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.
2,821 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Two labs in different countries unexpectedly landed on the same classic track while chasing entirely different brain breakthroughs.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/02/scientists-using-audiophiles-song-crack-neurology-problem/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Another attempt to jump on the cable bandwagon.
It’s the easiest way to use cognitive dissonance and bad ears to make money.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The study shows how overlooked testing methods hid the true performance of both vintage and current models.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/test-vintage-cd-players-outperform-modern-models/
Tomi Engdahl says:
There are cables that are truly sound DIFFERENT, but NOT BETTER than others, that doesn’t mean they are high-end…. why don’t you all just put an EQ on it…
I should really start my own business and rip of the stupid, who are willing to pay for all kind of snake oil labelled as “audiophile” or “hifi” or whatever….
actually the previous post with audio cables for “rock”, “pop” and other genres are genius, that is how you can rip off even more customers!
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Holographic” is an interesting word. There is no proper agreed on mechanism for it and listeners seem to feel very differently about it. Very subjective word.
For example Focal and Dynaudio have elevated treble response and very high quality tweeters that can handle the extra. That seems to be one way (at least for me). But for large soundstage there’s Totem which have very wild response, it sounds like horrible phase problems and driver discontinuity. But very nice, I like it. But I’ve noticed that some of my friends don’t perceive this one the same.
Yes the jargon at hifi conventions is fun but it’s also fun to think about these seriously for a while. Our listening experience and descriptions (and taste) sometimes agree surprisingly little.
In audiophilosophy, this is known as the “cost-me holographic principle”.
It claims that all information about any system can be derived from its total cost (as the sum of all component costs, including cables, risers, and power conditioners).
Hardcore audiophiles refuse including room conditioning in that sum, though, since it’s not part of the system
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/183rKWcYKf/
Tomi Engdahl says:
From Facebook:
Been around since the first electrons zipped across the vacuum of a tube. Marketing depts will always lie about power output to make a sale and even when regulatory bodies like the FTC step in, companies just find new ways around it or flat out lie and change models faster than bureaucratic inertia can catch up.
Music Power, IHF, DIN, PMPO, etc, etc…it’s all the same. It all gives lie to that nonsense that “vintage watts were more powerful”. No, they weren’t, those units were well behind their power claims, just distortion sounds “LOUD!!1!” and oh how do underpowered amps distort.
John van Son That’s very true. The “loud” sound many people crave is really the sound of distortion. I believe many amplifier designs had (or have?) soft clipping circuits for a more rounded “collision” with the voltage rails. It makes sense. The loudness heads will crank it up till it sounds “loud”, neighbors be damned.
Today, the digital speaker management systems in bluetooth speakers and similar compress the signal in individual frequency bands, when getting close to the limit, to avoid clipping and to maximize the output of each driver. Then the reviewers will crank it all the way up and complain that it sounds tinny and lacks bass. You just can’t win against the loudness heads.
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/19YnDvEcWR/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Power ratings https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1C3nYhBAfM/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Reuben Taylor there is. The Audio Engineering Society and psychoacoustic research describe spatial reproduction using measurable metrics:
Interaural Time Difference (ITD) → timing between L/R arrival
Interaural Level Difference (ILD) → amplitude differences
Phase coherence
Impulse response timing
Early lateral reflections
Interaural cross-correlation (IACC) → spatial width & envelopment.
Those can all be measured via SMAART.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Speaker cable differences
https://youtu.be/2kb5h1XIb-Y?si=nrFlv5c5bil00bAf
Tomi Engdahl says:
A cable can make your system sound worse due to poor shielding, high resistance, or improper impedance, leading to dull, lifeless sound, or unwanted noise. Issues often stem from inadequate materials, improper connector fit, or excessive length. If you have changed to a new cable and experienced a decrease in quality, it is likely due to these factors.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Has anyone ever seen a review of cables that made a system worse?
None holographic sound. Muddy highs. Grey background. Poor imagining.
Never.
If exotic cables are so good at improving a system, then it follows that some designs do the opposite.
Show me one review…
I’ll wait.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DbSUNPMio/
A cable can make your system sound worse due to poor shielding, high resistance, or improper impedance, leading to dull, lifeless sound, or unwanted noise. Issues often stem from inadequate materials, improper connector fit, or excessive length. If you have changed to a new cable and experienced a decrease in quality, it is likely due to these factors.
Potential Causes for Degraded Sound:
Poor Shielding: Inadequate shielding allows external electromagnetic interference to enter the signal path, resulting in noise.
High Resistance/Thin Gauge: Cables that are too thin or too long, especially for speakers, can cause signal loss, leading to a “dull” or “lifeless” sound.
Impedance Mismatch: Incorrect impedance can cause signal reflections, although this is usually minor, it can contribute to overall degradation.
Dirty or Loose Connectors: If the cable connectors are dirty or do not fit securely into the port, it can cause crackling, popping, or loss of signal.
