The Science of Cables

In the reality that exists outside of the world that strictly lives by the primacy of LCR we have this very interesting development.....Kinda interesting that the term magic sneaks into the story ....so does this imply that MIT may have a Dept of Theoretical Snake Oil Physics or maybe a Department of Applied Physical Magic. Might have to press them to do some rigorous objective analysis like triple blind fold tests and other seriously rigoristical stuff, eh....you know just to keep them honest....I mean these guys are just leading edge scientists and all....and they may not yet understand that LCR explains absolutely everything about transmission of electricity thru cable thingees.

The blockbuster discovery last year of superconductivity in a material called twisted bilayer graphene caught theorists off guard. In all their published ruminations, none of them had even speculated about the phenomenon that showed up in Pablo Jarillo-Herrero’s lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: a sudden loss of electrical resistance when two sheets of graphene — honeycomb lattices of carbon atoms — were stacked and twisted at a relative angle of 1.1 degrees. But theorists are making up for that lapse now, publishing a steady stream of explanations for this “magic angle.”

It’s too soon to say which theory, if any, will do the most to elucidate twisted bilayer graphene’s behavior or enable predictions of other phenomena in twisted stacks of two-dimensional materials — an emerging subject of study known as “twistronics.” But one prominent proposal could jump to the front of the pack. In a paper published in March in Physical Review Letters, the Harvard University condensed matter theorists Grigory Tarnopolsky, Alex Kruchkov and Ashvin Vishwanath offered a detailed picture of what might be going on — as well as suggesting what other angles to probe for potentially exciting results.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/whats-the-magic-behind-graphenes-magic-angle-20190528/

Two of our skeptics stated here that they were going to try Schroeder Method of IC placement. That was more than a month ago. 

I tried the Schroeder Method. Worked so good I raced out and bought some more Y-connectors. We are now getting unimaginably fantastic results running the Miller Method: Connect one Y-connector to the source, then connect one Y-connector to each channel. Then connect one Y-connector to each of those. Now instead of two you have eight interconnects. The improvement is exponential!

Of course you may wonder: How is this any different than running several insulated strands within one interconnect? Wouldn't that be the same, only better due to eliminating all the crappy signal degrading Y-connectors? Wouldn't IC makers figure this out? Wouldn't they all be racing to put as many conductors in parallel as they could? How would using more conductors possibly be harmful? And if it is then why on Earth would I want to run that risk?

To which I answer: take your pesky questions elsewhere! We got an off the rails thread to keep going here! So shoo! Away with you!

Why, yes, the obtuse, impractical discussion here is coruscating! ;)
After all, who needs a practical, powerful method for improving an audio system? Why on earth spend time on that?

Your thoughts are hardly novel. See the thread on the cable forum that bears my name to catch up. :)

@millercarbon: That already exists! Litz wire! I had speaker cable made of that back in '78. Polk Cobra cable! Worked fine, didn't damage my GAS Son amp from the extra capacitance!