The Science of Cables

Just an update on my barb cabling. Don’t evaluate it immediately, it sounds much better after a break in period of at least two weeks. Also, finally located our cat Boots who has been missing for a three days caught up in the wire. Not sure whether to remove him or not since there is a noticeable improvement in imaging and soundstage.

Regarding something that actually has potential to benefit audiophiles' systems, last night I disassembled the digital source, as I am sending back the SONORE Signature Rendu SE for an upgrade, and I reverted back to my MF transport feeding the Exogal Comet DAC and Ion Power DAC combo. I will be reporting on the upgrades to the Signature Rendu SE and Exogal Ion Powerdac's HyperDrive upgrade in due time at Dagogo.com 

The pertinence of this post is that I once again used the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement with the transport's AES/EBU output. It is superlative, definitively high quality as a link. I did two different cables in this configuration, the much less expensive Audio Sensibility manufactured Schroeder Method XLR 1M with their least expensive IC cable. It was very good, well worth pursuing by budget oriented audiophiles. 

Then, I went to the assembled Clarity Cable Organic IC put together with Audio Sensibility's silver XLR Y Cables prepared for Schroeder Method. WOW! I am stunned and VERY happy with that outcome! I have never heard any Redbook source, even $10K players using single ICs, in my room with close to this erudition (I presume similar benefits could be obtained by those with high end players)! The Kingsound King III electrostatic speakers sound wonderfully pure, coherent (they are what I described in the review as Line Source ESL; multiple ESL drive units stacked), and now with the Ion with HyperDrive phenomenally powerful in the low end. Assessed by distinct, separate comparisons from the cable changes. 

Imo the digital application of Schroeder Method with digital source in the two instances I have tried is a rousing success. AES/EBU with this unit is very sensitive to such cable changes. I do not wish to overly boast of this, but it is becoming clearer to me that this has the potential to revolutionize passive system setups. In the end active systems may sound flat out worse than passive speakers with Schroeder Method cabling. I would expect our skeptics to mock that assessment, but if they actually ever tried things they would find out.

My wording on he last paragraph is vague; I have used two digital sources, CD transport and file playback. The AES/EBU is an analogue output. I have done double ICs on source to preamp, source to integrated DAC, and preamp to amp. I had previously tried the MF transport's SPDIF output with Schroeder Method successfully as well.

@douglas_schroeder Ok, so I am confused by these two posts. It might be a benefit to re-post these posts in the Shroeder Method thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic

But back to my confusion. In the first paragraph of your first post, you mention the set-up: "I reverted back to my MF transport feeding the Exogal Comet DAC and Ion Power DAC combo." From this description, I gather the transport is only sending digital data as an output signal. And from this statement from your second paragraph, "I once again used the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement with the transport’s AES/EBU output," I gather you are using an SM digital AES/EBU interconnect cable between the transport and the Exogal DAC. And in the final paragraph of your first post, you mention that "AES/EBU with this unit is very sensitive to such cable changes." What is "this unit," the transport or the DAC?

But then in your second post above, you clarify the SM IC is being used in the following manner: "AES/EBU is an analogue output." So my confusion is whether you are promoting the SM AES/EBU XLR IC, originally intended as a digital cable, as an analog cable.

Tara22 thanks for the EM and Physics... very interesting.

Its important to remember that “Objective Measurements” are dependent on the mathematical model of the problem or physical reality one is attempting to explain, predict or understand.  

Each model has its own limits since by nature mathematical models are just that mathematical models and are not reality itself but a model of that physical reality.

Thats not to say that they are not useful or that they can give us great understanding...

I agree that performance metrics are important and may give us a means of comparison... the question is it a valuable metric of performance/ comparison.

let me give you an example from my experience in a different field. 

I am not an electrical engineer, I am an ex fighter pilot and now a commercial pilot.  Flying fighter aircraft required one to fly the aircraft to its max design limits (the edge of the envelope) where the flight characteristics may not be stable or predictable.  

I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering,  Obviously we build airplanes and electronics based on mathematical models but also accomplish extensive testing to verify the stability and performance of aircraft.

Subsonic equations of motion (EOM) and supersonic equations of motion are quite different,  subsonic incompressible flow fields use some of the the Exact same equations used to describe Electo-magnetic phenomena
...Hence each uses the same math to describe different physical problems, but each have their limitations.

When designing transonic and supersonic aircraft the EOM become more difficult to solve as they are non-linear and simplification and assumptions become necessary as well as different ways of modeling flow fields ( finite element analysis).

As the speeds get higher toward hypersonic flight physical properties, thermodynamics etc  that were insignificant in very low speed flight become much more significant.

As a fighter pilot we needed to be able to assess the enemy’s aircraft performance in relation to our own aircrafts

Some of the basic numbers of comparison gave us a basis to Accomplish a performance comparison of the flight envelopes of my own AC and the enemies AC

for example :
Min and max speed,  max altitude, wing loading, engine to thrust ratio.  Range payload etc.

Each of these gave us some measure of comparison but when it came to Air-to-Air combat they only described part of the picture.

Someone smart came up with an Energy Analysis to compare aircraft it was called an Em diagram... which is a plot of the flight envelope bounded by the aircrafts structural G limit, Lift, Drag, Thrust and speed limits etc.  Each diagram was for a specific altitude. As the altitude changed so did all the variables used in creating the Em diagrams.

The bottom line is that all of the performance characteristics were interdependent and variable.  The diagrams gave us a tool to compare but it had it limits... we got an idea where we had a performance advantage and where our weaknesses were.  We would use these Em diagrams to capitalize our own aircrafts advantages when engaging enemy aircraft.  We would attempt to engage at speeds and altitudes where we had a tactical advantage.... but in the end it was such a dynamic and fluid environment that the Em was only a way to help analyze and hopefully give us a way of surviving and hopefully dominating enemy aircraft in a fight.

Flying fighters required you to “become” the machine you were flying in-order to max perform it.  

Simply said it is an art form

so what does all this mean?

I’m wondering if cables are subsonic, supersonic or hypersonic... IE are there  “significant-digits” in the physics that are important... ones that we can actually hear?

I’m thinking that we “objective measurements” give a some means of comparison, ( like you said resistance, capacitance etc )... the engineer in me says yes 

Resistance, capacitance etc....I hear Min/ Max Speed, Max Altitude, Thrust-to-Weight ratio etc.

So what you’re asking is there an Em diagram for cables?

maybe the answer is it requires both... an Em diagram and Art