Dpac: One can pick and choose as to what they think matters at audio frequencies, but the bottom line is that Audioholics believe and teach that all reasonably well constructed cables sound the same.
Since we know that all cables don't sound the same and / or provide consistent results under various types of installation conditions, all of their math equations obviously don't cover / explain all of the various aspects that alter cable / component interaction and system sonics. I'm not just picking on Audioholics, but all of those that blindly spout the same "cables are cables are cables" dogma.
As far as using smaller / larger conductors changing the sound of an interconnect, most cables terminate into a component that has an impedance that is hundreds to thousands of ohms higher than the series resistance of the cable. As such, changing the series resistance by even an ohm ( a LOT for a reasonable length cable ) via altering conductor size becomes a moot point. Please remove that factor from your arsenal of responses.
The fact that tonal balance and high frequency resolution, which is attributable to skin effect, are directly altered by changing conductor size, doesn't seem to phase them. One can build identical cables with the same nominal LCR, grades of conductors, grades of dielectric, grades of connectors, etc... with the only variable being conductor size and hear the audible differences. The fact that Audioholics profess that skin effect does NOT come into play at audio frequencies what so ever makes me want to disregard their findings all together.
No matter how much math one does, you can't explain away things that are really happening. When theory doesn't fit reality, which one is wrong???
As far as your comments go about shielding, this typicaly adds capacitance, not inductance. It can also change the velocity of propogation, depending on how the shielding is implimented. In doing so, it effectively changes the path length and loading characteristics that the source component sees, following some of the same principles that apply to transmission line theory.
I'm not saying that audio cables work the same as RF cables, but that many of the same principles can be applied. I also think that, because people like Audioholics / believers in archaic dogma have been conducting most of the testing in this area, we don't have many of the answers that might have otherwise already been explained.
Thinking within the box only lets one see what is in the box. Obviously, the variable results that occur under many different situations of cable / component interaction are OUTSIDE of the box, negating that line of thinking. As such, it leads to limited conclusions and possibilities, hence the problem with the theory not always fitting reality. Sean
>
Since we know that all cables don't sound the same and / or provide consistent results under various types of installation conditions, all of their math equations obviously don't cover / explain all of the various aspects that alter cable / component interaction and system sonics. I'm not just picking on Audioholics, but all of those that blindly spout the same "cables are cables are cables" dogma.
As far as using smaller / larger conductors changing the sound of an interconnect, most cables terminate into a component that has an impedance that is hundreds to thousands of ohms higher than the series resistance of the cable. As such, changing the series resistance by even an ohm ( a LOT for a reasonable length cable ) via altering conductor size becomes a moot point. Please remove that factor from your arsenal of responses.
The fact that tonal balance and high frequency resolution, which is attributable to skin effect, are directly altered by changing conductor size, doesn't seem to phase them. One can build identical cables with the same nominal LCR, grades of conductors, grades of dielectric, grades of connectors, etc... with the only variable being conductor size and hear the audible differences. The fact that Audioholics profess that skin effect does NOT come into play at audio frequencies what so ever makes me want to disregard their findings all together.
No matter how much math one does, you can't explain away things that are really happening. When theory doesn't fit reality, which one is wrong???
As far as your comments go about shielding, this typicaly adds capacitance, not inductance. It can also change the velocity of propogation, depending on how the shielding is implimented. In doing so, it effectively changes the path length and loading characteristics that the source component sees, following some of the same principles that apply to transmission line theory.
I'm not saying that audio cables work the same as RF cables, but that many of the same principles can be applied. I also think that, because people like Audioholics / believers in archaic dogma have been conducting most of the testing in this area, we don't have many of the answers that might have otherwise already been explained.
Thinking within the box only lets one see what is in the box. Obviously, the variable results that occur under many different situations of cable / component interaction are OUTSIDE of the box, negating that line of thinking. As such, it leads to limited conclusions and possibilities, hence the problem with the theory not always fitting reality. Sean
>
