The Science of Cables

@taras22
IF it’s not simple, just exactly what wire properties other than LCR affect response?

@teo_audio
the tests were done on excised tissue and "it remains to be seen whether these findings are relevant in the normal inner ear of living animals." A single photon is detectable but it conveys no information.

@bsmg
Cables carry the signal which is ultimately detected by the ears. Ears, err I mean listeners, can be trained.

Manufacturers make all manner of claims. When trained listeners hear no difference, the purveyors claim inadequate biological capabilities. Fanboys poo-poo blind tests trained listeners pass with aplomb.

From start to finish, music recording and reproduction is a series of equalizers.
Expecting 2m of balonium will undo everything that preceded it is utter folly.
Expecting 2m of balonium will improve all systems is an even larger load.

"A single photon is detectable but it conveys no information. "

Does anyone here know what the word contradiction means?

I see it went down to name calling fairly fast. As in, your post is all about dismissal -poorly framed and delivered at that. With a sprinkling of polarization attempting to look like logic --as projections of appeals to authority.

In other words, you’ve got nothing... and you are attempting to frame it as if you do have something.

When that happens, all that is left is the sputtering. Which we can plainly see.

As for LCR, it’s fine, it’s nice, whatever. A limited tool at best.

It’s good to remember that numbers exist no where in the real world, that numbers are an abstract thing in a human mind. They can never be real. It’s a tool...and it is in charge of exactly nothing. Math can be one of those incredibly dangerous ultimate appeals to authority, if one is not careful. Forests and tress and all that.

Actual real sciences puts humans in charge and never puts things like LCR in charge. It is also a human that fools themselves that LCR is biblical, singular, all encompassing... and immutably in charge. Man made dogma, such a thing is. Limited reach-reaching it’s limit. Totally anti-science.

I’m trying to say.... a fully fleshed out argument would have no losers, just more illumination for all. And your argument is way out of whack, way off center. Certainly not fit for the professorial lunch room. So many holes that a sieve would be a better stopper.

brucenitroxpro

... the reason there are so few articles on cables is... that MOST articles are so poorly researched that the questions they answer are not usually applicable to audiophiles ...

Agreed. Not only are many tests poorly researched, but even the ones that are often leave unanswered questions, such as how the test was designed and administered. And then there are those that are based on deception; those prove nothing. But the extent to which even a scientific double-blind controlled test has value to an audiophile is debatable.

You simply can’t question most audiophiles whose most important quality is their totally complete knowledge of what they THINK they know.

I think most audiophiles do know what they hear, and that’s the most important thing. In fact, an audiophile is more likely to know what he hears than anyone else, which is one of the takeaways from the Laurel-Yanny controversy.

ieales

When trained listeners hear no difference, the purveyors claim inadequate biological capabilities.

What test are you referring to? What "purveyors?"

Fanboys poo-poo blind tests trained listeners pass with aplomb.

It's not clear what you mean here. In any event, it's a misnomer that a listener "passes" or "fails" a blind listening test. Such tests aren't designed to test the listener - their purpose is to test the "device under test," which is why they call it a DUT. You really need an audiologist to test a listener.