Signal Directionality: Some cables are designed to be used in a specific direction. Installing them backwards can sometimes affect the sound quality, particularly in higher-end systems.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Thankfully, we have science and engineering that reliably measures the different properties of cables. Only a flat earther would deny that cables measure differently
Cables can measure differently, but they are so minimal that they are inaudible, and have no effect on sound.
Aka, cable makes no difference whether people believe in it or not.
Tomi Engdahl says:
“Cables can measure differently,”
- true
“but they are so minimal that they are inaudible, and have no effect on sound.”
- quite often so, but there are some rare cases where cable can make differences (heard and measured). Foot example very much too thin long speaker cable, poor shielding, very high capacitance with high impedance/inductive signal sources.
“Aka, cable makes no difference whether people believe in it or not”
- very often cable makes no practical difference when the tested cables are technically sound
Tomi Engdahl says:
“We can test that different cables have different inductance, resistance and capacitance, but does it actually translate to a different sound?”
How inductance, resistance and capacitance affect the sound depends on characteristics of the signal source and destination.
For interconnection cables differences in resistance and inductance are not very significant contributors in sound (when they stay at reasonable levels) while they are main things on speaker cables.
Generally cable capacitance affects in interconnects much more than on speaker cables.
“And would every amplifier – speaker combination benefit from the same combination of cable measurements?Again, unlikely.”
How much resistance and inductance effect depends on speaker impedance (nominal impedance and impedance variation). Effect of capacitance depends on amplifier design – does not affect much with engineering sound amplifier designs, but there are some amplifier designs that are overly sensitive to speaker cable capacitance variations (unstable feedback AB, some zero-feedback Class A designs, some tube amplifiers)
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do audio cables really affect sound? Here’s what thousands of audiophiles actualy say: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/08/audio-cables-affect-sound-audiophiles-survey/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=link_in_comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Future of the Audiophile Hobby on Display at Harvard University’s Shelemay Audio Lab
https://futureaudiophile.com/the-future-of-the-audiophile-hobby-on-display-at-harvard-universitys-shelemay-audio-lab/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/18/hazardous-substances-headphones
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do expensive audio cables make a difference?
The debate about whether expensive audio cables make a difference in sound quality is ongoing, and the answer depends on various factors. Here’s a breakdown:
Technical Perspective: In theory, a well-made audio cable with proper shielding and materials can help reduce signal degradation, electromagnetic interference (EMI), and radio-frequency interference (RFI). However, the difference might be negligible to the human ear, especially with digital audio signals.
Audiophile Perspective: Some audiophiles claim that high-end audio cables can significantly impact sound quality, citing differences in soundstage, dynamics, and overall fidelity. They argue that the materials, construction, and design of the cables can affect the sound.
The Science: Studies have shown that, in blind tests, listeners often can’t reliably distinguish between expensive and inexpensive audio cables. The law of diminishing returns also applies: beyond a certain point, the cost of cables far exceeds any potential sonic benefits.
The Verdict: If you’re using standard, well-made audio cables, you might not notice a significant difference with expensive alternatives. However, if you’re using very long cables or working in environments with high EMI/RFI, a high-quality cable might help. Ultimately, the difference is often subjective and may depend on your personal listening preferences and equipment.
In the context of the Facebook post, the £1,000 per foot price tag is likely humorous, and the “spinning through the vortex” claim is probably an exaggeration. But hey, if you’re an audiophile with deep pockets, you might appreciate the aesthetics or the psychological boost from using high-end gear!
Tomi Engdahl says:
Every Single Headphone That Researchers Tested Contained Horrifying Chemicals
“These chemicals are not just additives; they may be migrating from the headphones into our body.”
https://futurism.com/science-energy/headphone-chemicals-bpa
Tomi Engdahl says:
Most Hi-Fi Cables Spread High-Frequency Noise Throughout Your System, Admits a Leading Cable Maker
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/11/hifi-cables-spread-high-frequency-noise-claim/
They offer a “premium fix” for the noise they admit exists, so we broke down every detail to see what’s real.
High-frequency noise from WiFi, LED lights, and digital gear exists in every modern home. One cable manufacturer now claims this noise rides along signal grounds and sells thousand-dollar devices to pull it out of your system.
However, the company provides no measurements or listening tests to show how the devices actually work.
The Rare Admission
Most cable manufacturers avoid discussing technical problems that might give doubt to their premium pricing. But Alan Gibb, the Managing Director of Chord Company, is unusually candid as he admits hi-fi cables transmit high-frequency noise.
“If high-frequency noise were entering a hi-fi system, all our cables would be shunting it around the entire system with minimal attenuation,” Gibb told HiFi Plus.
That noise comes from LED lights, WiFi routers, mobile phones, and the digital circuits filling modern homes. It travels through signal grounds connecting your components.
This admission matters because Gibb runs a company selling cables that cost hundreds of pounds. Chord’s Sarum Tuned ARAY speaker cables, for example, start at £1,650 for a 1.5-meter pair.
