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
"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.
Post removed 
@ ieales

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


On page one are three quotes that I had to drag up a steep mountain through a monumental screaming snow storm to this thread to help illuminate the dark subject of cable building. Quite surprised you haven’t seen or read them seeing as they took up a lot of page one. They mention a thing or two outside of LCR (which for cable fundamentalists is The One True Gawd of Cable Building ) that pertains to said building. And yeah those things may be blasphemy for the card carrying Howling, errr, Hallowed True Believers and their various Ayatollahs but we ain’t stringing up old testament telegraph wires or wiring houses here. In fact, according to those quotes this cable building thingee is apparently pretty high falutin’ complisticated stuff but even NASA, the official home of rocket science, has recently bought into. Like it has quantums and phonons and nano-nanoisms and everything is spinning hither and tither. Geez makes my head spin just thinking about it, which I suppose explains the reverence that the Hallowed True Believers have for The One True Gawd of Cable Building. He makes things so easy, so simple, and doesn't make your head spin.

Just sayin’eh