Originally Posted: Jan 21, 2022 at 21:21
Snake Oil
/ˈsnāk ˌoil/
noun informal•North American
noun: snake oil; noun: snakeoil
– a substance with no real medicinal value sold as a remedy for all diseases.
– a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem.
“the new tax plan was denounced as snake oil”
Over the past few years I have looked at updating and upgrading my headphones, audio devices and getting back into to listening to music with a more critical ear. As I started on this journey, I found there were either cheap, inexpensive, budget conscious, expensive or extremely expensive options associated with everything from headphones, cables, amplifiers, digital audio convertors, you name it. Reading reviews could help with discerning a short coming in a product by letting others be the beta tester. Many times the reviews helped me avoid getting something that I would ultimately be disappointed with if added to my audio equipment inventory. A quick story on one of my Amazon purchases that literally hit close to home was the purchase of a new stylus cartridge for my Pioneer direct drive turntable from the early ’80s. When the new cartridge arrived, it was shipped from a local audio retailer in my area of Raleigh Durham, North Carolina. Being in the market for some new headphones and reading reviews on the Bowers + Wilkins Bluetooth over the ear model, I visited the brick and mortar store and was really impressed with the layout of the store and available headphones for test drives. When I inquired about listening to the B+W cans, a staff member grabbed them off the wall and said something to the effect that “Rats, they are not charged.” and never offered to test the quick charge feature or give me other options. I was pretty much just left alone while he started working at a computer on the counter. Not exactly Disney level customer service from a store whose owner claims to have taken the Disney Customer Service course not once but twice. I digress, but it brings me to the point where I have to say that this store, while not not a confessed proprietor of snake oil audio solutions, certainly has to understand that for most people the $1,000 piece of audio equipment will suffice over the $10,000 device. I wrote the owner of my experience and referenced the lack of Disney treatment and how I felt like not coming in from just parking my $100,000 car or wearing surgical scrubs may have resulted in my treatment. The response I received from the owner was welcomed and he thanked me for letting him know and promised that it would not happen again. I have not been back to the store since that experience.
Back to the real purpose of this content – Audio Snake Oil. It comes in the form of everything from vacuum tube equipped audio equipment, $1,000 audio connector cables, to the digital audio formats themselves. Let’s be honest, everyone has a different pair of sensors for audio. They are called our ears. And everyone will have ears with different manufacturer’s specification. While 20-20Khz is average for a 20 year old, the ability to hear that range declines with age and other factors such as hearing damage from personal and occupational hazards experienced as part of life. That said, I have started looking at any audio product review concerning the reviewer’s perceived audio qualities rendered by whatever the product or format may be is a subjective analysis unless the reviewer backs up their opinion with measurable technical specifications. Even then, specifications have to fall within my hearing range for it to be of any relevance to me. So first declaration: hearing perception is subjective. Second declaration: Unless it’s headphones, the listening environment will impact hearing perception.
While researching all of the audiophile communities and reading reviews, I kept coming across what I would consider tribal like dedication to expounding the virtues of this or that piece of audio gear or technology. Some of these audiophiles seemed so vehement they would sacrifice their first born to prove their point. One reference that kept coming up on the side of what I would call an “audio realist” was Dr. Mark Waldrep AKA Dr. AIX. After spending some time on his web site Real HD Audio (https://www.realhd-audio.com/?tag=mark-waldrep), I ordered the book authored by Dr. Waldrep “Music and Audio: A User Guide to Better Sound”. The text reminds me of “Dvorak’s Guide to Telecommunications” from the 80’s that helped me establish base level of knowledge around computer networking from dial up modems to initial networking options. While only a few chapters into Dr. AIX’s book, I see the logic of a computer scientist with a PhD in Music and Theory using mid-western commonsense and physics to explain how we are hearing, what we are hearing; along with how various electronics in the audio production chain get the sound to our ears. The commonsense approach and being brutally honest when evaluating claims by various vendors have come with personal ramifications for Dr. Waldrep, yet he never stops providing his perspective on vendor claims as noted in this exchange concerning sound enhancing power cables exposed in this blog entry at RealHD-audio.com.
