Why Do Cables Matter?


To me, all you need is low L, C, and R. I run Mogami W3104 bi-wire from my McIntosh MAC7200 to my Martin Logan Theos. We all know that a chain is only as strong as its' weakest link - so I am honestly confused by all this cable discussion. 

What kind of wiring goes from the transistor or tube to the amplifier speaker binding post inside the amplifier? It is usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper. Then we are supposed to install 5 - 10' or so of wallet-emptying, pipe-sized pure CU or AG with "special configurations" to the speaker terminals?

What kind of wiring is inside the speaker from the terminals to the crossover, and from the crossover to the drivers? Usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper.

So you have "weak links" inside the amplifier, and inside the speaker, so why bother with mega expensive cabling between the two? It doesn't make logical sense to me. It makes more sense to match the quality of your speaker wires with the existing wires in the signal path [inside the amplifier and inside the speaker].

 

 

kinarow1

Cables matter. Wire, the kind of copper, how its shielded , with what materials. The connectors. Are you using silver or other materials. It all matters. Full disclosure. Calvin Johnson from infigo audio. 

Alhemist never suceeded to turn lead into gold as ordered by German

''Keizer'' which ''tresure'' was empty. They all were dissmised and changed

their name into ''metalurgist''. As such they were more succesful.

Some of them deed suceed but not with lead but wiith copper. Some

from the Nord and East. They sell copper cables for more money

than gold.

I was awarded 10 US Patents over my engineering career and several EU Patents.  (Before I went into management).  Some, but not all of the EU Patents overlap the US ones.  Most but not all of my inventions made it into production.  My little brother has 9-10 US Patents too and he is a Purdue grad.  Go figure.

It is expensive to apply for a patent and time consuming.  I had to work with the legal team to develop the art and the claims as well as research of all patent databases to verify no prior claims.  Unless someone has a lot of time and money on their hands to write up some fantastical inventions and pay a legal team to submit it for a patent, well it wouldn’t make sense to me.  The sole purpose of the patent is to protect the invention for a time allowing the inventors to profit from their ideas.  Even holding a patent is not a guarantee someone will not copy it.  Lot’s of time and legal fees involved in defending patent rights.  So I don’t understand how someone would be rolling on the floor with laughter reading patent claims.  I’d rather watch Gillian’s Island reruns.

A few observations on intellectual property.

1. Having protectable IP is important to inventors who may wish to licence their IP and not use it themselves.

2. It can be vital when looking to raise external capital.

3. Just because something is patented doesn't necessarily mean it is has utility - or at least not commercial utility.

4. People who work in public service don't do it to maximise their earnings. It doesn't necessarily imply that their abilities or work is of lesser quality.

5. Natually, patent examiners are not infallible - that's why people end up in litigation. That said, patent examinership looks like an area that's ripe for the application of AI.

I trained as a biological oceanographer, and my experience with electronics beyond plugging them in and turning them on is taking delicate research instruments out of the ocean where a seal leaked and trying to resuscitate them 1,000 away from the nearest electronics shop, wiring my house and building custom power cables for audio equipment that I hope will not destroy audio gear or cause a fire.  I have a rudimentary understanding of resistance, capacitance and continuity, and beyond that, it’s pretty much try something in my current system and see how it sounds.

Scientists are professional skeptics, and are paid to knock the crap out of ideas until they either wither or hold up under scrutiny.  I have had plenty of my ideas beaten down and a few hold up.  With any audio gear, I am always a skeptic until I hear the results for myself.  If I am making a large audio investment ( for me), I will seek second opinions and have arranged blind tests with people whose ears I trust.  Through my audio journey, I have determined that cables matter a lot, but results don’t always match linearly with investment.

All that said, I am perfectly comfortable having my ideas and comments challenged here by people who have a lot more formal training and experience in this field than I do.  I brought up the patent process as a possible place where different concepts and claims for exotic or new audio cable designs get vetted by a neutral third party out of the glare of advertising and competing claims of glory in the marketplace.  Based on y’all’s comments, this suggestion was misguided.  Both my brother and his son are electrical engineers who have patents for things I completely don’t understand, and they are not at liberty to divulge the intended use.  Perhaps I should have asked them first about the patent process before bringing it up here.  LOL

BTW, I referenced Caelin Gabriel’s patents in this thread because I am aware that he has an engineering background and I know (from effective marketing on his part) that he has patented a number of his product ideas.  I own some of his gear and it works well enough, but I would not call myself a fan boy.