The Science of Cables


It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why cables sound the way they do. When I see discussions on cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like shielding, gauge, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things like resistance, impedance, inductance, capacitance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?

Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables. 

I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
128x128mkgus

Showing 7 responses by teo_audio

The eye is capable of discerning a single photon of light. This is a known thing.

This just in about the ear: The ear is capable of detecting sound where the motion of the cilia in the ear is....

>>less than the width of an atom.<<

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-mechanism-ear-exquisite-sensitivity.html

Unlike the science of measurement, the ear hears those minuscule motions at the top of the waveform, and does not relegate then to being a percentage thereof,and therefore...unimportant.

The ear hears the sum peak of a waveform, and the micro disturbances are part of the peak as well, a very small nano level disturbance. We do indeed her those micro differences in the realm of timing of peaks and micro peaks, all in level and in temporal relation with one another. All at once.

Less than the width of an atom? wow.

And that’s not the complex harmonics and timing in such added in, which we can discern. The ’all at once’ part. The ’all interrelated’ part.

When viewed as a complex FFT analysis device, the ear and brain are not exceeded by any hardware in existence at this time. This part we do know.

So, measurement can relate. Relate is the key word. But it cannot define and ’interview’ the scenario as well as the ear.

In such things, we slam head on into the brick wall of the fundamental disconnect between what the measurements are and how this specifically relates to hearing.

Then, to complicate matters to the nth...the differences between ears, individually, and brains, individually, is as great as the spectrum of intelligence on an IQ chart.

Added in to square the nth as issue.. is... we each learn to discern things, with our ears, individually, in our given growth environment. Where the package we end up with at birth, is ’informed’ of what sound is..individually, via the learning process we inherently individually possess...and growth situations we individually encounter.

As you can hopefully begin to understand, disturbing this very complex and very individual system...via ignorance in testing for function - such a thing can trip up this incredibly sensitive and self built individual system.

Back on point: To then conclude via interference and masking in testing/measuring and ignorance in understanding of the entire package, in multiple directions (via very poorly and ignorantly thought out testing regimen and protocols) that people are fooling themselves......well..., this cannot, in any form of logic and scientific method, ever equate to explaining away what people hear in cables.

The part about the Ear Q spread, like an IQ chart. This is critical.

This is the part where someone says, "if I can’t hear it then it does not exist. And I’ll explain it away with the hammers I know, the hammers I understand."

That’s a problem. A HUGE problem, and the person has to possess the wherewithal to understand that, well, maybe they simply can’t and never will. And if that is the case, then one should not bring that to the doorstep of the people who can hear the differences and find those differences important.

Stay out of an argument one can’t understand. It really is that simple.  But not unexpected as problems go, as many don't uhm, er, understand the incredible skill set of the ear, the difference between individual ears/brains, and the incompleteness and lack of capacity of the measurements and methodology -in comparison to said ear.
"A single photon is detectable but it conveys no information. "

Does anyone here know what the word contradiction means?

I see it went down to name calling fairly fast. As in, your post is all about dismissal -poorly framed and delivered at that. With a sprinkling of polarization attempting to look like logic --as projections of appeals to authority.

In other words, you’ve got nothing... and you are attempting to frame it as if you do have something.

When that happens, all that is left is the sputtering. Which we can plainly see.

As for LCR, it’s fine, it’s nice, whatever. A limited tool at best.

It’s good to remember that numbers exist no where in the real world, that numbers are an abstract thing in a human mind. They can never be real. It’s a tool...and it is in charge of exactly nothing. Math can be one of those incredibly dangerous ultimate appeals to authority, if one is not careful. Forests and tress and all that.

Actual real sciences puts humans in charge and never puts things like LCR in charge. It is also a human that fools themselves that LCR is biblical, singular, all encompassing... and immutably in charge. Man made dogma, such a thing is. Limited reach-reaching it’s limit. Totally anti-science.

I’m trying to say.... a fully fleshed out argument would have no losers, just more illumination for all. And your argument is way out of whack, way off center. Certainly not fit for the professorial lunch room. So many holes that a sieve would be a better stopper.
Basically, I pulled my post and left this instead...as this is just an entrenched position thread, where we each lob bombs over the hedge without regard to the damage we do to each other, as we feel threatened in our expression fundamentals. We feel threatened at our core.

The only end point in such things... is where the thread is overly moderated and then shut down.

I'd like to bring the tone down, not tensioned and ratcheted up.
Except for the fact that you contradict yourself by consciously choosing specific cables for the given system in hand ---to act as tone controls. You made a conscious sonic choice.

Those cables in that given simple system. that was a conscious sound aspect choice.

You made a choice of order of operations. Although it is one I would use first.... and those that chose more expensive cables.... have also made choices in the same order of operations. (what is important to pursue first)

Except being that they are now at the point where they look at various cables to deal with even more nuances within the issues -- than you are.

You go on ad nauseam on the same line like a big armed crab with exactly one hammer with one blow available. Repetition of your take and line, in no way makes you correct in the face of the overall minimum of many hundreds of thousands who disagree with you..

(Eg, that audioquest cables sales alone over the past 30 years exceeds that number by far, never mind the rest over the past 30 years)


Ok. Maybe I can help out here again. Wordsmithing contests can post to the following thread:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/arguments-devolve-on-threads-to-wordsmithing-contests

Where .. it is always interesting in how one can usually tell that an entrenched position will not change no matter how good the argument is.

That thing about how 90% what a person interprets in another bit of screed, comes from the reader... as 90% of the live cues used in wording interpretation are missing in ’just screed’. So most pronouncements are generally, a huge reflection of who the person actually is and has little to do with anything else.

There are a few where that will not change, not change at any price, any price that can be delivered by screed on forums. Too much personal investment.

And, taking what I feel is a fully correct swipe at some of the pseudonym hiders, usually they hide behind pseudonyms so they can dish out the kind of projected junk they would never utter in person to anyone or any group.

Note to projectors. Thanks for showing us who and what you really are.