium. We will show that wires are orders of magnitude less important than these other system components.
Benchmark’s lead engineer, John Siau, will present an “Audio Investment Strategy” that prioritizes investing in the components that will yield the highest returns. Cables are at the very bottom of his priority list. Find out why.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio Cable Quality Testing – How to test? Make Top Quality Cables at Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ88W6-E1Cw
Here is a detailed video on how to test cables for quality. For demonstration, I have taken some RC cables and an XLR cable used in audio, video and other purposes. The same can be applied to any other cable.
I am testing a few cables for resistance, inductance and capacitance to estimate its quality.
I have also built a cable at home and testing the same here for comparison. I am also suggesting some places in Bangalore where we can procure items for making our own cables.
–
Indeed…… Capacitance on RCA interconnects has adverse effect on sound quality…..Upper and lower both frequencies roll off. I am made short custom RCA cables from xlr cables with just 34pf capacitance. Sounds good.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How to use banana plugs and other speaker wire connectors | Crutchfield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCAt8zGhv0
There are a number of ways to connect your wired speakers, both at your amp or receiver or on the speakers themselves. We’ll show you the most common ways to connect, from bare wire to banana plugs.
Tomi Engdahl says:
SPEAKER WIRE GAUGE GUIDE: 12 AWG vs 14 AWG vs 16 AWG vs 18 AWG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwAOZ6pFqE
Tomi Engdahl says:
How to measure the capacitance from guitar cable – Custom Boards pedalboard builder’s guide (2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nzYC8_EZEY
Tomi Engdahl says:
How To Test An Instrument Cable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-EUpCg2ztY
In this video, I demonstrate how to simply test any type of instrument cable using a digital multimeter. Enjoy!
Tomi Engdahl says:
How To Test Coaxial Cable With a Multimeter – TheSmokinApe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5kEM6bBK9I
How to Test Coaxial Cable: Continuity and Loss Measurement Guide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL22mwKBAwk
Tomi Engdahl says:
#379: How to measure coax loss using a NanoVNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSw9Epu4nu0
#326: How to Measure the impedance of “unknown” coax using a NanoVNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqKLFbNYRZc
Tomi Engdahl says:
Scientific Proof of Measurable Difference in Audio Cables? Paper Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0p3D_Gv6IY
Are Dirt Cheap RCA Cables Any Good?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw_Te6IbUI
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do USB Cables Make an Audible Difference (Kimber Kable Review)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXuBsdmEOAs
Tomi Engdahl says:
Your speaker cable matters! 32 speaker cables tested – with measurements!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kb5h1XIb-Y
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sample Test – 12 high end speaker cables
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQt1dBKEhzg
Tomi Engdahl says:
What You Need To Know About Silver And Copper In Audio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFUQtTI2jE
Continuing from our philosophy about measurements and perceptions, we talk about sound characteristics of Silver and Copper as they are commonly perceived (along with what we have observed over the years). At SW1X Audio Design, we consider the sound character of materials as a “flavour” of sound – giving birth to the different versions in our upper level products.
Chapters:
00:00 Silver & Copper in Conductors & Windings
01:32 Perceptions of Silver
01:57 Perceptions of Copper
02:24 Which is Better?
03:11 Versions in SW1X
Tomi Engdahl says:
Are Silver Audiophile Speaker Cables Really Better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTuc_hlGD4E
We sometimes see audio cable manufacturers tout the usage of exotic metals for their cables (ie. silver, silver-clad, etc). They often state these metals “sound” better but offer no empirical proof to back their claims. We take a look at the conductivity/resistivity of silver and compare it to regular copper to determine if there is any truth to these claims.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Is Synergy in Audio Cables Real or Snake Oil?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=katmUM-Xelw
Check any audiophile facebook group or forum and you will find dozens of enthusiasts asking “what are the best cables to use with my audio components?” There are never shortages of recommendations from fellow enthusiasts and sometimes even industry experts have their own recommendations too. PS Audio recently announced a partnership with Audioquest citing that their products have a real “synergy” together. Is there any merit to this claim or is it pure marketing BS?
Is Synergy In Audio Cables Real or Snake Oil?
