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.
mkgus

rocknss, it's been quite a while since I did that review, and not all the trials made it into the article. I do not recall switching the power cords on the amps. I do recall conducting more than one comparison between power cords on the amps. These were identical amps that I had used ongoing for some time. I believe that if there were an audible issue with inconsistency with the amps it would have been manifested through putting up many systems.

My response would be thus; IF a variation in sound between the amps existed, and if it was not audible during normal use, why would it be expected to be audible during ABX? The odds are much more in favor of the power cords themselves being the cause of the sound differences, especially when I consistently had sonic changes due to cables such as IC and SC as well.

OTOH, what was surprising and significant was that when power cords to amps were identical I was unable to be successful in more than about 50% identification between amps that were level matched. It even held true with SS vs. tubed amps, as you can read in the article. That was unexpected and to me seems the more noteworthy result. In other words, I succeeded in identification of power cords, but failed at identification of amps. I never would have expected that result. However, as I explain in the article I do not believe the result applies directly to real world system building.

Anyway, yours is a good question. To eliminate any possibility of influence of the amp, swapping the power cords would have been a good idea. However, I believe the circumstantial evidence shows that the likelihood of the amp being the cause of the differences in sound is very small. It is obvious that I am not a lab tech, so my procedure was not perfect. However, I do not believe that negates the results.

YMMV, and though I am happy to provide an answer, I do not intend on arguing/debating it. :)

I’m pretty sure the Government pays more than that. A lot more. Do you think they just buy them off Audiogon?
@cd318- "What about tactics such as linguistic obfuscation? It’s common for some to try to derail attempts at clarity........

A recent case in point was a post about the uncertainty regarding quantum behaviour which neglected to mention that this phenomena is strictly confined to sub atomic particle behaviour." 

At what level of atomic particle, does sound begin to be affected? GOT ANSWERS(as in, "science")? It’s the likes of you, that choose to deny the plausible/possible, regarding how this universe operates, when presented with SCIENTIFIC FACT. That you can’t grasp the possible significance of phonons and consciousness, regarding how/what people hear, doesn’t make them irrelevant, or- a related conversation, "obfuscation". Someone once said, "None are so deaf as those that WILL NOT hear."
What! Whoa!! Hey, we’ve forgotten cyrogenics!! That’s actually OK since most companies that matter do it, anyway.

I will be interested when jhills reports back on his discovery in trying Schroeder Method ICs. When I spoke with him he indicated that he had the interconnects and would only need connectors.

Some are not impressed by the use of connectors such as splitters or Y-cables, as though that would obviate any potential gain. That is not so; all users who have used splitters and Y-cables hear a marked improvement in their system. The skeptics are speculating on that point. I have invited them continuously to put their doubt to the test, but as we can see many of them hold their opinions with absolute certainty. That’s a great way to cement a rig in current performance, eschewing potential wonderful improvements. That kind of attitude gave rise to my byline, "The greatest impediment to developing an audiophile system is the audiophile."

The reason I initially (now, I’m experiencing at least one brand of manufactured double IC - anyone else care to make and send to me for trial?) used assembled ones is for convenience, proof of concept vs. making/buying, and to see if the benefit could overcome the inefficiency/deterioration that comes with splitters/Y-cables.

Also, assembled Schroeder Method cables are very easy and quick to reduce to a single IC for comparison. That is ideal in such situations. It’s the cheapest, fastest way to get to comparisons. And for that some are dismissing Schroeder Method. I use a sensible approach that doesn’t cost a lot, and it’s written off. That’s typical skeptics for you. Operate as they would and the method gets condemned for it. But, if I were to say it is only efficacious if one buys manufactured models of it, then they would fuss  about the cost, I’m in cahoots with the makers, etc. Self-confidence and doubt like to operate from both sides of the coin - that way skepticism seemingly cannot lose.

I do not give much credence to arguments that say merely rising from a chair, or replacing a cable nullify a comparison. It is easy for me to hear the differences. Then again, I am doing this in a custom room with about 8dB less noise level than typical quiet room in a home, and the characteristics of a mastering studio. Likely your room is not better. Just another reason why, Imo, skeptics are in no position to declare what I can and cannot hear in that room. :)