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.
128x128mkgus
I'm more of a Schrodinger guy than a Schroeder guy but don't let that stop you.
Let's face it some of us are here to share our experiences in the wish of it being helpful to those new to audio, some of us wish to perhaps learn something new - perhaps a different angle and some amongst us may wish to promote some products they may be associated with.

Some form of declaration of interest is always helpful, but I think most of us can usually deduce where the poster is coming from.

Hopefully, all of us share an interest in high quality audio playback regardless of whatever our intentions may be.

Of course we are always faced with the problems of semantics. Sensations are not the easiest to distill into words and this is compounded by the problems of memory as this Bruno Bettelheim quote illustrates,

"Instead of reflecting the impact of a symphony of feelings, interactions and experiences, played, so speak, by full orchestra, a stale report recalls to mind only selected motifs played by but a few instruments."

Ah! The problems of memory!  Audio memory is often notoriously short for most of us, with only vague sensations remaining mere days later the event. 

Then there's the question of shared meaning. The challenge of remaining within the current linguistic zeitgeist is one faced by anyone posting here or anywhere else. One persons 'warm' can equal another's 'muddy' in the same way slim / skinny and devious/ intelligent can all too easily.

One way around this may be to employ  comparisons when comparing products. You may well love the Wilson Sasha speakers, but do you love them more or less than the Wilson Sabrina? And why? Ditto for cables. We may not always agree, but at least we can see where you are coming from.

What about tactics such as linguistic obfuscation? It's common for some to try to derail attempts at clarity as proposed by the lucid and detailed posts from the likes of prof among others here. 

A recent case in point was a post about the uncertainty regarding quantum behaviour which neglected to mention that this phenomena is strictly confined to sub atomic particle behaviour.

In our world the sun always shines and will do for a good while yet - the same sun the dinosaurs once basked under.

@rodman99999 

Thank you for posting those links....and for those genuinely interested you may want to follow up on the phonon reference ( its role in electrical conductivity is pretty fascinating stuff....).
Prof has expounded at length about blind testing methodology. Search for those posts. If I recall the gist of one thread, my take away from those discussions is that blind testing is nearly impossible to do effectively. And I offer this by way of discussion, rather than going down another rabbit hole.
Q)  Anyone know the quickest way to skin Shrodinger’s Cat?   A)  Fast Furrier Transform