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/synergy-audio-cables
An ideal analog audio cable should transmit the audio signal unadulterated. Nobody will argue the ideal cable is NO cable at all or a superconductor with no loss tangents. “Cable synergy” would imply the cable itself is NOT ideal. It’s NOT transparent, it’s not lossless Instead, it’s acting as a tone control to alter the signal between connecting components. Why would any audiophile want this? Most audiophiles cringe at using tone controls on their preamps so why would they use them in the form of connective cabling? The best and most effective frequency shaping in a system is done in the digital domain with room correction below the room transaction frequency (300-500Hz) in concert with multi-sub and positional EQ and with passive room treatments above the room transition frequency to control excessive reflections. With audio interconnects and speaker cables, we are at best looking at 10ths of a dB change out to the frequency extremes between good and super-conductor good cabling which is below the threshold of audibility for anyone but Kryptonian hearing.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Final SKW cables analysis: NOT MADE with OCC copper!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVLR9EuCkgo
In an earlier video on the Chinese SKW cables case (link below) we have discovered that they are made of very high purity copper (6N)…one question remained unanswered: are the cables MONOCRYSTAL copper? Only cables with a single grain are truly obtained with the Ohno Continuous Cast (OCC) method. With the aid of Prof. Adrian Gerlich of Waterloo University (Canada) we finally answered this question.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Truth about RCA signal cables
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOagVDZLQnA
Here we discuss the circumstances of when it is appropriate to use a twisted pair RCA cable vs a Coaxial RCA cable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Proposal to End the Audiophile Cable Snake Oil Forever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YIGLnbc12I
We’ve spent 20+ years debunking the snake oil claims in audiophile/esoteric cables. In this video I make a proposal to the audio industry to STOP abusing fully understood engineering claims to justify the sales of their products and I will stop calling them snake oil. I further offer audiophile cable companies to submit their products to Audioholics for 3rd party verification testing which they can then publish on their website to help consumers make more educated purchasing decisions.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audiophile or Audio-Fooled? How Good Are Your Ears?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgEjI5PZa78
Tomi Engdahl says:
How To Test and Measure Audio Amplifiers
Audioholics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokHMIDeVlM&list=PLvfTZmvZzNmDEfeTsqL_fb0fmQUMDFEei
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://community.element14.com/technologies/test-and-measurement/b/blog/posts/building-and-testing-audio-cables
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/understanding-audio-measurements.2351/
Tomi Engdahl says:
12 better, simple and cheap ways to fix noise, hum, buzz, ground loops and USB whine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3asGhHUVO0o
6 simple and cheap ways to fix hum, buzz and ground loop noise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2c6fKOu-vo
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.guitarcenter.com/riffs/gear-tips/live-sound/how-to-fix-hum-buzz-other-noise-in-audio-cables
Tomi Engdahl says:
QA403 Audio Analyzer Tutorial (Noise, SNR, THD+N, …) – Phil’s Lab #130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5oqL3dJ-G8
Tomi Engdahl says:
How to get rid of hum and other noises from your audio, video systems
Don’t let buzz, hum, or hiss ruin your A/V experience. We’ll show you how to solve common electrical faults so you can ditch the noise.
https://www.techhive.com/article/582313/how-to-get-rid-of-hum-and-eliminate-other-noises-from-your-audio-and-video-systems.html
UNDERSTANDING, FINDING,
& ELIMINATING GROUND LOOPS
IN AUDIO & VIDEO SYSTEMS
https://www.jensen-transformers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/generic-seminar.pdf
Tomi Engdahl says:
MEASUREMENTS: Computer USB port noise, USB hubs and the 8kHz PHY Microframe Packet Noise
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/05/measurements-usb-hubs-and-8khz-phy.html
One could see the “glass half full” when we run into imperfections in the audio system. For example, it was serendipitous that the Emotiva XSP-1 pre-amp had such a noise-sensitive unbalanced “HT Bypass” input that I was able to detect noise and measure it previously. If it were not for this issue, I probably would never have thought about using the Corning USB 3 optical cable or consider how to isolate the noise originating from the computer USB connection to the DAC simply because in my system using balanced interconnects throughout, I had never had a problem (subjectively audible or objectively verifiable).
As a quick recap, I was able to hear and measure the 8kHz “microframe packet noise” (125us) originating from the computer’s USB port. The HTPC is based on the ASUS B85M-E/CSM motherboard running the Intel Pentium G3220 CPU. I use one of the USB 3 connectors although I have tried the USB 2 ones as well and they’re just as noisy. So, step-by-step, I can show you how I brought that noise down:
Tomi Engdahl says:
Capacitance and Speaker Cables…
Discussion
I am looking into speaker cables for an upcoming system purchase. I lean toward using Mogami cabling, either W3103 or W3082. Both cables get good reviews, some great reviews as well. My question is about capacitance, which is quite different between these two cables – 32 vs 77pf/ft respectively.
In my experience buying and building cables for use with guitars, effects and amps, I can clearly hear the difference between cables at these ratings. I prefer low capacitance (22pf/ft or lower), as it’s more full range – especially on the higher end. A higher capacitance cable sounds like throwing the proverbial wet blanket on my guitar rig – it’s awful to my ears. Of course, many famous guitarists have used higher capacitance cables as a tone control for their rig, intentionally rolling off the highs.
