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
djones,

I think that the "pseudo science" used by these manufacturers are to satisfy your ilk not mine. I readily acknowledge that people hear differently and that what you might call innate abilities are not universal. Further, I need no validation of any type to acknowledge audible differences in all things audio including cables. The fact that it is suffices. 
I don’t see any arm twisting to force anyone into believing in "science" , believe whatever you want "science" isn’t interested in beliefs.
Precisely the opposite is true....You often armtwist someone with your "positivist" technological conception of science....
😁😊

The opposite is true because ,willing or not willing, science is an ACTUAL belief consciously opposing to another belief, but WITH the power of a conscious ethical method...



Beliefs participate to this "tacit knowledge" which is the main property of scientific kowledge in general...All scientist has biases but their task is to become conscious of these biases... All biases are not negative they could be learned biases not only innate one and they could be positive...Biases are not always there to be eliminated like in a blind test method, biases could be used in a conscious way....We cannot take a simplistic stance here...

Then believing is an essential part of what participate in the science activity even if we dont wanted to; the problem dont come from a belief itself, but from our own unconscious embrace of a belief who drive our own reaction without our own conscious participation...

A belief is a problem in the exact proportion of our inability to be conscious of it or of his consequences... Science make any belief conscious idea...Science is method not dogma...

Tacit knowkledge is the main concept of one of the greatest scientist and philosopher of science : Michael Polaniyi in his book "personal knowledge"....

Tacit knowledge is the skill to do something without being aware of it or being able to explain it and it may be linked to intuition, belief, habit, cultural empowerment and programmation, imagination and other implicit "knowing"...



History of science is also an history of beliefs of the past but the difference is that the scientist make his implicit belief an explicit experience...Then Ptolemaic belief can be integrated in Copernician belief, and Copernician belief in Keplerian belief, and Keplerian belief in Newton belief, and Newton belief can be integrated in Einstein belief et so on....

«History of science is science itself» Goethe




But we can reduce science to technology, and knowledge to power....:Like apprentice sorcerer want to do...

But this is no more science, this is scientism, this is a religion, the cult of power hubris, transhumanism is the perfect exemple nowadays...

By the way that is perfectly described in the Goethe major work " Faust" ...





«Yesterday i understood science but today i dont understand it at all »-Groucho Marx summarizing Max Planck biography 🤓
My ilk? As opposed to what? Yours? Of course people hear differently I never said otherwise. People also hear differences in components, I don't question that. 
Armtwist? LOL  I don't care what anyone thinks or believes. I never write tomes on these threads. Should I count the insults thrown at me by you in just that one post? 
Armtwist? LOL I don’t care what anyone thinks or believes. I never write tomes on these threads. Should I count the insults thrown at me by you in just that one post?
Sorry but i dont insult by using your own word....

And if you want an example here, some others like you, attacked by mocking him without even being curious and fair, the russian guy who create the Thread about " direction in wiring", one of the most interesting thread created ever here, about experiments, not only in engineering design of a directed wired amplifier but also in psycho- acoustic science experiments, if you had dare to read the official site of this russian engineer...

The russion guy tired by  your ...... has quit....Put the word you want in the empty interval....

Then saying that you armwrist and armtwist people with your "restricted idea" of engineering or science is a fact not an insult...