DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

Audio Cable Distortion is Not a Myth! AES E-Library 

"This paper costs $33 for non-members"

Huh, no wonder it is about cables.

As a price comparison...

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/electronics-engineers-handbook-donald-christiansen/1000505242/26799...

From the AES link:

"However, because the loudspeaker load is typically nonlinear and causes harmonic currents to flow, finite impedance in an audio cable does indeed cause harmonic voltages to appear across the loudspeaker."

~~~~~~~~~~
The signal level cables also have finite impedance. They also cause variance in signal distortion, distortion due to the signal source and the receiving impedance both not being perfectly exact and finite under complex dynamic conditions. Which is the description of an audio signal. A signal so complex it is considered, for the most part, to be non repeating.

There is only ONE cable type, both speaker and signal level types...that has a complex dynamic impedance that is varied by the signal load.

Only one cable type that solves the issue where it lives. That particular cornerstone of transmission line design is also unique enough to be patentable - and is indeed patented.

@prof :

But what I haven’t actually seen from Teo is an actual cogent argument, that would show his points are directly pertinent to, or act as an actually justified critique, of anyone’s points. In other words: I've yet to see Teo do anything other than raise vague strawmen.

The above post addresses your desires directly. As did the issuance of the liquid metal cables themselves provide direct extant solution..or, as they say... "Res ipsa loquitur".

geoffkait, 07-09-2018 7:14am

Oh, goodie! Another subject glupson will attempt to facilitate.

geoffkait, 06-17-2018 6:59am

>>>>A typical English major comment. “Not a biggie.” You got that right.

Ok teo,

Your previous post about Einstein and death threats was completely irrelevant. (And you’ll find a similar post to the one you made in virtually every pseudo-science forum. "They called X scientist crazy too, you know! Critiques of X claim are just being dogmatic!" If you think any of it amounted to a relevant critique of anything I’ve written here, you just haven’t been reading at all carefully).

You have been doing your best to cast aspersions on folks like myself for voicing some caution in the face of the claims made by the high end cable industry, retailers and audiophiles.

Note, btw, the author of the very paper you cited also includes similar skepticism in his conclusion:

AUTHOR OF PAPER: "The audio cable market certainly owes something to the appeal of audio jewellery but there is also, with little doubt, a significant element of sell-delusion on the part of consumers and probably also reviewers, retailers and manufacturers."

Of course you don’t quote that part ;-)


But at least in posting links to that paper, you are moving toward some specificity. But not quite yet.

The above post addresses your desires directly.

No it doesn’t. You are still posting stuff without making the direct connections - and hence actual argument - that I asked for.

Remember what I’d asked:

prof: Can you point to the relevance of anything teo just wrote to anything I’ve written. Anything that shows I’ve claimed something untrue, or unreasonable, for instance?

First...you did not in fact show that what you previously wrote - in your "Eisntien" post - was a relevant critique of what I’ve written.

But as you’ve ignored that, now you’ve just posted a link to a single paper. So, please explain how that paper undermines the position I’ve taken here, or shows I’ve been unreasonable or claimed untruths. Can you do this...WITHOUT cherry-picking something I wrote while ignoring the context I’ve given my position in this thread?


That’s what I’m waiting for: for you to actually, specifically justify your critiques.


Thanks.