Does capacitance in cables work the same way in speaker wire applications?
https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/rv3olr/capacitance_and_speaker_cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
When audio cables matter – source impedance and cable capacitance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQPAoSfLwSs
When connecting the phono preamp to my computer to digitize some vinyl, I was concerned about the cable length affecting the sound, so I ran some tests with the audio analyzer.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Output impedance + cable capacitance makes low pass filter
F(-3dB) = 1/(2*3.14*Rout*Ccable)
Yes at some not unreasonable lengths and the wrong gear it can cause a mildly audible roll off.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/any-technical-minds-know-about-cable-capacitance.18550/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cable Transfer Impedance – Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUJyEPkYd0g
Tomi Engdahl says:
A Power Cable Reality Check
https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6431
That’s what I did with a very expensive power cord that a gentleman sent me some years ago. I used the regular IEC power cord recommended by my friends at Benchmark with their DAC 2 HGC and then swapped it out for the $3000 cord, which did come in a velvet bag inside a wooden box. I captured the analog output when using both cables and did a null comparison. To the utter amazement of the vendor in Atlanta, they both produced exactly the same output. Now some high-end audio manufacturers would have you believe that if two signals are identical that they could produce different sonic signatures — but that’s also utter nonsense!
I guess if you’ve got an extra $3000 dollars that’s burning whole in your pocket then throwing it away on a single 6-foot power cord is up to you. But if improving the fidelity of your system is among your priorities, then save your money and ignore the recommendations of people like Bob H. Levi and websites like Positive Feedback.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/basic-question-about-power-cables-snake-oil-or-not.966740/
To make my question a bit less blunt, I will rephrase tough :
Does an expensive power chord:
– only keep the a clean current clean (then it should not make sense without power regenerator, I guess).
– or does it also clean dirty current ? (and if so, how long should it be for a neat cleaning ?)
There are some power cords with filtering built in–one example is the iFi SupaNova.
But generally, a cord is just a cord. When you go up in price (generally), they construct them of better materials, in different strand configurations, with better shielding, etc.
But whitout a clean power regenerator, does it make sense to buy an expensive power chord for the last four feet when the current has already travelled miles through standard urban cables.
No, it doesn’t, unless you buy it for it’s visual/aesthetic appearance.
I am asking this as I am about to buy an expensive new DAC …
Even a cheap DAC will have its own internal power supply that will condition its mains/input power. If you’re buying an expensive DAC which isn’t able to do that adequately, then obviously you’ve been had. In commercial recording studios they just use standard cables because it doesn’t make any difference.
I’ve got a fancy power cable with Furutech IEC, silver plated / fused MK plug, shielded core etc etc and it’s been sat gathering dust for years, it provides zero sonic improvement over a stock cord to my ears, when on the other hand changing out speaker cable or maybe less so, an IC, can make a huge difference.
The simple answer is yes it does make a difference. A big difference. Theres a reason why people with high end systems have expensive power conditioning and cables.
Again, the highest end systems (million+ dollar studio systems) do NOT have expensive power conditioning and cables. Only (some of) those with cheaper, lower end audiophile systems use expensive power conditioning and cables, because they believe the audiophile marketing snake oil. That audiophile marketing doesn’t exist in the pro-audio/commercial studio world because it wouldn’t work/fool the engineers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cables don’t add. They only take away.
That’s the big myth we audiophiles often wrestle with—this idea that a cable has a sonic personality, a character it imparts onto the music. Bloated bass, tipped-up highs, midrange magic. I’ve heard those descriptions more times than I can count. And while it’s tempting to say a cable “adds” warmth or “boosts” sparkle, that’s not how passive devices work.
A cable isn’t an active component. It doesn’t amplify, it doesn’t process, it doesn’t inject energy into the signal. What it can do—and often does—is lose information. That’s the whole story. If a cable sounds thin and screechy, it’s not because it’s adding treble. It’s because it’s losing bass or smearing transients. A cable that sounds bloated? Probably rolling off the top end and masking detail.
https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/pauls-posts/the-cable-myth?srsltid=AfmBOornO8SctJLisfIzYRFjfadbqOrVOu6QAdSMnMHVltc0T2DxfDuP
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/audiophile-snake-oil?srsltid=AfmBOorgBMrp2QOmkK7YE7zXAkWUSpEIm3zedTH3SKqW1cdeSA_nwb4K
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.gcaudio.com/tips-tricks/why-power-cables-make-a-difference/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://tmraudio.com/blog/2025-guide-to-understanding-audio-cables-myths-materials-choosing-the-right-ones/?srsltid=AfmBOoraUb_ZQKwg09q5crqZd5vzLtLQR0ebJPRQF0-Ssnp2K6JOmoEY
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/possible-myth-bust-signal-power-cable-interactions.14803/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://avstyle.com/myths-about-audio-cables/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AUgwhNTg6/
“The Journey that Never Ends
One audiophile fuse company releases an improved model every year or two. Obviously you will want to upgrade your fuses whenever their “latest research” delivers “new technology”. Remarkably, we are being told that mundane passive components, such as fuses and cables, hold the keys to great sound.
