Science that explains why we hear differences in cables?


Here are some excerpts from a review of the Silversmith Audio Fidelium speaker cables by Greg Weaver at Enjoy The Music.com. Jeff Smith is their designer. I have not heard these cables, so I don’t have any relevant opinion on their merit. What I find very interesting is the discussion of the scientific model widely used to design cables, and why it may not be adequate to explain what we hear. Yes it’s long, so, to cut to the chase, I pulled out the key paragraph at the top:


“He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.”


“One of the first things that stand out in conversation with Jeff about his cables is that he eschews the standard inductance/capacitance/resistance/impedance dance and talks about wave propagation; his designs are based solely upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of electron flow.


While Jeff modestly suggests that he is one of only "a few" cable designers to base his designs upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of the movement, or "flow," of electrons, I can tell you that he is the only one I’ve spoken with in my over four decades exploring audio cables and their design to even mention, let alone champion, this philosophy.


Cable manufacturers tend to focus on what Jeff sees as the more simplified engineering concepts of electron flow, impedance matching, and optimizing inductance and capacitance. By manipulating their physical geometry to control LCR (inductance, capacitance, and resistance) values, they try to achieve what they believe to be the most ideal relationship between those parameters and, therefore, deliver an optimized electron flow. Jeff goes as far as to state that, within the realm of normal cable design, the LRC characteristics of cables will not have any effect on the frequency response.


As this is the very argument that all the cable flat-Earther’s out there use to support their contention that cables can’t possibly affect the sound, it seriously complicates things, almost to the point of impossibility, when trying to explain how and why interconnect, speaker, digital, and power cables have a demonstrably audible effect on a systems resultant sonic tapestry.


He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.


As such, his design goal is to control the interaction between the electromagnetic wave and the conductor, effectively minimizing the phase errors caused by that interaction. Jeff states that physics says that the larger the conductor, the greater the phase error, and that error increases as both the number of conductors increase (assuming the same conductor size), and as the radial speed of the electromagnetic wave within the conductor decreases. Following this theory, the optimum cable would have the smallest or thinnest conductors possible, as a single, solid core conductor per polarity, and should be made of metal with the fastest waveform transmission speed possible.


Jeff stresses that it is not important to understand the math so much as it is to understand the concept of electrical energy flow that the math describes. The energy flow in cables is not electrons through the wire, regardless of the more common analogy of water coursing through a pipe. Instead, the energy is transmitted in the dielectric material (air, Teflon, etc.) between the positive and negative conductors as electromagnetic energy, with the wires acting as waveguides. The math shows that it is the dielectric material that determines the speed of that transmission, so the better the dielectric, the closer the transmission speed is to the speed of light.


Though electromagnetic energy also penetrates into and through the metal conductor material, the radial penetration speed is not a high percentage of the speed of light. Rather, it only ranges from about 3 to 60 meters per second over the frequency range of human hearing. That is exceptionally slow!


Jeff adds, "That secondary energy wave is now an error, or memory, wave. The thicker the conductor, the higher the error, as it takes longer for the energy to penetrate. We interpret (hear) the contribution of this error wave (now combined with the original signal) as more bloated and boomy bass, bright and harsh treble, with the loss of dynamics, poor imaging and soundstage, and a lack of transparency and detail.


Perhaps a useful analogy is a listening room with hard, reflective walls, ceilings, and floors and no acoustic treatment. While we hear the primary sound directly from the speakers, we also hear the reflected sound that bounces off all the hard room surfaces before it arrives at our ears. That second soundwave confuses our brains and degrades the overall sound quality, yielding harsh treble and boomy bass, especially if you’re near a wall.


That secondary or error signal produced by the cable (basically) has the same effect. Any thick metal in the chain, including transformers, most binding posts, RCA / XLR connectors, sockets, wire wound inductors, etc., will magnify these errors. However, as a conductor gets smaller, the penetration time decreases, as does the degree of phase error. The logic behind a ribbon or foil conductor is that it is so thin that the penetration time is greatly reduced, yet it also maintains a large enough overall gauge to keep resistance low.”


For those interested, here is more info from the Silversmith site, with links to a highly technical explanation of the waveguide model and it’s relevance to audio cables:


https://silversmithaudio.com/cable-theory/


tommylion

Showing 11 responses by perkri

I wrote this in another thread.

believe it is relevant here also…

When I was in film school, we had a prof who had an amazing approach to teaching.

I forget the context this bit came out in class, but here goes.

(this relates to MC’s thoughts on listening and learning how to hear)

The discussion went something like this. Cave drawings were outlines. The idea he presented (which was not his, but from others research) argued that as primitive beings, we saw the world as outlines. These outline drawings became solids at a point. The solids eventually became detailed. Visual representation was up until this point depicting a 2 dimensional world. Then perspective (forgive the pun) came into the picture. The development of artificial “sight”, follows the exact same trajectory. Edge detection, solid/form detection, detail detection and finally perspective.

The theory goes something like this. As primitive beings, it is speculated that we could only see edges. Then someone drew solid forms, and we learned to see solids. Then details and finally perspective. The theory goes that we learned to see in a more complex way, we didn’t always have access to the full spectrum we now have. Artificial object detection has followed the same path.

So, being able to see was an evolved process.
This is where I spin that to audio.

Here’s the difference between sight and sound. Prior to recorded/reproduced sound, our biological hearing abilities evolved to where they needed to be. Meaning, we only need to be able to hear so much to be able to survive. Recorded sound is new. Recorded images, go waaaaaay back.

