But the cable debate still isn’t over.
As most audiophiles know, the debate over whether expensive cables actually improve sound quality has raged for decades.
The skeptics have long dismissed it as nonsense, claiming any perceived differences are just in people’s minds. But a recent scientific study might just be the new evidence we’ve been waiting for.
This offers compelling evidence that cable construction and materials can indeed have a measurable impact on a system’s sound.
Scientific Evidence of the Effect of Cable on Sound Quality
Kunchurโs study takes an objective, scientific approach to the cable debate. Here, he moved beyond the usual reliance on subjective listening tests. Instead, he focused on often-overlooked factors like time-domain effects and noise measurements.
This was done through a series of seven experiments on three types of cables:
- High-end cable (~$500): Made with high-quality materials and typically sold through specialty audio dealers.
- Mid-range cable (~$50): Commonly found in appliance and electronics stores.
- Generic cable (under $5): Basic cables included with inexpensive electronics.
Across these detailed experiments, Kunchur reveals clear disparities.
Here are his main findings:
- Basic Electrical Properties: Kunchur measured fundamental properties like resistance (R), inductance (L), and capacitance (C). The differences in resistance and inductance were minimal. But capacitance showed big variations, especially in lower-grade cables.
- Signal Transmission: Since the way signals reflect inside the cables can affect sound quality, he also examined how signals travel through the cables. The higher-end cables showed fewer signal reflections, translating to a cleaner, purer sound.
- Frequency Dependence: By testing how the cables handled different frequencies, the study found that the generic cable’s capacitance fluctuated greatly with frequency. This is far from the more stable performance of the high-end and mid-range options.
An oscilloscope screen where the slanted lines clearly show the phase differences. (From: SC.edu) - Transient Response: This test looked at how quickly the cables could respond to rapid signal changes. The high-end cable shone here with smooth, predictable responses. In contrast, the generic cable struggled with irregular and prolonged responses.
- Signal Speed: The study measured how fast signals traveled through the cables. As expected, the high-end cable had the fastest signal speed.
The waveforms showing the signal speed differences of the three cables. (From: SC.edu) - Signal Reflections: The experiments identified signal reflections, which can introduce unwanted noise. Again, the high-end cable performed best here, with the smoothest decay and least reflections.
- Noise Measurements: Finally, Kunchur measured the noise pickup from the environment of the cables. The high-end cable had the lowest noise levels, followed by the mid-range and generic options.
These detailed measurements prove that the electrical performance of cables can vary a lot based on design and construction. Based on these differences, Kunchur suggests that cables can shape the perceived sound quality in high-fidelity audio systems.
But that’s not all. Kunchur also delved into the world of microphonics and triboelectric noise.
He found that, unlike loudspeaker cables, interconnects are less prone to microphonic effects due to their high impedance and low current characteristics.
Sure, triboelectric noise from internal motion could theoretically degrade signal quality. But it’s estimated to be a whopping 180 dB below typical signal levels, making it unlikely to have an audible impact.
Audio Science Reviewโs Criticism of the Study
Of course, in the world of audio, no stone goes unturned.
Amir Majidimehr from Audio Science Review (ASR) has taken Kunchur’s study to task.
In a detailed video, he argued that while measurable differences may exist, they don’t necessarily translate to audible improvements.
His main critiques target the following:
- Methodology: Amir criticized the use of a digital storage scope with a 10 GHz bandwidth. He claims that such high-frequency measurements are overkill for the audio frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
- Cable Selection: He pointed out that Kunchur didn’t specify the cable brands tested, making replication difficult. Amir also challenged the categorization of cables without clear criteria.
- Use of 4 ns Pulses: According to Amir, audio signals don’t contain such high-frequency pulses. So, the study’s focus on transmission line effects and non-ideal capacitive behavior doesn’t align with the real world.
- Non-Ideal Capacitive Effects: He also debunked Kunchur’s claims on non-ideal capacitive effects.
โCapacitors take time to charge and take time to discharge. And, audio signals are extremely slow in the world of frequencies. So nothing is changing fast in the audio world to say that the capacitance of the cable is instantly changing. Therefore, we should go measure those instant effects.โ he says.
