The Science of Cables

Iam nostis!

I accept you regardless of these shortcomings. 

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".

douglas_schroeder,

Just for a little amusement, as skeptical as I am about stunning differences between cables, I spent better part of the afternoon fighting to change the cable on my earphones (actually only one of them, the other one went smoothly). The new one, call it aftermarket, that got stuck on it was, to me, noticeably different/worse than the old original one. I believe the description would be "muddy" or "veiled", maybe something third, so I wanted to switch back. After destroying a large part of that earphone and then reassembling it to a large extent, it is back to "good" now. I would not do it again. I certainly would not be able to sell it as "mint" to anyone. Had I only been more careful with Crazy Glue. Add my limited experience with XLR interconnects ($15-16 vs. $300) and, at best, no change if not a little worse. No more "aftermarket" cables for me. "Aftermarket" because I think that most of the things, save for headphones, actually come without cables making almost every cable "aftermarket". Well, ok, I forgot power cords.

Out of curiosity, do you have an explanation why tripling interconnects did not yield more improvement than doubling?

glupson, I appreciate your cordial ongoing discussion. It's much better than us sniping each other's arguments. :)

I am unsure where you got the impression that I tried triple interconnects, or that they were not efficacious. I have never tried the triple IC. I may at some point, but that was not me; there is another member whom I believe has contributed on this thread who was doing the triple. So, I cannot comment from experience. 

However, my recollection is that this member was very happy� with the triple IC arrangement. I do not recall seeing any comments of displeasure with it. I believe he felt it was worth trying. I do not know; perhaps he has gone back to a double IC that he felt was superior. He watches the cable threads, so perhaps he can comment. I think he was talking it up quite a bit on the thread bearing my name. 

I had raised a concern that unlimited parallel runs of ICs may cause problems with the output of certain devices if the native impedance of the cable is too low. One maker of a NOS DAC did not want me to use Schroeder Method because he suspected that the DAC would not drive it well. 

I myself would be willing to try a triple, but I would want to discuss with equipment manufacturers or other industry members first. I don't like potentially blowing up gear. 

If the geometry and gauge of the aftermarket XLR IC you tried was similar to the $15-16 one, then I am not surprised at all that the sound quality was so close. If they were quite different, ie. different conductor material or different AWG, then I do not know why they were similar sounding. 

Also, I wouldn't expect to hear big changes with systems in the $5-10K range if I were changing a single pair of ICs. I remember doing all that and many times there was  marginally different result. It takes a rig at about $25K to always hear changes to any cables. Rigs at $50K it has been easy, universal in hearing changes. YMMV

I figure you won't believe me, but Schroeder Method has been more profound of a change to the system than changing single ICs. It also doesn't seem dependent upon the cost/pedigree of the ICs used.