Future of cables!


https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-a-new-electronic-state-of-matter?utm_source=...

I know very little about cable technology & even less about quantum physics. I read this & immediately thought (10+yrs down the road) this would upend cable tech: efficiency, clarity, & probably a bunch of stuff I don’t even know about that goes into cable science.

So, say hello to your new 2030 $70k cables. I’m curious what other people think.
tochsii
Bigkidz, AFAIK toroidal transformers have very little magnetic flux  leakage and perhaps are quieter under normal conditions, but lack of core gap makes them more sensitive to DC in mains, that can produce noise or even saturation.
Sheesh guys, is this what ya'll do to entertain yourself?  Argue about theory of a misguided science article?  lol  Whatever floats your boat.  I'm going to put on some music and try to forget this conversation. lol
I studied E&M theory, taking all of the courses in it my graduate school had to offer. My qualifier exams took four days, one full day of closed book problems to be solved in electromagnetic theory and I made the top of the class in all my qualifier exams for which I spent over a year cramming. I found out after I graduated the authority I had earned the hard way was no match for salesmanship and charisma by the charlatans who sell such junk science as long grain copper and skin effect which they never bothered to calculate in their market-research derived cable designs. In the job market people with PhD's are discriminated against and in universities they are paid less than minimum wage while sports coaches get seven figure salaries paid for through tuition price gauging.
I think the future of cables will be more junk science at higher prices and the suckers who fall for it more stubbornly convincing themselves they can hear a difference because "double-blind listening tests are unfair,"
Answer me this, Mr. Electronics Authority, why is skin effect even an issue when the signal is not the audio waveform, i.e., it’s not frequency dependent? Furthermore, nobody said double blind tests are unfair. What was said was double blind tests are no more meaningful than any other type of test. They can also be easily rigged, so in that sense you’re right.
Um, Basically "ALL", of the "Assumptions", That "Djones51" is currently spouting are simply incorrect. 
And, "yes", they indeed "Are", (assumptions) Which sound as if gained through a flawed perception that may need to be re-calibrated to base-point.
 And when you assume too many things......Bad things may come to pass.

I hated to have to say that. But someone, (Without a dog in the fight), "needed" to point that out.