“If you get high-frequency noise on the clock circuit ground in your CD player or DAC, jitter goes up,” he explained.
“It’s like driving a Ferrari over a ploughed field.”
The company has published none of the standard tests engineers would use to verify noise-reduction technology, such as:
Before-and-after noise floor data with GroundARAY or ARAY in and out of the system
Frequency response or RF-rejection measurements showing noise converted to heat
Jitter measurements on DAC or CD player clock circuits, despite explicit jitter claims
Controlled or blind listening tests comparing Chord products to ordinary cables
Beyond Chord’s own descriptions, there are no published reports from independent labs and no third-party verification. Basically, the interview contains technical-sounding language but no quantifiable data.
Wire behavior is among the most well-understood areas of electrical engineering. Yet manufacturers discuss “qualitative issues” while rarely providing “hard numbers.”
“Of all the things scientists and engineers understand about electricity, wire has to be at or near the top of the list,” the Bell engineer said.
“The success of the audiophile wire industry is based entirely on the utter ignorance of the market. The whole thing is based on hope and fear among potential customers.”
Without all these, everything remains marketing speak.
Another example is the claim for “military-grade materials” that carries similar issues. What materials specifically? What makes them military-grade? What are their electrical properties at various frequencies? The term suggests ruggedness without providing technical information.
What Blind Tests Show
Gibb’s RF claims also sit inside a bigger pattern in the audiophile cable market. Even when RF isn’t mentioned at all, expensive cables almost never show a clear advantage in blind tests.
This pattern holds across decades of testing:
One of the most famous examples comes from SoundGuys, who compared steel coat hangers to premium oxygen-free copper cables in a controlled test. They measured frequency response deviations “mostly under 1 dB,” with only a narrow 10 kHz peak that might be audible in theory.
But, they concluded those differences “will absolutely get lost in music.”
In the blind polling, 41.7% of listeners said both cables sounded equal, 32.4% preferred the expensive cable, and 29.5% actually preferred the coat hanger.
For instance, a long-running Head-Fi thread collected blind comparisons between $2.50 blister-pack wire and $990 speaker cables. Across trials, picks were scattered roughly 50/50 between cheap and expensive.
That’s random guessing. If you flip a coin, you get 50% heads and 50% tails. If cable quality made audible differences, listeners would identify expensive cables reliably above chance levels. They don’t.
The RF Reality Check
If premium cables can’t reliably beat coat hangers in blind tests, RF-based marketing deserves even closer scrutiny. So the next question is whether RF interference actually creates audible problems in home audio systems, or whether measurements tell a different story.
Brent Butterworth challenged this assumption when he investigated claims that open RCA inputs act as RF antennas, creating “white noise.” Testing a Parasound Halo P 5 preamp, he found the negative 3 dB point at about 100 kHz. RF signals, by contrast, operate in the megahertz range, far above this cutoff.
The preamp’s design explains why. Its input circuitry attenuates signals above 100 kHz, while audio lives between 20 Hz and 20 kHz.
As Butterworth put it, the preamp “ignores these frequencies… just as it ignores the beam of a flashlight.”
He also ran spectrum measurements under three conditions:
open inputs
terminated inputs
a strong TV antenna deliberately connected to create a worst-case RF scenario.
The noise floors came out “practically identical” in all three cases.
Even a strong RF antenna reception produces only negative 30 dBm. That’s one millionth of a watt, and audio signals operate at vastly higher power levels.
So in a circuit built to reject out-of-band energy, that RF power simply does not dominate.
Not to mention, modern audio components are also designed to prevent RF conversion in the first place. Input stages reject signals outside the audio bandwidth. Shielding blocks external interference. Proper grounding eliminates loops that might let noise currents into signal paths.
What it takes for RF noise to matter
On Audio Science Review, contributor and technical expert DonH56 lays out what has to happen before RF pickup becomes audible.
Cables can behave like antennas, but pickup alone does not make RF audible. For it to turn into hiss or hash in the speakers, something in the chain has to demodulate those high-frequency signals down into the audio band through mixing, rectification, or other nonlinear behavior.
Competently designed preamps and DACs are laid out and biased to avoid those nonlinearities in their input stages.
Real systems in RF-heavy locations also show the same pattern.
For instance, ASR member RayDunzl lives about three miles from a major transmitter farm with a 1,400-foot broadcast tower, in a home full of WiFi, cell phones, LED lighting, and digital gear.
Some of his interconnects are nothing more than unshielded magnet wire. But, he still reports that his system is “dead silent” with “no audible nor measurable defect”
When RF noise does crop out, working engineers reach for simple tools, not £550 accessories.
None of these fixes require proprietary £550 boxes. For most home systems, the evidence points to balanced lines, sensible grounding, and the occasional ferrite bead as all you need to keep RF under control. That way, you can keep your upgrade budget focused on changes that actually affect what you hear.