So, now that we can record and reproduce sounds in a manner, and of a quality beyond what we can currently “hear”, that doesn’t mean that what we currently hear is actually the limit of what our ears are capable of identifying. As we develop new technologies, and as we continue to live with the technologies we currently have access to, our hearing, like our vision will continue to evolve. We are limited biologically by the demands placed on our hearing

 That happened in real time for me btw, I never made that correlation before.

@mijostyn 

If you had half a brain, you would come to realize just how much we don’t know, or understand…. Read up on Maxwell…
@kevn 

Thank you for the response.

I’ll try to clarify my point.

To the one making the early cave drawings, sure, they may have served the purpose of expression. What that expression was intended to do, could be wide ranging. I’m speaking more to the viewers of that image. Creative/artistic/historical narrative, whatever the reason behind it, they still exist as a record. Something was important enough to be recorded. There was a drawing at the end of it. This drawing, it is theorized, was not limited merely by technical ability, but also by limits of visual perception. 
We have lived with these produced images for a very, very long time.

And I would agree that visual and auditory abilities evolved in parallel to aid in survival.

However, we have lived with pictures a lot longer than we have lived with recorded sound. Our ability to see has had, over millennia, far more stimulus than our auditory abilities. 
Our evolution has been driven by external factors placing a demand on our biological abilities. The reproduction of recorded sound is now at a far greater resolution than our use of our ears have needed to be able to decipher. 
As we are an ever changing and dynamic creature, it would stand to reason that as greater stimulus is being presented to out senses, that our senses will continue to evolve in order to register these higher levels of sound. 
And as far as what this has to do with survival, I suspect that region between our reptilian and mid brains will only register a new external stimulus and try to “understand” it and if it is a threat or not. But in order to be able to do that, it needs to be able to decipher it. And in order to do that, our hearing needs to evolve.

Photography as we know it today, is also a very new medium. And it has changed how we in fact see the world. Even then Camera Obscura, which goes back much further, also changed how we view the world. (Only it doesn’t deal with time in the same way a traditional camera does).

I tend to believe that everything we do that takes something that resides in the very intangible inner world of humans, and makes that into something tangible to be shared with others, is as you stated, an expression. What is left, is a record of that expression. Time, will tend to shift the purpose of that object, and place some form of value to it.

Take the photographer Karl Blussfelt or example. Spent years documenting plants. He wished to shed light on the structure of plants and his photographs were used as teaching tools at first. Only later, were they “elevated” to the stature of “art”. Whatever they were, or are now, they are a record. Playback of sounds, which requires that they be recorded, where we have the ability to play the same thing over and over again ad nauseam has put a new kind of strain on our hearing. This has only been possible since the advent of recorded sound.

And no, I’m not suggesting super hearing, or “golden ears”, but rather a collective shift in how we hear as a global phenomenon.

And the ongoing “science says it isn’t possible”argument is tiresome. Science is not a static thing, it’s a massive structure with one bit being added to another as new information becomes possible to understand. Hence my reference to Maxwells equations above.  When the argument is presented that “science says it isn’t so”, it’s a very limited outlook. The phrase should be “our current scientific knowledge suggests that it shouldn’t be possible”.
@kevn 

Our ability to differentiate between sounds is both an innate ability as well as a learned one. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where the learned ability can transcend the biological limitations we we born with. I’m not certain we understand fully what those limits are. 
And I believe that our abilities are continuing to evolve based on our external stimulus. Now, if one chooses to not exercise those abilities, learn how to use them, then no, there is a limited benefit. Much like some people are unable to tell the difference between two similar, yet different scotches, or red wine, or Vodka. Yet, most of us can. 
Went to a whiskey bar. One would think that you would serve something other than whiskey at such a place so the one person who doesn’t like it, can choose something different. I went to such a bar, and ordered a particular kind of Vodka. The bartender informed me they don’t serve vodka, because the owner insisted it all tastes the same… Well, talk about discrediting your whiskey bar…

@yugebohner 

Too bad you didn’t come up with a more appropriate username.

im thinking suftnsmoll.

Kinda like your tiny logic

You do realize there’s a mighty big world out there, and there are some who earn a lot more than the average Denny’s dishwasher?

Grow up, little angry child
Oh my god, you get a lollipop for being so schmart and clever with the response!

Nah, you’re just a trolling Richard.


@danager

Steve is very much one of the greats!

Love his minimalist approach to audio design and I have the utmost of respect for his skill. Owned a pair of DM945’s that were a wonderful bookshelf speaker.

He is by no means a peddler of BS, just straight up audio.

Trust him over Tinysoft any day of the week…

@nonoise

Totally agree. WTF is the doofus doing on an audiophile site? Don’t ASR and Audioholics exist for small tools like him?
Any thoughts on who @englishman-in-newyork was prior to this latest incarnation?

There should be some kind of lottery we could enter, and the admins could award prizes for the correct guesses.

You do realize this is an audiophile forum, right?

You sound like you might be dealing with some “issues”. Also sound like you’ve got a chip on your shoulder. Possibly something to do with how the “Elite” robbed you of your potential? How they are all stupid, undeserving of the money they wrongfully obtained and spend so foolishly? Too dumb to separate fact from fiction, or the truth from the lies being peddled by the almighty snake oil salesmen?

But the englishman knows the “truth” and is here to set us free

Thank you Ignatius J. O’Reilly





@clearthink 

+1

@englishman 

So, your vast knowledge, has it precluded you from doing a simple A/B test to try any of these things that you are taking a dump on?

And why does it bother you what someone does with their money? 
Guess you just want them to know what you do, right? Because you are the be all and end all of audio knowledge because you were a button pusher in a studio?

Which is why you start off by calling us audiofools? 
Look up Maxwells equations. They help to outline how much we thought we knew at one point, and they shed light on how science still has much to discover.

But you don’t need to look them up, as you already know all there is to know.