Are audiophiles still out of their minds?

I was referring to Drac's reference to his friend at Nasa who has unequivocally determined cable's are scams. Are you to whom he was referring?

Watts,

"Ya but how about bringing up that "I know a guy" who works at NASA and he agrees with me? Now that pretty much clears up this whole topic.

Seriously though, I completely agree with your point that an "Appeal to Authority" is often a sophomoric tactic employed when the facts aren’t in support of a position; just as poorly designed experiments (DBT’s as an example) serve the same purpose.

That said, I raised my role as a materials scientist not to support a specific scientific claim (as I have made none). Rather, I did so in response to a post made by inna which indicated the OP needed a scientific background to make his claims. I pointed out my credentials to demonstrate my qualifications to engage in a discussion about science regarding the poorly contrived scientific claims of the OP. This is of course a proposition he has shown no desire to pursue for reasons I have mentioned. Namely, I don’t believe this thread is about cables."

Taking the passive aggressive approach? All this verbiage, yet you have contributed nothing except for how great an psychoanalyst engineer you are working on F16s, Mercedes, etc. If you don’t believe this thread is about cables, then why participate. Go start your own audiophile psychobabble thread and have at it. Who here wants to hear your psychobabble over and over again?

That "NASA guy" has real credentials and can be trusted because I know him. I have no idea which community or online college you sprang from.

"BTW, I use 10 gauge Furutech OCC in my walls because I like the way it looks on my oscilloscope."
Hmm, next time I’ll bring my oscilloscope to my audio dealer and if I like the way a cable looks on my oscilloscope, I’ll buy it. Why even listen to it? Precious.

"Drac’s reference to his friend at Nasa who has unequivocally determined cable’s are scams. Are you to whom he was referring?"

"I was referring to Drac’s reference to his friend at Nasa who has unequivocally determined cable’s are scams. Are you to whom he was referring?"

You're a bit slow, aren’t you Watts? 🙄

BTW, your ability to misinterpret my statements is pure gold. Are you really an engineer?

"My point is of course you can construct absurd cases where some generic wire might win in a shoot out with a superior wire due to some contrived assemblage of variables. But those case can be thrown out. They’re outliers. You cannot put the genie back n the bottle. Not with cables and wire, not with fuses. Simply saying we can’t easily perform an AB test doesn’t actually mean your argument is valid. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. One trusts wire directionality is one of your variables.
Geoff, I wasn’t constructing any cases, absurd or otherwise. And I wasn’t addressing cables or fuses. My point in mentioning all of those variables was to convey the thought that the results provided by expensive in-wall wiring in comparison with Romex are (a)unlikely to have much if any predictability, and (b)are unlikely to have much if any consistency among different systems and installations.

Regards,
-- Al"

Geoff, you really like to troll don't you? Looking for fights where they don't exist. This is your MO.  Every time I've seen you argue with Al, you've come up short handed. 

Wattsperchannel 6-19-2016 5:34 pm EDT
I can’t think of a scenario where a combination of the variables you list would make well designed AC wires perform worse than romex (save for an extreme example of a reduced voltage drop leaving voltage above the component spec which, frankly, is hard for me to conceive).... Can you be specific with a scenario I am missing.

One example would involve ground loops, which as I’m sure you realize can cause or contribute to high frequency noise as well as low frequency hum, and in digital applications can cause or contribute to jitter.

See pages 31 to 35 of the following paper, by Bill Whitlock of Jensen Transformers:

https://centralindianaaes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/indy-aes-2012-seminar-w-notes-v1-0.pdf

As you’ll see, he explains that "what drives 99% of all ground loops" is imperfect cancellation at the safety ground conductor of the magnetic fields surrounding the hot and neutral conductors, resulting in voltages being induced in the safety ground conductor. As he indicates, Romex is particularly good in that regard, because of its uniform geometry. The $24/foot wire is described as having noise-rejecting geometry, which would seem to suggest that the hot and neutral are twisted or interwoven in some manner. Will that geometry be as good as Romex in terms of the uniformity across its length of the physical relationship between the two current conductors and the safety ground conductor? Who knows, but it certainly seems questionable.

Also, I recall seeing numbers on the inductance of Romex, which were somewhat highish. And the twisted or interwoven geometry of the expensive wire would seem to suggest that it has significantly lower inductance. While that geometry can be expected to be advantageous to the high priced wire with respect to pickup of radiated RFI, might the higher inductance of Romex be advantageous with respect to filtering of high frequency noise that may be present on the incoming AC? Again, who knows? But as I’m sure you realize, higher inductance means progressively higher impedance at progressively higher frequencies, and therefore more opposition to the flow of high frequency noise currents. How this tradeoff may net out in any particular application could very conceivably depend on the particular spectral characteristics (frequency distribution) of the noise and RFI that may be present.  And perhaps also on the unknown capacitances of the two kinds of wire.

On the other hand, though, higher inductance means more opposition to abrupt changes in demand for current, such as may occur in power amplifiers to a greater or lesser degree depending on their bias class. How much significance the presumably higher inductance of Romex may have in that regard, if any, figures to be highly dependent on the bias class of the particular amp. As well as on the length of the wiring, since inductance is proportional to length.

And of course different components will differ in their susceptibility to ground loop issues, in part due to how and through what impedance their internal circuit ground and chassis/AC safety ground are interconnected. And in part due to whether a given component is interconnected to other components via balanced or unbalanced connections, and if the connections are balanced whether the shield of the interconnect cable is connected to the circuit ground or chassis/AC safety ground in each of the interconnected components.

And beyond all that is the possibility that results that are "better" from an objective standpoint may not be preferable subjectively. For example, relative to digital applications see this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio, in which he states:

Another interesting thing about audibility of jitter is it’s ability to mask other sibilance in a system. Sometimes, when the jitter is reduced in a system, other component sibilance is now obvious and even more objectionable than the original jitter was.

And with regard to analog applications I have seen it said by a number of writers that low level high frequency noise can from a subjective standpoint sometimes result in improved perception of hall ambience, and an increased perception of "air."

The bottom line, as I said earlier: It’s all very unpredictable, and figures to be very system, location, and listener dependent.

Regards,
-- Al