So as I compose this entry, I am sitting here listening to my hand-me-down Sony receiver connected to my thrift store Bose 301 series IV or V? (all black) and a Definitive sub-woofer my nephew sold me when he upgraded. The question is what’s my source and how many bits and what’s the sample rate? Well, considering the source is Amazon HD Music through the built-in Realtek sound chip on my home built Ryzen 7 5800x computer motherboard that is capable of 24bit and 192KHz digital audio decoding connected via digital audio coax to the digital input of the Sony receiver and going out over consumer grade cables to the speakers, I have to say there is nothing wrong with what I hear from my system. The song that just started playing from the 100 Greatest ’60s Rock Songs playlist is “Come Together” by The Beatles at 24bit/96KHz. So here comes the question, the master recording for this song was an analog tape possibly with separate channels for the various instruments and vocals. I call that the provenance (Dr. Waldrep’s word) or origin and the basis of any derivative digital audio file or analog rendering (think vinyl or cassette, or 8-track). With any recording that existed prior to analog to digital encoding and storage of digital bits versus analog recordings to tape, the record label/artist has taken the analog recording and ran it through an analog to digital conversion (ADC) process and hopefully done some audio tuning or remastering for today’s sound rendering devices. The settings of the output for a digital file would be something like 16bits at 44.1Khz for recordings updated for release on CD Audio. Today, the CD Audio standard for bits and sampling rate have become the low bar for digital audio on current streaming services. According to a survey by Dr. AIX the CD Audio standard is probably all we need given human hearing being what it is. So, is something like perceivable sound quality gained by higher bit depth and sampling rates? My most expensive piece of audio equipment to date is a recent Chi-Fi Digital to Analog Convertor (DAC) purchased from Shenzen Audio a Topping – a DX3 Pro+. When the signal is originating from a system leveraging the DAC via USB, this unit is capable of decoding digital audio in 16, 24 & 32 bits and supports sampling rates up to 768KHz. The unit also has two digital coax inputs as well as one optical audio input along with the obligatory Bluetooth input. My craigslist purchased Cambridge Audio DVD89 is connected to one of the digital inputs and the CD’s I play to the DAC are showing the CD Audio 16/44.1 for the signal input when played. I hope to come across some used SA-CD and/or DVD Audio discs to further test the DVD89 and DAC capabilities, but I am not sure I would hear the difference through binaural headphones. This equipment makes up what I call my easy chair listening post. At this point I am happy with the setup that includes the Topping DAC, Cambridge Audio DVD89 and my MacBook Pro. While the DAC also supports reception of a Bluetooth audio signal, I don’t use it often other than convenience and have not tried to evaluate the audio quality on Bluetooth as a radio signal is going to have all sorts of potential points of degradation from compression algorithms to atmospheric radio interference.
To summarize, I have to say the more I am exposed to audiophiles, resellers of high end audio equipment and the reality of physics, I almost wish I never started this journey into audio reality. In addition to the local audio store I mention above, there is a high end cable manufacturer in town as well as designer / manufacturer of high end vacuum tube amps and other units. Who am I to disparage their product lines given I have not actually listened to them and perhaps their design and longevity alone justify some of the cost, but claiming that electrons do amazing things in your cable is tantamount to saying water flows differently in various forms of a 3/4″ pipe. It has been a very long time since I took my digital electronics 101 course in tech school, but the controllable properties of electronics are flow rate as in amps, pressure as in volts and ability restrict the flow as in resistance. What we have learned by controlling the electron through various electrical components and the ability to further leverage the electron for both mechanical energy and the processing of information in the past 150 years is truly an amazing accomplishment. But snake oil claims around basic electronic principles is ruining an otherwise productive endeavor by audiophiles who don’t realize they can only ever be an audio realist.
October 2026 Update: Audio Cables, Copper Wiring, and a Little More Physics
It’s been nearly five years since I originally wrote this article about what I considered snake oil in the audio equipment industry. My interest in audio equipment certainly hasn’t diminished, and neither has my skepticism about some of the extraordinary claims made by manufacturers and reviewers.
Recently, I watched this Veritasium video about the development of fiber optics and the technological challenges of transmitting communications over copper wiring. While the video had nothing specifically to do with high-end audio equipment, one portion caught my attention because it relates to something I wrote in the original article.
Back in 2022, I made the observation that claiming electrons do amazing things in expensive audio cables was rather like claiming water flows differently through various forms of a ¾-inch pipe.
That analogy was intended to question whether expensive cables could really produce the dramatic improvements in audio quality sometimes claimed by manufacturers. But the Veritasium video reminded me that the behavior of electrical signals in conductors is more complicated than simply pushing electrons through a piece of copper.