One reviewer writes; “I’ve realized how a single cable could make or break a HiFi system … it made the difference between enjoying a system – and being annoyed with it.”. This reviewer goes on to say that “blind tests are pointless” and then says that “a cable could measure the same – but sound different.” The reviewer claims to “have an obsession with audiophile cables”. This is demonstrated by the fact that he has “spent the past five years auditioning and experimenting with over 1,000 audiophile cables”. Clearly, he believes that he hears a difference, it is hard to doubt his sincerity. Has it taken him five years to strike gold, or has he been deceived by fool’s gold at the bottom of a deep money pit?
The Market Craves a Cure-All
The wild west brought us the gold rush, the railroads, snake oil, and the traveling snake oil salesman.
Look at Clark Stanley’s Snake Oil claims:
“Instant relief”
“The strongest and best for pain and lameness”
“For rheumatism, lame back, toothache, sprains, swellings, etc.”
“Good for man and beast”
The Clark Stanley Snake Oil Liniment Co. was a success because people wanted to believe that these cure-all claims were true. His liniment was sold throughout the USA and Canada until it was tested by the US Bureau of Chemistry in 1916. He was fined $20 for peddling mineral oil as snake oil.
Compare Clark Stanley’s claims to those of an audiophile fuse company:
“Dramatic new levels of sonic realism”
“Wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling soundstaging”
“Unparalleled resolution, dynamics, and frequency extension”
“Guaranteed results”
These $595 fuses seem to be a commercial success. Audiophiles crave a quick and easy cure-all. Curiously, miracle cures seem to gain more credibility when they have very high prices.
I Have Some Questions about Audiophile Fuses:
Why are audiophile fuses directional when they are protecting AC circuits? Why do these fuses require a break-in period? Why does the break-in period exceed the length of the free trial? Are these fuses custom built from exotic materials, or are they just $1 fuses that have been painted with fancy colors and graphics? I could break one open to find out, but my money-back guarantee would be void. If these fuses are custom built, do they meet applicable safety standards? Will I get “wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling soundstaging” at the risk of wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling smoke?”
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1LFv3DuPFP/
Written by John Siau of Benchmark Audio
The Audiophile Wild West
Audiophiles live in the wild west. $495 will buy an “audiophile fuse” to replace the $1 generic fuse that came in your audio amplifier. $10,000 will buy a set of “audiophile speaker cables” to replace the $20 wires you purchased at the local hardware store. We are told that these $10,000 cables can be improved if we add a set of $300 “cable elevators” to dampen vibrations. You didn’t even know that you needed elevators! And let’s not forget to budget at least $200 for each of the “isolation platforms” we will need under our electronic components. Furthermore, it seems that any so-called “audiophile power cord” that costs less than $100, does not belong in a high-end system. And, if cost is no object, there are premium versions of each that can be purchased by the most discerning customers. A top-of-the line power cord could run $5000. One magazine claims that “the majority of listeners were able to hear the difference between a $5 power cable and a $5,000 power cord”. Can you hear the difference? If not, are you really an audiophile?
The Audiophile Trail
If we browse through the top audiophile magazines, or search the internet for “audiophile accessories”, it seems clear that great sound requires a significant investment in esoteric components. You will find many articles, reviews, videos and advertisements describing the remarkable improvements in sound quality that can be achieved when upgrading fuses, cables, and other passive components. The audiophile trail could be long and expensive, are you prepared? There may be gold in those hills, will you find it? What trails or maps will you follow? From whom will you take advice? Who will you trust?
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’ve produced some of the best cables in the world – as measured. Solid Polypropylene, twisted, silver, and two central conductors for feedback/compensation. And of course a soft PVC outer coating for vibration damping.
Why? Because I could, and because I wanted to know what the difference is between ordinary twisted pair copper wire and this high tech mammoth wire.
Cut to the chase – the effects were real – above 10 MHz and beyond. I could have sold it to manufacturers of commercial radio transmitters, although they prefer other impedances like 75 or 300 Ohms, and care nought about my fancy polypropylene and PVC wrapping.
