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
Jim, Thank you for your thoughtful, cordial reply.

Elizabeth, yeah, the cost to play is pretty prohibitive. Kills.  You would think I was asking people too try a $5K cartridge. 

Which brings up this question: What is the substantive difference scientifically/analytically between analogue, in the industry and among users, and cables? I see vanishingly little difference. Which would make analogue lovers who mock cables huge hypocrites. It would also open up all the same sweeping criticisms of the industry and users that are applied to cables. I am very close to making that a proclamation, but I leave it open at this point for input.  

Call me a very serious analogue skeptic, but not absolutist yet. If anyone can demonstrate objectively how analogue is applied and assessed in systems differently (I mean differences with significance, not passing differences) then I will be open to reconsideration.  :) 

I have a digital source; I do not use analogue. However, be careful how you reply, for if you as a cable skeptic would condemn my habitus, then you condemn yourself if you eschew aftermarket cables. 

Perhaps this has all been hashed out for aeons over in the analogue forum. I don't know, I have plenty to do elsewhere. If this is a perennial debate in the vinyl world feel free to enlighten me.

Am I radically off-base, or do I have a point?   :)
And a pair of SM dual Canare StarQuad assemblies at ~$150 breaks so many banks for audiophiles, too! Too much to risk, eh? You. Have. No. Idea. What. You’re. Missing.
People with less system building experience simply don't have a frame of reference that allows envisioning better, and are suspicious of claims to that effect. One has to be willing to test their suspicions. Those who do, discover.

I understand skepticism. Many years ago I was a cable skeptic.  It's one reason why I am willing to try what no one else will. 

Do we have any skeptics willing to try Schroeder Method, given due diligence re: compatibility?
Doug,
Can you recommend which rca connector to purchase for the Schroeder Method?
@celander And a pair of SM dual Canare StarQuad assemblies at ~$150 breaks so many banks for audiophiles, too!

If, in Mr. Schroeder’s proclamation, he would have used SM dual Canare StarQuad cables @ $150.00, or Elizabeth’s $51.80 4 F AQs, as the test example for his Schroeder Method, rather than the TEO Audio Liquid Audio Cables and the Clarity Cable (both over $2K per 1M set and both he had previously, lustrously reviewed as being among the most open, detailed, quick and revealing, of cables) it would have made a bit of sense. My thought is - If it takes doubling up a set of $2K+ IC cables, or a pr. of $13,000 speaker cables, to really make them sound great, maybe they weren’t that great in the first place...Jim

@elizabeth You’re Welcome! Best of luck - let us know.