Science that explains why we hear differences in cables?


Here are some excerpts from a review of the Silversmith Audio Fidelium speaker cables by Greg Weaver at Enjoy The Music.com. Jeff Smith is their designer. I have not heard these cables, so I don’t have any relevant opinion on their merit. What I find very interesting is the discussion of the scientific model widely used to design cables, and why it may not be adequate to explain what we hear. Yes it’s long, so, to cut to the chase, I pulled out the key paragraph at the top:


“He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.”


“One of the first things that stand out in conversation with Jeff about his cables is that he eschews the standard inductance/capacitance/resistance/impedance dance and talks about wave propagation; his designs are based solely upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of electron flow.


While Jeff modestly suggests that he is one of only "a few" cable designers to base his designs upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of the movement, or "flow," of electrons, I can tell you that he is the only one I’ve spoken with in my over four decades exploring audio cables and their design to even mention, let alone champion, this philosophy.


Cable manufacturers tend to focus on what Jeff sees as the more simplified engineering concepts of electron flow, impedance matching, and optimizing inductance and capacitance. By manipulating their physical geometry to control LCR (inductance, capacitance, and resistance) values, they try to achieve what they believe to be the most ideal relationship between those parameters and, therefore, deliver an optimized electron flow. Jeff goes as far as to state that, within the realm of normal cable design, the LRC characteristics of cables will not have any effect on the frequency response.


As this is the very argument that all the cable flat-Earther’s out there use to support their contention that cables can’t possibly affect the sound, it seriously complicates things, almost to the point of impossibility, when trying to explain how and why interconnect, speaker, digital, and power cables have a demonstrably audible effect on a systems resultant sonic tapestry.


He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.


As such, his design goal is to control the interaction between the electromagnetic wave and the conductor, effectively minimizing the phase errors caused by that interaction. Jeff states that physics says that the larger the conductor, the greater the phase error, and that error increases as both the number of conductors increase (assuming the same conductor size), and as the radial speed of the electromagnetic wave within the conductor decreases. Following this theory, the optimum cable would have the smallest or thinnest conductors possible, as a single, solid core conductor per polarity, and should be made of metal with the fastest waveform transmission speed possible.


Jeff stresses that it is not important to understand the math so much as it is to understand the concept of electrical energy flow that the math describes. The energy flow in cables is not electrons through the wire, regardless of the more common analogy of water coursing through a pipe. Instead, the energy is transmitted in the dielectric material (air, Teflon, etc.) between the positive and negative conductors as electromagnetic energy, with the wires acting as waveguides. The math shows that it is the dielectric material that determines the speed of that transmission, so the better the dielectric, the closer the transmission speed is to the speed of light.


Though electromagnetic energy also penetrates into and through the metal conductor material, the radial penetration speed is not a high percentage of the speed of light. Rather, it only ranges from about 3 to 60 meters per second over the frequency range of human hearing. That is exceptionally slow!


Jeff adds, "That secondary energy wave is now an error, or memory, wave. The thicker the conductor, the higher the error, as it takes longer for the energy to penetrate. We interpret (hear) the contribution of this error wave (now combined with the original signal) as more bloated and boomy bass, bright and harsh treble, with the loss of dynamics, poor imaging and soundstage, and a lack of transparency and detail.


Perhaps a useful analogy is a listening room with hard, reflective walls, ceilings, and floors and no acoustic treatment. While we hear the primary sound directly from the speakers, we also hear the reflected sound that bounces off all the hard room surfaces before it arrives at our ears. That second soundwave confuses our brains and degrades the overall sound quality, yielding harsh treble and boomy bass, especially if you’re near a wall.


That secondary or error signal produced by the cable (basically) has the same effect. Any thick metal in the chain, including transformers, most binding posts, RCA / XLR connectors, sockets, wire wound inductors, etc., will magnify these errors. However, as a conductor gets smaller, the penetration time decreases, as does the degree of phase error. The logic behind a ribbon or foil conductor is that it is so thin that the penetration time is greatly reduced, yet it also maintains a large enough overall gauge to keep resistance low.”


For those interested, here is more info from the Silversmith site, with links to a highly technical explanation of the waveguide model and it’s relevance to audio cables:


https://silversmithaudio.com/cable-theory/


tommylion
Nice commercial but John Dunlavy explains it’s irrelevance in Audio cables many years ago….
more mumbo jumbo to extract money
@mijostyn 

If you had half a brain, you would come to realize just how much we don’t know, or understand…. Read up on Maxwell…
I wrote this in another thread.

believe it is relevant here also…

When I was in film school, we had a prof who had an amazing approach to teaching.

I forget the context this bit came out in class, but here goes.

(this relates to MC’s thoughts on listening and learning how to hear)

The discussion went something like this. Cave drawings were outlines. The idea he presented (which was not his, but from others research) argued that as primitive beings, we saw the world as outlines. These outline drawings became solids at a point. The solids eventually became detailed. Visual representation was up until this point depicting a 2 dimensional world. Then perspective (forgive the pun) came into the picture. The development of artificial “sight”, follows the exact same trajectory. Edge detection, solid/form detection, detail detection and finally perspective.

The theory goes something like this. As primitive beings, it is speculated that we could only see edges. Then someone drew solid forms, and we learned to see solids. Then details and finally perspective. The theory goes that we learned to see in a more complex way, we didn’t always have access to the full spectrum we now have. Artificial object detection has followed the same path.

So, being able to see was an evolved process.
This is where I spin that to audio.