โThis assumption is just totally, totally wrong. Nothing in your audio system would work if this assumption is true.โ
- Noise Claims: Amir challenged Kunchur’s assertion that noise impacted what people heard in his previous study. He said no cause-and-effect relationship was proven. Thus, he suggested that Kunchur’s noise measurements were likely due to improper measurement techniques. Even if accurate, Amir maintained that the noise levels were still too low to be audibly concerning.
The Researcherโs Defense of the Study
But Professor Kunchur is no pushover.
In response to Majidimehr’s critique, he has strongly defended his work, emphasizing that his research underwent rigorous review by four independent experts before publication.
First, Kunchur stressed that his study carefully documents the tested cables:
- a StraightWire Virtuoso
- a $50 appliance store interconnect
- and a generic cable from general stores.
Then, he provided detailed rebuttals on technical aspects that Amir emphasized in his critique. This includes the time-domain measurements, noise correlation, and the relevance of high-frequency signal propagation.
He argued that high-frequency measurements are important for capturing a cable’s full performance picture. And, he clarified that Amir’s notion of digital temporal resolution equaling ~T/2^(n-1) (T=sample period, n=bit depth) is nonsensical.
According to his response, it corresponds to the shortest detectable shift in a waveform’s edge, not the resolvable fineness of waveform features. So, it is actually limited by the sampling period T.
He didnโt stop with the content of his study, though.
Kunchur also criticized Amir’s understanding of fundamental concepts in electromagnetism and audio signal analysis.
He pointed out that Amir’s lack of journal publications and conference invitations weakens his credibility in critiquing peer-reviewed research.
โMr. Majidimehr seems to have a juvenile understanding of oscilloscope measurements. He thinks that they are limited to 8-bits of vertical resolution. โ he said.
โFor repetitive signals, the resolution can be expanded through triggered measurements at multiple ranges, as was done for the IOSR paperโs Fig. 6(b) and (c). This is similar to shooting a static scene with a camera on a tripod at multiple exposure settings, a technique known as HDR photography.โ
So Where Does This Leave Us?
The debate surrounding the audibility of Hi-Fi cable differences is far from settled. But, Professor Kunchur’s study provides compelling measurable evidence of these variations.
As an audiophile, I find his rigorous, scientific approach refreshing and thought-provoking.
Of course, the ultimate test will always be our own ears.
But, Kunchur’s work suggests that you shouldnโt write off the importance of high-quality cables in your next upgrade. They might just be the secret ingredient your system needs to truly sing.
If there is audible difference or not is pretty much irrelevant since in any room other than an expensive purpose-built (dimensions included) listening room or anechoic chamber even minimal head movement will cause much bigger change in perceived sound anyway. Simply look at any set of acoustics measurements.
All too true
Absolutely true.
Let’s observe again: the study is focused mainly on RCA (single ended) interconnect cables. This is the weakest link; it also clearly states that the cheaper cables present a higher capacitance, that might very well induce oscillations in any poorly design output stage, so, basically, the expensive cables could well be seen as patches for poorly designed electronics. That would mean that expensive interconnects might keep functional a poorly designed electronic component, hence, the improvements perceived by the users. Nothing about power, speaker, USB or LAN cables (I wonder why ๐). So, I would argue, test your equipment with both cheap and audiophile cables and if you can’t hear the differences, stick with that equipment brand.
Exactly! Well designed equipments they will provdide stable performance! If may find sonic changes when replacing interconnects, then that equipment not worth spending money on, espesically expensive ones!
LAN cables no sound. Data is either dropped or not, which is trival to detect. Network protocols are designed to seamlessly handle dropped or corrupt packets
Audiophiles swearing they hear a difference are reinforcing the science of psychoacoustics.
In the past, no one was able to tell the difference between two amplifiers and here we are talking about the differences between cables… ๐
Snake oil pure.
https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/02/richard-clark-10-000-amplifier-challenge/
Wonderful statement about the nature of AMIR , only for this MR. Kunchur should be praised eternally.
