The Science of Cables

@douglas_schroeder 
So, what about my question in regard to analogue?

Now don't be blasphemes...LOL 
Even though I do like both digital and analogue, I can kind of see your point. I am, myself, starting to question the sensibility of replacing expensive cartridges once every year or so (I'm retired and listen to music allot) and don't even want to think about the cost of replacing my TT and tone arm. Also getting a bit lazy and a bit less into getting up to flip LPs over every 15 min. But I do still have allot of LPs I really like, so my analogue will stick around for a while, just now spending more time with the digital......Jim

Jim
I won't hold your being an analogue lover against you. ;)

So, you trust what the sellers say about the cartridges, but don't trust me with a free method? Seriously, how is the improvement of a platter , tone arm, mat, phono cable or phono pre, or isolated motor measured aside from subjectively? How is that not parallel to cables? 

Anyone care to explain? I am open to input on this.

Which of our skeptics wish to try Schroeder Method?

Precisely what science is applied in turntable evaluation? What distinguishes it from cable evaluation? What cost structure is defensible for analogue, and why are manufacturer claims accepted uncritically? What is the markup on analogue products relative to cables? Should expensive isolation products be accepted?

I wonder such things as an analogue skeptic. Are there sound (Pun!) Answers?

To me many of the assumptions and methods of analogue, specifically Vinyl, are more tenuous than Schroeder Method.

I'm starting to think all the analogue believers owe Schroeder Method a try. 

Analogue-believing cable skeptics, where are you? 

Don't we see more attempted explanation and measurement for cables than analogue rigs. I've not seen typically any measurements in relation to constituent components of turntables. Perhaps the entirety of home analogue is non-scientific. 

Do we have stringent evidence to the contrary? 

Is this a speck and log situation? Perhaps. What arguments of the objective analysis of analogue home process can be martialed? 

Well, perhaps I have a point worth discussing. I am open to enlightenment. 

douglas,

I'm unclear about what you mean when citing "explanations for analogue ."  Especially given you've mentioned vinyl.

Are you saying there is no one out there citing measurable, objective basis for why vinyl can sound different from digital sources?  

Pleased to see that cable science remains as contentious as ever with arguments having run now for many years... most of my life in fact! IMHO it probably comes down to what should be measured especially as frequency response and THD/IM distortion seem not too helpful other than maybe minor changes resulting in part from interface issues. The conundrum centres on what factor(s) can be measured where classical measurements (or more critically the way in which they are performed) normally offer poor sensitivity. last year i was invited to give the AES Heyser Lecture in Milano. I touched on a range of topics but decided to take the controversial step to include a section on cables... always dangerous! I reported on a recent experiment performed in consultation with Armour Home (QED) UK where they claimed surprisingly good correlation between measurement and (blind) subjective ranking of 4 cables types. I am not suggesting this is definitive or comprehensive but it is interesting nonetheless in giving some mechanistic insights. The lecture (hopefully) can be downloaded from: 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nqvvwnlh6n6b98z/AAC6kOb5NT8Gk8pceZSbpl2ha?dl=0

Please note you need initially to download the files and store them locally, not try to play them directly from the web. In addition there is a demo of a spectral-domain method of DSD-to-LPCM conversion which you are free to try. BTW I apologise in advance for the poor audio quality of the lecture... there was a network interface issue in the lecture theatre beyond my control (how unusual is that...). Anyway, hope its of interest.