Understanding Cables
and Wine
 The value of specialty
interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords remains one of the most hotly debated
topics among audio enthusiasts. Whereas most people will concede that source components,
such as CD players, can sound different from one another, there remains a great deal of
skepticism about the differences in a system’s sound that can be achieved by changing
cables. On the face of it, such skepticism may seem reasonable, but I want to examine here
some reasons for thinking that, in the end, such skepticism is not well founded.
One reason for the skepticism comes from a dogmatic
reliance on measurements. The use of measurements in describing audio products goes back
many years, and perhaps reached its zenith in the late 1970s and early ’80s, when
bigger numbers automatically meant better. By relying solely on measurements, a company
could market an amplifier as having a power rating of hundreds of watts. Told that more
watts were better than fewer, consumers shopped accordingly. Thus, buying decisions were
made based not on how components sounded, but on how they measured. This reliance on
numbers continues today at such large retailers as Best Buy and Circuit City. Employees at
such stores can tell you how many watts an amplifier produces or how many inputs a
receiver has, but few can tell you how a component sounds.
Reliance on measurements, then, makes good marketing sense
for electronics manufacturers and retailers; it is much more easy to relay such
information to a sales staff than to rely on -- or train -- that staff to be
discriminating listeners. The audio marketplace thus has a built-in reliance on
measurements. When cables are approached with that mentality, it seems that all cables
should be pretty much the same.
The dependence on measurements goes deeper than a simple
marketing tool, however. It is part of the 20th-century zeitgeist, which embraced a
scientific methodology that relies essentially on quantitative methods for investigating
and understanding the world. There is a pervasive belief that if there is a difference
between two things, then that difference must be measurable. The leap is then made that if
there is no measurable difference, then there is no difference. There are also the common
assumptions that what affects a listener’s perception of sound is what is measurable
in the lab, and that we have a much better understanding of the sound-producing properties
of audio systems and of our own auditory perceptions than we actually do.
However, the failure to measure an audible difference does
not indicate that there is no difference. It is possible that we do not understand what
needs to be measured, or that there are too many variables for us to make a rigorously
controlled study of the differences in sound. But this would still not indicate that there
is no difference. What it does indicate is that science remains an insufficient tool for
understanding all aspects of the world. In any of these cases, a reliance on measurements
is not the only way to evaluate components or cables; we can also rely on our own
perceptions.
Another reason for skepticism about cables is the fervor
with which some enthusiasts discuss the differences cables can make. I think that, for
some audio enthusiasts, cables represent an affordable change that they can make to their
systems, and which they have embraced as a hobby unto itself. That is a fine hobby to
have, but sometimes when such hobbyists talk about how cables sound, they begin to sound a
bit mystical. A cable on its own has no sound -- it needs to be connected to other
components to produce sound. When you’re evaluating a cable, you’re actually
evaluating the whole signal chain, from source through to the speakers. Changing cables
may alter the sound, but to then ascribe a sound to the cable is not correct. What cables
contribute to the sound must be considered along with the components they are used with.
Cables may sound great with some components, not so great with others. Like just about
everything, cables are not intrinsically good or bad, but are better or worse only
in relation to the rest of the system in which they are used.
I think being able to perceive differences in a
system’s sound with different cables is akin to being able to discern fine wine from
merely good wine. If you’re a wine drinker, think back to when you first began to
drink. At the beginning, people are often unable to describe what they taste, and
aren’t even sure which wines they like and which they don’t. Over time, people
develop the ability to discriminate between the wines they enjoy and those they dislike.
Those who begin to care seriously about wine go on to learn how to describe their
experiences in critical terms so that they can discuss with others not only which wines
they like, but what about those wines they like so much.
Consider our friend Chris, who has recently become a wine
enthusiast. In the past few months Chris has decided he likes very much the 2002 Veritas Vineyard Shiraz Christa
Rolf. When he first tasted it, all he could tell us was that he liked it -- but after
reading a lot of Robert Parker
and attending weekly wine tastings, Chris can now tell us that the shiraz is
"plump" and "spicy," has "hints of licorice and earth," and
is "nicely textured." He is now happy to spend $14 for a bottle of this wine and
think it a great bargain. Another friend, Randall, has no interest in wine and thinks
Chris is making up all of these fancy descriptions. For him, wine is wine, and $14 is
twice as much as the cheapest bottle he can get. Randall thinks Chris is out of his mind
to spend so much.
I think most of us would assume that Chris has simply
become a more discerning wine drinker. All of the properties that Chris can now discern --
such as "hints of licorice" -- were always there, but he lacked the skills to
articulate their presence. Randall, however, has no interest in wine, and so has never
seen the point in acquiring the skills necessary to describe its tastes in such detail.
Science, too, has failed to come up with quantifiable tests for "hints of
licorice" or "nicely textured," but most of us do not assume that Chris is
therefore making up the differences he describes.
If Chris’s approach to wines is something you think is
reasonable, then there’s no reason a similar approach to the different sounds of
different cables would not be just as reasonable. Just as Chris needed to train himself to
discern subtle differences among wines, a budding audio enthusiast needs to train him- or
herself to discern subtle differences in sound.
The only way to know if you like a particular wine or a
particular cable is to try it. Even if you understand Chris’s description of his
favorite wine, without tasting it yourself, you won’t know if you’ll like it as
much as he does. If you’re a wine enthusiast, his description will probably give you
a better sense of whether or not you’ll share his taste, but only actually tasting
the wine will confirm that suspicion. This is true with cables as well. You may read a
description of a cable that makes it seem as if you’d enjoy the difference it would
make in the sound of your system, but only an audition of that cable in that system will
tell you for sure. And having a nice glass of wine while you listen won’t hurt.
…Eric D. Hetherington
|
