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
jhills
618 posts
 
Nope! Plenty much happy with the cables I have and have no desire to double the capacitance on my system......Jim

Not picking on you in general, just stating that cable makers, who would have us believe that their incredible $k per ft cable is the ultimate, now concede they sound even better if you double them.

I have no bias against cable makers, in general, but I do, at times, have a problem with their greed and looseness with the truth.......Jim
Post removed 
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
Jim, Thank you for your thoughtful, cordial reply.

Elizabeth, yeah, the cost to play is pretty prohibitive. Kills.  You would think I was asking people too try a $5K cartridge. 

Which brings up this question: What is the substantive difference scientifically/analytically between analogue, in the industry and among users, and cables? I see vanishingly little difference. Which would make analogue lovers who mock cables huge hypocrites. It would also open up all the same sweeping criticisms of the industry and users that are applied to cables. I am very close to making that a proclamation, but I leave it open at this point for input.  

Call me a very serious analogue skeptic, but not absolutist yet. If anyone can demonstrate objectively how analogue is applied and assessed in systems differently (I mean differences with significance, not passing differences) then I will be open to reconsideration.  :) 

I have a digital source; I do not use analogue. However, be careful how you reply, for if you as a cable skeptic would condemn my habitus, then you condemn yourself if you eschew aftermarket cables. 

Perhaps this has all been hashed out for aeons over in the analogue forum. I don't know, I have plenty to do elsewhere. If this is a perennial debate in the vinyl world feel free to enlighten me.

Am I radically off-base, or do I have a point?   :)
celander's avatar
celander
1,503 posts
 
And a pair of SM dual Canare StarQuad assemblies at ~$150 breaks so many banks for audiophiles, too! Too much to risk, eh? You. Have. No. Idea. What. You’re. Missing.
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
People with less system building experience simply don't have a frame of reference that allows envisioning better, and are suspicious of claims to that effect. One has to be willing to test their suspicions. Those who do, discover.

I understand skepticism. Many years ago I was a cable skeptic.  It's one reason why I am willing to try what no one else will. 

Do we have any skeptics willing to try Schroeder Method, given due diligence re: compatibility?
More to discover