The point of telling this? Lots of cable theory – and practice – make for better interconnects, but in the rang of DC – 100kHz and with a length of 3 feet (1m) any piece of copper will do just fine. Even a solution of salt water inside a plastic tube will do fine.
xlr connectors and twisted pair wires with a shield is great for a concert hall, but 100Mbps Cat 5 cable sending 64 channels of audio is even better.
In a domestic HiFi context, once you’ve got rid of ground loops, phono plugs and a single shielded conductor interconnect is all you’ll ever need.
Comment at
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KegqKAwor/
By Paal Rasmussen
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here are the most preferred audio format by audiophiles in 2025: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/most-preferred-audio-format-audiophiles-survey/
Tomi Engdahl says:
To measure insulation nonlinearity in audio cables, focus on methods that reveal how the cable’s dielectric properties change with voltage or frequency, potentially causing signal distortion. Techniques like swept-sine measurements and impulse response analysis can help identify nonlinear behavior. Additionally, analyzing crosstalk in multi-conductor cables can reveal non-ideal dielectric behavior.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
1. Understanding Nonlinearity in Audio Cables:
Dielectric Behavior:
The insulation material of a cable (dielectric) can exhibit nonlinear behavior, meaning its properties (like permittivity) change with voltage or frequency.
Signal Distortion:
This nonlinearity can lead to signal distortion, where the output signal isn’t a perfect replica of the input. Harmonics and intermodulation products can be generated.
Types of Nonlinearity:
Common types of nonlinearity in cables include:
Hardening/Softening: The dielectric’s permittivity might increase or decrease with voltage, causing different distortion characteristics.
Hysteresis: The dielectric’s response might lag behind changes in voltage, leading to further distortion.
2. Measurement Techniques:
Swept-Sine Measurement:
This method involves sweeping a sine wave signal through a range of frequencies and analyzing the output. By analyzing the harmonics and intermodulation products generated, you can identify nonlinear behavior.
Impulse Response Measurement:
This technique involves sending an impulse signal through the cable and analyzing the reflected signal (the impulse response). Nonlinearities will appear as distortions in the impulse response.
Crosstalk Measurement:
In multi-conductor cables, crosstalk can be a significant source of distortion. Measuring crosstalk and its frequency dependence can reveal nonlinearities in the insulation between conductors.
MISO Model:
A Multi-Input Single-Output (MISO) nonlinear model can be used to represent the system under test, allowing for a more detailed analysis of the nonlinear response.
3. Practical Considerations:
High-Resolution Multimeters:
For accurate measurements, especially at low voltage levels, use a high-resolution multimeter.
Contact Resistance:
Be mindful of contact resistance, which can affect measurements, especially with cables of lower resistance and longer lengths.
Calibration:
Calibrate the measurement setup to minimize errors and ensure accurate readings.
By employing these techniques and carefully analyzing the results, you can gain valuable insights into the nonlinear behavior of audio cable insulation and its impact on signal quality.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The insulating materials in the audio cables and the skin effect
https://www.polarisaudio.it/en/guide/audio-cables/the-insulating-materials-in-the-audio-cables-and-the-skin-effect
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/does-making-distortion-measurement-of-cable-make-sense.373384/page-6
You WILL measure a difference at cable ends, (even with a linear load) , simply because you are creating a voltage divider.
We were interested in whether we could HEAR a difference. Hence the DBLTs. Level matching in DBLTs deserve a paper in itself and we say a bit in the AES papers.
If the resistance of the cable is non-linear, such as due to skin effect,
Can you or anyone hear the results of skin effect in audio cables when listening to music? I would be delighted to read about it if there are any results of objective comparisons.
I am not sure skin effect is a non-linear phenomenon. Skin effect is a frequency dependent and not an amplitude dependent. Think of it as a low pass filter. If you input a signal to a low pass filter, the output is still linear (although the amplitude may change).
Now as for can you hear the difference because of skin effect? I am not sure.
Allow me to pick my nit.
I believe the question was about distortion in cables, and I assume harmonic distortion was meant.
Audible difference between cables is not the same as distortion in cables.
What is an audible change caused by a cable if not a distortion of the original signal?
A cable is a filter that attenuates the signal with respect to the input frequency. Each cable filtering effect will be different from each other hence the sound will be different.
Distortion is a different thing all together.
Distortion is a different thing all together.
By definition the difference between the input and output of a system or device is distortion. If the output of a system is not a facsimile of the input, it is distorted.
Harmonic distortion is a sub-set of distortion, and not a particularly good measure of the audibility of distortion.
Rigmarole, galimatías ( definition ) :
” Language difficult to understand due to the inappropriateness of the sentences or the confusion of ideas. ”
” The effect of speaker wire upon the signal it carries has been a much-debated topic in the audiophile and high fidelity worlds. The accuracy of many advertising claims on these points has been disputed by expert engineers who emphasize that simple electrical resistance is by far the most important characteristic of speaker wire.”