When Frequency and Distance Enter the Picture
The video explores how telephone companies attempted to increase the number of conversations transmitted over copper wiring by using progressively higher frequencies. Eventually, they encountered physical limitations involving resistance, electromagnetic fields, and signal attenuation.
One phenomenon discussed in the video is the skin effect. As the frequency of an electrical signal increases, the changing electromagnetic fields cause current to become increasingly concentrated near the surface of a copper conductor rather than being distributed uniformly throughout it. This reduces the effective cross-sectional area carrying the signal and increases the conductor’s effective resistance. It’s a well-established principle of electrical engineering, not something invented by manufacturers of expensive audio cables.
What particularly interested me was the relationship between signal frequency, conductor dimensions, and transmission distance. Traditional telephone systems carried voice information as changing electrical signals, often superimposed on the direct current supplied by the telephone exchange to power the telephone. To carry multiple conversations over long-distance copper transmission systems, telecommunications engineers used modulation to shift those voice signals into separate, much higher frequency bands.
As the industry attempted to transmit more conversations over the same copper infrastructure, those higher-frequency signals encountered increasing attenuation and other transmission challenges. The Veritasium video describes systems operating at frequencies reaching tens of megahertz, over distances measured in kilometers. Compare that with our home audio systems, where the frequencies of interest generally range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and our speaker cables might be only a few meters long. The underlying electromagnetic principles apply in both situations, but the operating conditions are dramatically different.
For example, at 20 kHz, the calculated skin depth in copper is approximately 0.47 millimeters. At 1 kHz, it’s approximately 2.1 millimeters.
Those figures illustrate how the distribution of electrical current within a copper conductor changes with signal frequency, even when the conductor itself remains unchanged.
Then there are inductance and capacitance, properties that exist in every cable and can influence signal amplitude and phase. Cable length, conductor spacing, insulation, and the electrical characteristics of the connected equipment all enter the equation.
None of this establishes that a $1,000 speaker cable will outperform a properly constructed $30 cable. But it does illustrate that the physical characteristics of a cable can influence its electrical behavior, even when both conductors are made of copper.
Revisiting My Water Pipe Analogy
Perhaps my original water pipe analogy was a little too simplistic. Unlike water flowing through plumbing, an audio signal travels along a conductor as a changing electrical voltage and current, accompanied by electromagnetic fields in and around the cable. Those fields interact with the conductor and its surroundings, and their behavior depends on factors such as frequency, conductor geometry, and the materials involved.
This doesn’t mean audio cables operate under some mysterious set of rules. Quite the opposite. Their electrical behavior can be described and measured using established principles of physics. The question is whether the resulting differences are significant enough to affect the signal reaching our speakers or headphones, and ultimately whether those differences are audible.
Does that mean the manufacturers of expensive audio cables have been right all along? I’m not making that claim.
Does it mean every cable sounds identical under every possible condition? I’m not making that claim either.
What I found interesting about the Veritasium presentation was that it approached these phenomena from the perspective of telecommunications engineering rather than the marketing of high-end audio equipment.
The challenges faced by telephone engineers were real enough to help drive the development of fiber-optic communications. Whether those same phenomena produce meaningful differences in a typical home audio system is another question entirely.
A Different Perspective, Not a Change of Position
I’ve included the accompanying infographic to illustrate some of the electrical principles discussed in the video, along with calculations comparing the frequencies and distances involved in telecommunications with those commonly encountered in home audio.
The infographic isn’t intended to validate or invalidate the claims made by premium audio cable manufacturers. Nor is the Veritasium video an evaluation of audio cables. It’s simply another perspective worth considering.
My original position remains that subjective listening impressions and measurable electrical performance are two different things. I can appreciate someone describing a wider soundstage, improved clarity, or better bass response after changing cables. But I’d still like to understand what physically changed in the signal reaching the speakers or headphones.
And even if we can measure a difference, there’s another question: Is that difference perceptible to the listener?
That’s where the discussion becomes interesting, particularly when the price of a cable begins approaching the price of the equipment it’s connecting.
Nearly five years later, I’m still enjoying the music, still experimenting with audio equipment, and still questioning claims that seem to defy common sense. But I’m also willing to revisit my own assumptions when an interesting explanation of the underlying physics comes along.
Maybe that’s the difference between being an audiophile and what I originally called an audio realist.
The goal isn’t to prove that every expensive cable is snake oil or that every manufacturer’s claim is legitimate.
It’s to understand what the equipment is actually doing before deciding whether the claimed improvement is worth paying for.