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
taras22,

I see your last, or at least last to me, point but I think it is a bit off. Not much, but a bit. Cables may be dismissed as being capable of significant differences because they are, in essence and not in some very complicated "flowing lava"-kind of example, simple. At least in the minds of those suspicious ones. It is a wire and that is what, according to the understanding of most, conducts. Not much in between beginning and the end of it. These days, there are many things wrapped around, but it still stays metal inside. That is how those who are not in love with cables seem to think according to most of the posts on these threads. It is not that they feel threatened and want to stop progress of any kind just to stay in their comfort zone. It is that they are not buying the story of "active ingredient" in a cable being so different. They feel they are trying to be fooled and taken for a ride. Not many here seem to be over-educated in physics. Basic knowledge, but hardly much more. And basic knowledge does not leave much room for stunning differences between wires. Going way above basic knowledge starts requiring a lot more. More formulae, bigger picture, more exact definitions. And those who are on that level do not buy "it sounds better and you cannot calculate it because I just came up with some hocus-pocus explanation". So, simpler ones may not be sophisticated enough to grasp and more sophisticated ones are not getting answers that are sophisticated enough. Again, I am not talking about liquid metal which, after all, is also a metal. It gets more slippery to claim or contradict something about that because there has not been a century or two of experience, for all I know.

It is simply hard to believe, unless you are a priori firm believer, that changes in anything which is already on a fairly decent level can be so impressive. Noticeable maybe, but Earth-shattering (or whatever other description gets mentioned) just does not seem believable. It just does not. Many people take it as a marketing language that is common these days and they do not take it seriously. They may think "if that can truly be so spectacular, you may be too impressionable".