2. cables
  3. 146425-122613

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
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
1,019 posts
 

What "tarnished beyond repair" HEA was the lack of listening, and an industry that way over charged the public for their experiments and theories.

I don’t know about any other listening experts, but blind testing is only as good as a system’s ability to settle in between changes and a listener's ability to reset.


mg

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Some people seem to be under the impression that conductivity is everything. If that was true we’d all be using silver cables. There are obviously many parameters involved in cable design. You don’t have to be a brain 🧠 surgeon to figure that out.

”If I could explain it to the average person they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.”
itsjustme
682 posts
 
I'm not getting into the technical melee here, but if anyone is interested in measurements - including one that can ID differences ***when we don't know precisely what to measure***, look up a youtube video of an AES talk by Evan Winer on his Null Tester.  OK he;s a techie, but if more mastering engineers has his commitment, we'd probably like more recordings and even like digital masters.

Note the subtlety here - I disagree that we cannot measure audible artifacts.  The problem is that a) we dont know what to measure and b) we don't know how to weight consonant vs dissonant distortions.  There is a difference between "sounds nice" and "is accurate". IN fact, distortions make great pianos and violins - but ah what distortions they are... (rich resonances that are primarily low-order, even harmonics).
Measuring cables is complex. I tried one with nearly $1m worth of lab gear (not mine) and failed miserably.  but it was fun.
itsjustme
682 posts
 
cleeds,

How does it prove nothing when subjects reported substantial differences, which, according to the test, could not have been there?
One cannot prove a negative, we we cannot prove there are not differences, (except maybe the null test), but that  suggests that the mind is having a major influence on reported results.  I KNOW this is true of me which is why i am very careful to listen multiple times under multiple circumstances before i come to a concision....
headache? I hate it. Good wine? I love it. Just sayin'  better to invest in wine maybe

G
teo_audio
2,197 posts
 
Basically, I pulled my post and left this instead...as this is just an entrenched position thread, where we each lob bombs over the hedge without regard to the damage we do to each other, as we feel threatened in our expression fundamentals. We feel threatened at our core.

The only end point in such things... is where the thread is overly moderated and then shut down.

I'd like to bring the tone down, not tensioned and ratcheted up.
More to discover