The Science of Cables

@ chrissain

Great post....yeah cables are in some weird way the audiophile's version of Keat's idea of negative capability ( or at least my most probably wrong understanding of same ).

The reason that the formulas are lacking and the ear/brain has a marked advantage is the ability of the ear/brain to hear into noise floors/ceiling which as I mentioned earlier is a serious limitation for measurement systems.

Is this related to the fact that when you are in a large, noisy crowd you can “tune in” to your conversation and clearly hear the person you’re talking to? There is some sort of highly advanced filtration going on in the brain in that scenario. A microphone cannot do that. It’s just a vibrating membrane - it can’t selectively hear what it wants. 

Earlier rotarius stated that cable manufacturers used the same bulk cable supplied by the same sources. Even if this were true, and it is for many cable manufacturers but certainly not all, he is making the assumption that the conductor is all that truly matters. This is an erroneous assumption. The solution to this entire debate is very simple as it applies to the individual. Of course if you truly "know" as does rotarius and a few others, no need to experiment. But if you allow for the possibility, order a few different types of cables with return guarantees and experiment.  

@mkgus

Good luck putting those concepts in a formula.

   
Your post nicely nailed that. Now if I could add something. The reason that the formulas are lacking and the ear/brain has a marked advantage is the ability of the ear/brain to hear into noise floors/ceiling which as I mentioned earlier is a serious limitation for measurement systems. And this is especially important in the room generated lower frequencies ( room "lift" is a big issue below 500hz and it generally gets quite dramatic at around 125hz ) where we can be pretty successful hearing thru the reverberation artifacts and microphones not so much ( actually their issue is they pick up everything and can't separate the wheat from the chaff the way our ear brain has evolved to do...and while we can do that trick it is much more enjoyable not to have to, which is where successful room acoustics comes into play ).

And speaking of the experience issue mentioned above "my day job" is in the film industry were "we" provide/build good acoustic environments in which microphones can more efficiently capture sync sound off the floor. "We" have been doing this for over 35 years and have contributed to over 65 major film and television projects. We have successfully worked in tiny rooms and in rooms as large as 15 million cu ft, This is why I sometimes "lose my mind" and blather on about microphones and acoustics because this is what I have done, and if the repeat business is any indication, quite successfully, read, I would like to think I can speak from experience and a reasonable understanding of the underlying theory.

@mkgus

 Is this related to the fact that when you are in a large, noisy crowd you can “tune in” to your conversation and clearly hear the person you’re talking to? There is some sort of highly advanced filtration going on in the brain in that scenario. A microphone cannot do that. It’s just a vibrating membrane - it can’t selectively hear what it wants.

Exactamondo....very well stated....and that ability is even much more pronounced in rooms that are acoustically correct ( in fact that is one of characteristics of a "good" room ). 

Btw a neat little bit of theatre that we sometimes do for clients is to record our conversation and then play it back. What you hear on playback is a conversation in a very noisy/echo laden room, something that was definitely not apparent in the original conversation because our ear/brains had done an effective job of editing the noise out by, uhhh, actively ignoring the noise. And this has proved a very effective sales tool cause after the shock wears off we usually get the contract.

So when time and budget allows film acoustics involves creating an environment around the set that not doesn't have the sound of the huge studio volume and is tuned to actually sound like what the set looks like. And all of this done with the strengths ( its really sensitive and picks up everything ) and weaknesses ( its really sensitive and picks up everything ) of the microphone first and foremost on the agenda.  

Btw this is also a pretty neat way of evaluating a listening space since it kinda short circuits that editing function and it very effectively deals with the low frequency issues that all rooms have.