Rlwainwright: We've been down that road before several times here. Depending on the test methodology, results vary quite a bit in terms of "skin effect" / inductive reactance. When factored into actual use tests i.e. by combining the electrical characteristics of the cable with the load of a typical loudspeaker, bandwidth is further reduced. As such, taking steps to reduce inductive losses in the cable itself can pay off and does become audible under real world conditions.
The other variable here is that inductive losses & skin effect are also part of the impedance equation. Taking steps to reduce both simultaneously also lowers the nominal impedance of the cable. This improves transient and power response, which also factor into the audiblity equation.
Go back and read some of the various debates here discussing such things. Not to single Eldartford out, but he was of similar belief to you ( and many others ) on the subject of speaker cable audibility. As you may be aware of, Eldartford is also an EE and "probably" based his beliefs on the logical deductions that come with the basic formulas that we are taught. After making a direct comparison in his system between two different types of speaker cables i.e. heavy gauge zip cord and an "esoteric" brand, El publicly stated that he EASILY heard major differences in presentation. He also went so far as to put his money where his mouth is and purchased all new cabling, based on his own first hand auditory experiences.
You'll also find that i've offered to lend speaker cables to others that are VERY vocal proponents of "cables iz cables". The person that was the most vocal on the subject in recent memory ( can't even remember who it was ) refused to even consider performing such a test. This is true even though the testing would be performed within the confines of his own system and it wouldn't cost him a thing. At the same time, they continued to "preach" their message, even though they weren't willing to put their own beliefs to the test.
As such, those that are willing to experiment can end up reaping the sonic benefits, along with the knowledge and experience gained. Those that cling to formulas and "theory" become limited by those constraints, missing out on the potential their system and listening enjoyment may hold for them.
Below is a excerpt from a post i made a week or so ago in a power cord thread. It applies here too. Sean
>
"PS... Those laughing about cabling ( speaker, interconnect, power, etc... ) making / not making an electrical and / or audible difference lack actual experience in the field. If they had the actual experience, and therefore the knowledge that comes with it, they would no longer be laughing.
Instead, they would be asking "why" and working on ways to further their limited experience and education on the subject. That is, if they were truly intelligent and truly interested in such things. Graduating from a school and / or having a limited background in one specific area of electronics doesn't make you intelligent and / or "well versed" in all areas of electronics.
Most technological breakthrough's come about because someone couldn't understand how something that wasn't supposed to be happening was happening, hence their taking the time and making the effort to understand how / why the impossible was possible. That is, the "impossible" in terms of the level of theory that they / we understand at the time.
Most of the time, things are going exactly as theory would predict. This is why we can do what we can do with repeatable and predictable results. The problem is that most people don't take all the various parts of theory into consideration. Instead, they try to keep things simple, therefore neglecting several of the more complex variables that enter into any multi-faceted equation. This is why looking at the big picture typically explains what is going on in the little picture.
Unfortunately, even the smallest things, like an atom, are phenomenally complex".
The other variable here is that inductive losses & skin effect are also part of the impedance equation. Taking steps to reduce both simultaneously also lowers the nominal impedance of the cable. This improves transient and power response, which also factor into the audiblity equation.
Go back and read some of the various debates here discussing such things. Not to single Eldartford out, but he was of similar belief to you ( and many others ) on the subject of speaker cable audibility. As you may be aware of, Eldartford is also an EE and "probably" based his beliefs on the logical deductions that come with the basic formulas that we are taught. After making a direct comparison in his system between two different types of speaker cables i.e. heavy gauge zip cord and an "esoteric" brand, El publicly stated that he EASILY heard major differences in presentation. He also went so far as to put his money where his mouth is and purchased all new cabling, based on his own first hand auditory experiences.
You'll also find that i've offered to lend speaker cables to others that are VERY vocal proponents of "cables iz cables". The person that was the most vocal on the subject in recent memory ( can't even remember who it was ) refused to even consider performing such a test. This is true even though the testing would be performed within the confines of his own system and it wouldn't cost him a thing. At the same time, they continued to "preach" their message, even though they weren't willing to put their own beliefs to the test.
As such, those that are willing to experiment can end up reaping the sonic benefits, along with the knowledge and experience gained. Those that cling to formulas and "theory" become limited by those constraints, missing out on the potential their system and listening enjoyment may hold for them.
Below is a excerpt from a post i made a week or so ago in a power cord thread. It applies here too. Sean
>
"PS... Those laughing about cabling ( speaker, interconnect, power, etc... ) making / not making an electrical and / or audible difference lack actual experience in the field. If they had the actual experience, and therefore the knowledge that comes with it, they would no longer be laughing.
Instead, they would be asking "why" and working on ways to further their limited experience and education on the subject. That is, if they were truly intelligent and truly interested in such things. Graduating from a school and / or having a limited background in one specific area of electronics doesn't make you intelligent and / or "well versed" in all areas of electronics.
Most technological breakthrough's come about because someone couldn't understand how something that wasn't supposed to be happening was happening, hence their taking the time and making the effort to understand how / why the impossible was possible. That is, the "impossible" in terms of the level of theory that they / we understand at the time.
Most of the time, things are going exactly as theory would predict. This is why we can do what we can do with repeatable and predictable results. The problem is that most people don't take all the various parts of theory into consideration. Instead, they try to keep things simple, therefore neglecting several of the more complex variables that enter into any multi-faceted equation. This is why looking at the big picture typically explains what is going on in the little picture.
Unfortunately, even the smallest things, like an atom, are phenomenally complex".