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
Lol @ Ignatius. See, this is exactly the problem with people like you...full of "conspiracy theories". Like, you MUST be right that I used to be on here under a different name. (Well, you're wrong, not sure what else I can say). I have never been on here before. I am indeed "an Englishman in NY", with 32yrs professional/broadcast engineering under my belt, and I find most of these "Audiophile" claims to be absolute nonsense. It's really that simple. Of course, bankers, doctors, businesmen, retirees, whatever they are, with zero professional experience but a subscription to Stereophile (or wherever these hifi myths eminate from) know more than me, because they "can hear it". Lol, sure, with their rolled-off HF hearing loss and a touch of tinnitus....sure they can hear the difference made by swapping the fuses for "audiophile fuses" (etc ). I find it amusing, but also rather silly. 
englishman-in-newyork"I am indeed "an Englishman in NY", with 32yrs professional/broadcast engineering under my belt, and I find most of these "Audiophile" claims to be absolute nonsense. It’s really that simple. Of course, bankers, doctors, businesmen, retirees, whatever they are, with zero professional experience but a subscription to Stereophile (or wherever these hifi myths eminate from) know more than me, because they "can hear it". Lol, sure, with their rolled-off HF hearing loss and a touch of tinnitus....sure they can hear the difference"


That is AMAZING that you are able to conduct medically valid and scientific analysis of users haring without ever conducting an examination you truley have benefiied all of us with your experience, knowledge, wisdom and professional prowess!
@clearthink 

+1

@englishman 

So, your vast knowledge, has it precluded you from doing a simple A/B test to try any of these things that you are taking a dump on?

And why does it bother you what someone does with their money? 
Guess you just want them to know what you do, right? Because you are the be all and end all of audio knowledge because you were a button pusher in a studio?

Which is why you start off by calling us audiofools? 
Look up Maxwells equations. They help to outline how much we thought we knew at one point, and they shed light on how science still has much to discover.

But you don’t need to look them up, as you already know all there is to know. 





Then i apologize if sometimes by my lack of the mastery of english language i mistake sarcasm with claim....

But he also said that cables are more important than speakers... Is it a sarcasm too?

Yes I believe so.In the limit where one just has a $100k cable and no speaker, then the cable will not make magic.


My point is all changes are important, cables included, but their meaning and characteristics CANNOT be assessed WITHOUT acoustic treatment and control over a room related to the specific speakers charracteristics...
If an RCA, or a speaker cable, cannot be AB identified in a 1/2 blind test, then one could argue that they are not in the group of “All changes are important”.


And why does it bother you what someone does with their money?
Guess you just want them to know what you do, right? Because you are the be all and end all of audio knowledge because you were a button pusher in a studio?

Most of those studios are running specific interconnect cables that are not “magical”… they are just using shielded twisted pairs with low capacitance and inductance. Anything that enters the CD is either coloured by them, or it has not been coloured.
If I use those same cables on my playback system, then will it sound different than if I use some high $ cables? And why are the studios not using kilo-$ interconnect cables?


With a liquid metal cable, for the liquid metal, it is all surface. there is no depth to penetrate. It is ’liquid’ down at the molecular alloy level, which is about as close to being a pure atomic/pure element level fluid, as you’ll ever get to. Conductive. 
Usually metals are most conductive as we approach 0 Kelvin. I am not sure how one makes a classical atom, or molecule, or alloy of copper (or silver) metal differ from the known melting point and boiling points that have been observed for centuries?
And how would a liquid version of it stay put?
I would assume it would drop out like a melting fuse
So I was assuming ^that stuff^ was what this quote was referencing:
Given the ABSURD claims of many audiophiles/audiophools, I find it absolutely hysterical that the NON believers (ie. the SANE sector of the "audiophile community" are the ones being labelled as "Flat Earthers".
Perhaps a useful analogy is a listening room with hard, reflective walls, ceilings, and floors and no acoustic treatment.

One can demonstrate the effects of room acoustic treatment, clearly and easily, with a tool like REW.  Can you do that for cables?