You’re funny when you’re serious, too. You cannot not be funny.
The Science of Cables
It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why cables sound the way they do. When I see discussions on cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like shielding, gauge, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things like resistance, impedance, inductance, capacitance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
Showing 50 responses by geoffkait
It is with mixed emotions I interject into a nice scientific cable discussion the observation that -all things being equal - a white jacketed cable or power cord whatever will sound better than one with another color jacket. As the little mice in the movie say, that’s the way things are! OK, bickering may continue. |
celander Geoff wrote: ”And how electromagnetic waves travel through solid metal conductors.” I wonder whether this matters if one is using fluid metal conductors. [Hint: time for the Teo Audio guys to report!] >>>>>I’m all for that but let’s make it a little more interesting. Let’s make it, “I wonder whether the electromagnetic waves of photons matters if one is using fluid metal conductors.” See, isn’t that better? |
As fate would have it cables are not subsonic, sonic or supersonic. They aren’t even hypersonic. They’re light speed. So are power cables. So you can’t apply fluid dynamics or finite analysis or Schlieren photography. You need to apply the laws of electromagnetism and analyze how vibration and magnetic fields interact with electromagnetic waves. And how electromagnetic waves travel through solid metal conductors. |
Just curious, anyone try lead as a conductor? I understand through a back channel lead sounds very good. I know what you’re thinking, it’s not as conductive as copper or silver. Well, duh, If conductivity was the issue then why doesn’t Silver always sound better than copper? Git ya there! Why lead? Probably because it’s an amorphous Metal, meaning no crystal structure. |
roberjerman2,190 posts04-18-2019 10:26am@dave_b : You are right! Audiophiles can believe the stupidest things (copper vs. silver, rhodium-plated outlets, power cables, magic fuses, directionality, wire burn-in ...). Quackery is profitable, unfortunately! >>>>Whoa! Hold your horses! I believe all of those points are valid and true. Yet I do not profit from any of them. Skepticism taken to its extreme is what, stupidity? A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from quackery. |
Quick interrupt! It shouldn’t be too much of a mystery why Audioquest cables and power cords sound so good. After all, Audioquest is very forthright when describing the physical and electrical characteristics of their cables and cords. You know, characteristics like solid long grain copper conductors, control of directionality, cold weld terminations, dielectric biasing, highly polished conductor surfaces, etc. and those are the ones they tell you about. Does Audioquest cryogenically treat their cables and cords? I wouldn’t be surprised, I mean, who doesn’t? |
Actually atomic particles are referred to as nanoscale, like the data on a CD. Besides it’s not really true that quantum mechanics only applies to things on a very small scale. That’s a common misconception. That’s what the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment illustrated among other things. It’s getting so there’s no clear separation between classical physics and quantum physics. Quantum mechanics is a concept, as much as anything. Like the double slit experiment - A bowling ball will display the same quantum characteristics as a photon.And quantum Teleportation. And entanglement. A Quantum of Solace. Was James Bond into quantum mechanics? |
Of course you don’t have to consider quantum mechanics for almost all everyday calculations or observations. So let’s not get too carried away. Nor does the FAA or Boeing have to consider quantum mechanics when it performs its extensive and comprehensive testing for critical systems, you know, like navigation, radars, avionics, air-ground radios and flight dynamics software. Let’s not make this more complicated than it has to be. |
OK, time to hit the nail on the head. Although the Mind Lamp™ works using an REG device located in the base of the unit, we encourage you not to think about the REG itself. Our interpretation of the research suggests that the mind is constantly interacting with random or uncertain systems, and can influence their observable outcomes based on its intention. This approach is very different from mechanistic ways of thinking, which might require you to direct your intention towards a physical sensor. Don’t worry about that for now—just be confident in your intention. RGB Color Wheel The Color Wheel Full disclosure: MACHINA DYNAMICA is the sole distributor of The Mind Lamp TM from Psyleron |
So, what’s the next logical step in this series of posts? The Mind Lamp from Psyleron! The lamp you control with your thoughts. Yeah, Baby! http://www.psyleron.com/lamp.html |
I am no stranger to controversy. The Amazing Randi is actually a very nice guy. http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5022 http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/135-swift-november-30-2007.html |
This just in!! Wikipedia Audiophile! excerpt, ControversiesEdit There is substantial controversy on the subject of audiophile components; many have asserted that the occasionally high cost produces no measurable improvement in audio reproduction.[20] For example, skeptic James Randi, through his foundation One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, has offered a prize of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate that $7,250 audio cables "are any better than ordinary audio cables".[21] In 2008, audio reviewer Michael Fremer attempted to claim the prize, and said that Randi declined the challenge.[22]Randi said that the cable manufacturer Pear Cables was the one who withdrew.[23] Criticisms usually focus on claims around so-called "tweaks" and accessories beyond the core source, amplification, and speaker products. Examples of these accessories include speaker cables, component interconnects, stones, cones, CD markers, and power cables or conditioners.[24][25] There is disagreement on how equipment testing should be conducted and as to its utility. Audiophile publications frequently describe differences in quality which are not detected by standard audio system measurements and double blind testing, claiming that they perceive differences in audio quality which cannot be measured by current instrumentation,[26] and cannot be detected by listeners if listening conditions are controlled,[27] but without providing an explanation for those claims. |
It makes very little sense to talk about what a recording studio or audio engineer does wrong. It’s too late to change that. The only system that makes sense to talk about is the home system. To answer the OP directly, it’s not really true that “we have little scientific evidence why cables sound the way they do.” Specifically, we have a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that cables sound the way they do. Listening testimony is empirical evidence. It is perhaps more powerful than measurement evidence. It is illogical to declare that a hobby that is largely subjective is strictly objective. There is strong empirical evidence that, * cables sound different * cables suffer break-in * cables are directional * cables are system and application dependent to some extent * cryogenics improves cable performance. Finally, there are many examples of recording studios that did employ high end electronics, microphones and cables. Mapleshade, Moment!, Water Lilly, probably Mobile Fidelity, and others. These days who knows? |
Mapleshade Omega Mikro interconnects, which I’ve listened to extensively over several days, employ a solid core copper conductor that is 54 gauge. In case anyone’s not sure how thick 54 gauge wire is, it’s the thickness of a human hair. Oh, did I forget to say they are absolutely great sounding interconnects? Very open, revealing with great bass performance. So, as far as wire gauge goes, I don’t really believe anyone trying to make a general or universal statement. Before I forget what’s the deal with directionality for DS type interconnects? Any consensus? |
Rule number one. Attack the competition. Good job! Gee, I wonder why Mogami’s tagline is Cable of the Pros. Duh! http://www.mogamicable.com |
taras22228 posts03-02-2019 8:23amWhat can I say, you’re Brilliant.....I’ve always said that....and incidentally just like your rocks, whose operating principle btw was used in a product that actually won an Oscar for technical achievement way back when... >>>>Really? |