By definition the difference between the input and output of a system or device is distortion. If the output of a system is not a facsimile of the input, it is distorted.
Harmonic distortion is a sub-set of distortion, and not a particularly good measure of the audibility of distortion.
I think it depends on how you define “distortion”. The strict definition is if you put in one frequency and you get the same frequency on the output then there is no distortion. Even if the amplitude is changed, but as long as you only have the same frequency on the output, then there is no distortion.
For example, if you have a pure resistor, then it won’t have any distortion even though the output amplitude may change at the output.
I don’t think skin effect can cause non-linear harmonic distortion. But it can cause linear frequency response/phase response distortion.
+1.
I have to add that if we are talking about 0.001% THD levels then I have to say that copper wires are “non-linear” when they conduct a current. And the larger the current – the easier it is to measure its non-linearity. The reason is TCR. And there is a bit deeper effect – the TCR is temperature-dependent as I know too.
By definition the difference between the input and output of a system or device is distortion. If the output of a system is not a facsimile of the input, it is distorted.
Not at all.
If difference is only in level but not in waveform or harmonic content, it is NOT distortion but linear gain or attenuation.
Any argument that you can’t hear a signal aberration, AKA distortion, introduced by system component, e.g. a cable, because it is only 0.01% of the total signal is demonstrably spurious.
When you listen to a jazz recording, for example, it is not uncommon for the high frequency components like breath, shimmer and sibilance to be more than -60dB relative to the fundamental bass tones, yet they are clearly audible and hugely defining to the sense of quality of the recording. Try it: load your favourite FFT app and look at the frequency content of real music.
Why have audio systems with a dynamic range of >120dB if components >-40dB down can’t be perceived, as posted a while back? I really wonder if people think through what they are posting when they make the bombastic “it’s impossible to hear such and such…” statements.
I have to add that if we are talking about 0.001% THD levels then I have to say that copper wires are “non-linear” when they conduct a current. And the larger the current – the easier it is to measure its non-linearity. The reason is TCR. And there is a bit deeper effect – the TCR is temperature-dependent as I know too.
“we are talking about 0.001% THD levels then I have to say that copper wires are “non-linear” when they conduct a current
Then E is NOT = I * R
You have re-written physics.
The thermal mass of copper is great enough that the current through a conductor used for audio purposes would have insignificant thermal heating effects. It would be most likely in the low ppm range, not hundredths of a percent range. Totally insignificant for audio purposes.
I am not sure skin effect is a non-linear phenomenon. Skin effect is a frequency dependent and not an amplitude dependent. Think of it as a low pass filter. If you input a signal to a low pass filter, the output is still linear (although the amplitude may change).
Now as for can you hear the difference because of skin effect? I am not sure.
Skin effect will increasingly attenuate at high frequency in audio application and tops at about 0.5 db at 20KHz. You should be able to figure out if the effect will be audible to you or anyone when playing music.
Then E is NOT = I * R
You have re-written physics.
No need to re-write physics.
No real cable made out of wire and insulation is just an idealised ‘R’, even if the conductor part itself is.
When the entire equivalent network of a source / cable / load network with the output stage circuit ‘s complex impedance, the cable’s linear and nonlinear imperfections in dielectric and permeability properties, and the load circuit’s complex input impedance are all analysed together, the transfer function of the cable and the reasons why cables sound different can be derived adequately by known physical laws, without any voodoo or new laws of physics.
I think it depends on how you define “distortion”. The strict definition is if you put in one frequency and you get the same frequency on the output then there is no distortion. Even if the amplitude is changed, but as long as you only have the same frequency on the output, then there is no distortion.
For example, if you have a pure resistor, then it won’t have any distortion even though the output amplitude may change at the output.
As you are aware a cable is an LCR network, ie filter, so although you can say it doesn’t technically distort it will change the frequency response, this may or may not be audible. Although it’s not exactly the same thing, level matching is very important in DBLT, so it seems reasonable to assume the frequency response change could be audible.
Changes in freq. and/or phase response are often called linear distortions, in contrast to non-linear distortion, for obvious reasons.
But of course they are representative! If you can’t hear a full band at 60dB below the main music, how on earth can you hear, say, -80dB distortion of a cable below the main music? This is basic reasoning.
Jan
It might seem basic reasoning, but it is faulty reasoning. The masking effect of unwanted audio signals is very much dependent on the signal structure of both the wanted and unwanted signals.
For example bit rate reduction for compressed audio files is possible because of perceptual masking which determines which low level signals are masked and thus can be ‘thrown out’ and which low level signals must be retained in order to preserve fidelity.