Oh yes
Amir has done a lot to demonstrate measurement of equipment and give some sort of basis for component comparison for selection. That being said, I have found his reviews to be biased toward lesser cost gear that measures “well” with somewhat of a feeling of contempt for gear that is more expensive and measures about the same as the cheaper gear. I have seen him give a negative review with proof by his measurements and listening test of a GR-Research speaker after he had setup the test to operate the speaker in a manner outside of a recommended operating range. No wonder the speaker “failed!” In essence, if Amir does not like the designer or the equipment, I believe that there is much greater chance that a posted measurement and listening test by Amir will result in broken Pink Panther parts as a conclusion. I personally have heard sonic differences in cables and in general better (often more expensive) equipment sounds, well, better. I have stopped listening to Amir for guidance for component selection. His personal distortion is too harsh for my ears. So Mr. Haberfellner, I agree with you that Mr. Kunchur should be praised for calling out Amir.
๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ The nature of some using actual facts and science instead of the snake oil koolaid
Keep living in denial wasting you money then
Mr. Kunchur has been thoroughly debunked numerous times for flawed methodology in his poor studies.
If only audiophiles cared about that instead of fishing for support.
Unfortunately Amir has proven over and over that he believes only his eyes and not his ears
I did many DBT evaluations of cables over the years and I would imagine that the reactance variables within the devices being interconnected would literally swamp any tiny variations with cables, especially if the cables are the typically short ones connecting components within equipment cabinets. Pile on the behavior of speaker drivers and room acoustics, and not to exclude the variables we have with the hearing mechanisms with humans, audible cable variations are, as Thomas Edison once said about religion, effectively bunk.
Many other measurements of interconnect including RCAs, Balanceds, Speaker Cables, Power cables may show differences in characteristic including RLC parameters, interference resistance, etc. However, we donโt listen directly to the cables themselves, but the equipments and speakers!
Yes, cables can be different, but measuring output of equipments is more important! In the paper, Kuncher did not show any equipment outputs such as DAC or Amplifier in the chain. Also, he did not do a proper blind listening test, only his subjective listening when replacing cables!
In my conclusion, the Kuncherโs study may valid in measurement data, but only that! The rest of the paper is invalid, especially his listening data!
The study shows that inexpensive audio cables are not working efficiently as VHF/UHF band RF feeders or high-speed pulse signal cables. This research is a strong candidate for the Ig Nobel Prize.
I think the electrical tests are helpful. If the purpose of the tests is to evaluate whether there is any sonic benefit that relates to cost, then why not conduct a large-scale blind test.
Many years ago, as a Nordhost dealer, I was part of an event doing this. We invited about 30 people, used a modest but decent CD player, amo and speakers, and asked all to evaluate cheap wire, and then all products to the Red Dawn intercconnecyts,and speak we wires.
A few couldn’t tell the difference, but over half reported better sound on progressively more expensive cables, demonstrated in a randomized fashion.
The reslt was clear. A few people couldn’t tell the difference. For the larger group, there was a clear correlation between cost and perceived performance, and lastly, there was a law of diminishing returns. In addition, those few of us who regularly audition large amounts of equipment and listen for hours a day, were sometimes better able to hear the difference. For example, I could clearly tell the difference between Blue Heaven and Red Dawn, but most couldn’t.
As someone with the rare privilege to enjoy the preposterous expensive SPM Reference cables for one night (all night), ai can confirm that they were extraordinary. Sadly, I’m unlikely to ever be able to afford some.
One thing was clear, whilst no one in their right mind would use $25,000 dollar cables on Quad Electrostatics (what I had at the time), even with my modest Incatech Claymore integrates amp, the difference was astounding.
Amir is basically the smartest guy alive whereas the other side is climing something that has been historically overwhelmingly false. I know where I’d. put my money
Iโd like to know who sponsored his study
Amir tells us constantly that measurements matter, except of course when they disagree with him?
I can only comment on one specific occasion, when I had a reasonable degree of hearing, some fifty years ago when with my Quad 22/II ELS 57 setup I replaced the then common thin bell wire with (?) QED 79 strand. The difference was very significant, with quite specific bass extention. However, with borrowed more expensive cables, I could hear no difference although others said they could. Just for the record, when the valve Quads were replaced with a 34/405 combination, unlike some reviewers, I heard very little difference except for the transients being perhaps “snappier” and more intense. Certainly no obvious ‘transistor’ sound. Now I accept that anno domini has pretty well taken its toll of my hearing. The Quad 34/405, coupled with a pair of Lumley Monitors still are operational but I have to listen when all are out because of sound level!