Here’s the difference between sight and sound. Prior to recorded/reproduced sound, our biological hearing abilities evolved to where they needed to be. Meaning, we only need to be able to hear so much to be able to survive. Recorded sound is new. Recorded images, go waaaaaay back.

So, now that we can record and reproduce sounds in a manner, and of a quality beyond what we can currently “hear”, that doesn’t mean that what we currently hear is actually the limit of what our ears are capable of identifying. As we develop new technologies, and as we continue to live with the technologies we currently have access to, our hearing, like our vision will continue to evolve. We are limited biologically by the demands placed on our hearing

 That happened in real time for me btw, I never made that correlation before.

What you’re saying is we can hear things now that we we might evolve to being able to hear sometime in the future. What do you consider to be the reason we will develop super hearing? What survival need will push the evolutionary pressure for human super hearing? Stereo playback??
I wrote this in another thread.

believe it is relevant here also…

When I was in film school, we had a prof who had an amazing approach to teaching.

I forget the context this bit came out in class, but here goes.

(this relates to MC’s thoughts on listening and learning how to hear)

The discussion went something like this. Cave drawings were outlines. The idea he presented (which was not his, but from others research) argued that as primitive beings, we saw the world as outlines. These outline drawings became solids at a point. The solids eventually became detailed. Visual representation was up until this point depicting a 2 dimensional world. Then perspective (forgive the pun) came into the picture. The development of artificial “sight”, follows the exact same trajectory. Edge detection, solid/form detection, detail detection and finally perspective.

The theory goes something like this. As primitive beings, it is speculated that we could only see edges. Then someone drew solid forms, and we learned to see solids. Then details and finally perspective. The theory goes that we learned to see in a more complex way, we didn’t always have access to the full spectrum we now have. Artificial object detection has followed the same path.

So, being able to see was an evolved process.
This is where I spin that to audio.

Here’s the difference between sight and sound. Prior to recorded/reproduced sound, our biological hearing abilities evolved to where they needed to be. Meaning, we only need to be able to hear so much to be able to survive. Recorded sound is new. Recorded images, go waaaaaay back.

So, now that we can record and reproduce sounds in a manner, and of a quality beyond what we can currently “hear”, that doesn’t mean that what we currently hear is actually the limit of what our ears are capable of identifying. As we develop new technologies, and as we continue to live with the technologies we currently have access to, our hearing, like our vision will continue to evolve. We are limited biologically by the demands placed on our hearing

That happened in real time for me btw, I never made that correlation before.
i have read your post the first time with great pleasure....

And i immediately say that this was a great piece of thinking....


I will rtepeat here the same thing and i thank you for adding to the " perspective" of us all ...


Anyway seeing is like hearing a perspective learned by the soul which manifested in a temporary living form we call a body...Cassirer called that a "symbolic form"....

If we take for example the " conic perspectival" acquisition at the times of Brunelleschi and Alberti, many books were written about this new pictural tool which reflect a very deep change in the human consciousness...

Save for the classic book about perspective in art like Panovsky a disciple of the great Cassirer, the greatest illuminated exposition of the meaning of "perspective" is about to be found in Jean Gebser " the ever present origin"...


Perspective is a manifestation of the way the consciousness now link itself to the world...

«

According to Gebser, the five structures of consciousness we met up with in my November 18, 2020 post Stages Versus Structures: Exploring Jean Gebser, Lesson I (you will find the link is at the bottom of this post)—archaic, magic, mythic, mental, and integral—can be grouped into three larger categories, or three worlds, as he calls them: unperspectival, perspectival, and aperspectival. While the nomenclature may at first feel intimidating, it’s actually quite easy to master if you keep your elementary school art days in mind. Unperspectival is how you drew before you learned about foreground and background, when everything was all just jumbled onto the drawing sheet. Perspectival is the drawing sheet once you’ve learned to arrange it in relationship to that hypothetical point on the horizon. And aperspectival is what ensues once you’ve learned to convey several perspectives simultaneously, as in some of Picasso’s surrealistic artwork where he simultaneously shows you the front side and back side of a person. A heads up: in Gebser the prefix “a” always conveys the meaning of “free from.” Thus an aperspectival view is one that is free from captivity to a single central point of reference.

The Unperspectival World embraces the archaic, magic, and mythic structures.

The Perspectival World hosts the mental structure.

The Aperspectival World is the still-emerging integral structure.

Each of these three perspectives is properly called a world because it comprises an entire gestalt, an entire womb of meaning in which we live and move and make our connections. Each has its own distinctive fragrance, ambience, tincture. Each is an authentic pathway of participation, an authentic mode of encountering the cosmos, God, and our own selfhood. Each has its brilliant strengths and its glaring weaknesses. Compositely, they evoke “the width and length and height and depth” of our collective human journey into consciousness.»


https://wisdomwaypoints.org/2020/11/unperspectival-perspectival-aperspectival-exploring-jean-gebser-lesson-ii/




Then your post pekri and tought are spot on...

Learning to hear is also a consciousness manifestation...It takes time and hearing music for example  of  Scriabin, Bruckner, Monterverdi, Schoenberg, or Jazz or Persian and Indian music or Chineese etc cannot be instantaneous at all...All of these styles reflect unique perspective on not only music but about consciousness in history...

All musical history reflect constraints imposed by consciousness on himself in some "perspective"...This perspective is some take on consciousness by consciousness itself at a moment in time...

Then music is not about taste ONLY but about learning....


Only simple mind believe that we know what sound is and musical sound...I own a book about timbre which is written by specialists around the world...No one explain "timbre" experience and perception fully.... Timbre experience is a sonic perception irreducible to Frequencies spectrum...

It take more then the actual education at school to learn that...