Piano notes are a great revealer of N+D because the transient energy of the hammer strike excites resonances, whereas the sustained note offers very little masking of N+D, whether linear or nonlinear, correlated or uncorrelated.
Tape noise at -60dB is quite audible because the noise is not correlated to the wanted signal and thus not masked.
Jitter is audible in digital playback at even lower levels because aliasing creates distortion products that are unrelated in any way to the harmonic content of the wanted signal.
It took decades since the introduction of CDs to sort that problem, at least partly because CD playback was technically ‘perfect’ and didn’t need fixing according to the enlightened non-audiofools. Anyone who didn’t like the edgy sound of early CD players and discs was a nutter in the mid-1980s; how times have changed with regard to digital!
The Audio DiffMaker AES paper makes interesting reading. John Dunlavy and I used dual channel FFT to subtract the difference signals of the ‘in’ and ‘out’ ends of loudspeaker cables (and other audio components) in the mid 1980s, about 30 years before Bill Waslo’s paper. Using dual channel FFT in real time with simultaneous ‘before’ and ‘after’ in the analogue domain means almost all of the post processing required for DiffMaker to work was not necessary, i.e. no need to compensate for clock variations, sampling errors, different environmental noise or EMI/RFI at the two different recording times etc, etc.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/does-making-distortion-measurement-of-cable-make-sense.373384/page-9
It could be there is only a small percentage of the population that notices how cables affect sound. Out of those perhaps few people, only a few percent of them may care about it. That said, in a diy audio forum or other hifi audio forum there may be a much higher percentage of such people. Of course hi-fi forums are likely places for such people to end up.
Regarding the people who object to the idea that cables affect sound, there seem to be two drivers of those objections. One driver is that people who don’t hear differences are likely to believe their own perceptions over the claims of other people The other driver seems to be that there is a lot of vastly overpriced junk in the high end cable marketplace. That overpriced junk is seen as an evil threat to the wallets of unsuspecting newbies.
In addition, there is a problem from the scientific perspective in that there hasn’t been enough high quality research into what people can and can’t hear, nor enough research into a practical theoretical basis for reliably designing good, low cost cables that can well satisfy the ears of those people who do care about cable sound. In other words, there has not been enough research to scientifically separate good value high performance cables from overpriced junk cables.
IMHO for speaker cables the situation should not be too hard to resolve. Again IMHO, well made star-quad speaker cables that are mechanically stable and use dielectrics with low DA don’t have to be expensive if manufactured in volume. Such cables can work quite well for home hi-fi cable lengths. Proprietary listening tests show they are likely to be preferred over other cables notwithstanding cost. A number of cables of that basic type which may work quite well are available from mainstream cable manufacturers. Maybe someone could do a ‘shootout’ comparison of them, along with a comparison to 6″ of Romex. The latter comparison may be the one that matters most.
IMHO the situation with line level and phono level cables is more complicated. Will leave that alone for now.
IMHO for speaker cables the situation should not be too hard to resolve. Again IMHO, well made star-quad speaker cables that are mechanically stable and use dielectrics with low DA don’t have to be expensive if manufactured in volume. Such cables can work quite well for home hi-fi cable lengths. Proprietary listening tests show they are likely to be preferred over other cables notwithstanding cost. A number of cables of that basic type which may work quite well are available from mainstream cable manufacturers. Maybe someone could do a ‘shootout’ comparison of them, along with a comparison to 6″ of Romex. The latter comparison may be the one that matters most.
The dual channel FFT measurements of speaker cable effects that Jon Dunlavy and I did in the mid 1980s were precipitated because the distributor of Monster Cable in Australia sent me a sample of Monster Powerline, a star quad speaker cable. At the time I was Technical Manager – Sound at the Adelaide Festival Centre. I was already aware of the star quad configurations because the pioneers of radio used star quad to mitigate inductance prior to the invention of coaxial cable.
So I took samples of Canare 4S11, Monster Powerline and Olex (an Australian electrical cable) ordinary duty 4 conductor (3ø+N) circular cable, to Duntech Audio, to which John Dunlavy added conventional figure-8 cable, spaced apart figure-8 (similar to Naim) and his own proprietary cable. The cables were all chosen to have approximately the same cross-sectional copper area and hence very close to the same loop resistance. The cables were ~3m long IIRC.
Differences introduced by the cables were easily measurable on the HP dual channel FFT. All of the star quad configurations outperformed the figure-8 cables by a large margin, with barely discernible differences between Olex, Canare and Monster.
Ordinary duty 4 conductor (3ø+N) flexible circular cable is as cheap as anything and when wired correctly in star quad configuration (diagonally opposed conductors paired) is a low cost or no cost upgrade to any decent amplifier loudspeaker combination, especially larger speakers and longer cables. It is no surprise that all of the professional audio cable manufacturers make circular four conductor loudspeaker cables e.g. Belden, Klotz, Eurocable, Canare, etc, etc.
And what about Monster Powerline? It was no better on the FFT test than the equivalent sized Olex ordinary duty flexible circular 4 conductor (3ø+N) electrical cable for 1/10 of the price.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio DiffMaker
Some Example DYF Files
These “dyf” files can be downloaded and played within Audio DiffMaker. Each “dyf” contains a set of related audio WAV files that you can play side-by-side and simultaneously to compare by ear, and then to listen to just the extracted Difference signal.
https://www.libinst.com/diffmaker_example_files.htm
Audio DiffMaker
signal difference extraction software
from Liberty Instruments
https://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
Audio DiffMaker is a freeware tool set intended to help determine the absolute difference between two audio recordings, while neglecting differences due to level difference, time synchronization, or simple linear frequency responses.
The difference recording that results is only what has changed between the two recordings. If anything – a change of component, a treatment, mechanical damping, etc. – is having any audible effect on the audio signal in a system, the difference recording will have audible content. The end result is primarily intended to be evaluated by ear.
This relatively simple idea can be used demonstratet whether some products can alter audio signals in audio equipment.
Changes detected by Audio DiffMaker are not necessarily audible changes for any given person. Some changes will not sound different, and some are too weak to be heard when accompanied by the unchanged part of the program material. But a silent difference track can only result if the two tracks being compared are unchanged (the same).
The DiffMaker process, by its very nature, avoids masking effects because it removes the large signal that masks subtle details. Unlike traditional listening tests, differences can be detected even when buried by program material or if affected by imperfect components in the system.
What Can Audio DiffMaker Do?
Some of the tools within Audio DiffMaker can be used to:
Precisely align two similar audio tracks to the same gain levels and timing
Extract and listen to even very tiny differences between pairs of audio tracks
Quickly compare two or more recorded audio signals under precisely gain-matched and time-matched conditions.
Measure the frequency response of the equipment being tested and apply it so the effects of linear frequency response can be removed from the testing.
Record sounds at various sample rates and bit resolutions up to 24bit/192kHz with the “Recorder” tool.
Select and copy sections of audio tracks, trim them, or “rip” them from audio CDs, with the “Trimmer/Ripper” tool.
Quickly see the responses of devices or entire audio systems (even rooms) using the included high resolution 1/6th octave frequency/spectrum “Response Analyzer” and matched pink noise source.
Compact multiple WAV files, and a text description, into one easily transported “DYF” file. Just double-click on a DYF file in Explorer and Audio DiffMaker will open and load the files, ready for listening.
When to use Audio DiffMaker?
Testing for audible effects of
Changing interconnect cables (compensation for cable capacitance may be required)
Different types of basic components (resistors, capacitors, inductors)
Special power cords
Changing loudspeaker cables (cable inductance may need to be matched or compensated)
Treatments to audio CDs (pens, demagnetizers, lathes, dampers, coatings…)
Vibration control devices
EMI control devices
Paints and lacquers used on cables, etc.
Premium audio connectors
Devices said to modify electrons or their travel, such as certain treated “clocks”
Different kinds of operational amplifiers, transistors, or vacuum tubes
Different kinds of CD players
Changing between power amplifiers
General audio “tweaks” said to affect audio signals (rather than to affect the listener directly)
Anything else where the ability to change an audio signal is questioned
Doesn’t this process require ultra-high end recording equipment?
No, because DiffMaker doesn’t try or need to accurately reproduce music — it is only trying to help detect whether anything has changed, which is a much less demanding requirement. It doesn’t matter if the difference that DiffMaker finds might not be perfectly reproduced — only that the difference is left intact enough to hear.
The sound card used doesn’t need to be completely transparent or of highest pedigree. It only needs to be capable of responding to any differences that may occur (even if those differences aren’t reproduced perfectly) and of not burying any significant differences in added noise.
How can you tell whether the equipment was good enough in a DiffMaker result? You can listen to the result, and note the level of any difference and/or decide if any remaining noise is high enough to be maybe covering something that may be important. In other words, if the gear isn’t good enough, you’ll be able to hear it, it won’t make a difference go silent.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.customboards.fi/pages/7-testing-cables-with-a-multimeter
Tomi Engdahl says:
Spending a couple of thousand on speakers is reasonable. Hundreds on cables and power supplies is gullibility. DACs costing 1000s have the same chip as a reasonably well constructed DAC with the same chip costing £100. No measurable difference, yet I see audiophiles claiming differences in sound can’t be measured or detected on blind tests. It is hilarious.