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
Given the ABSURD claims of many audiophiles/audiophools, I find it absolutely hysterical that the NON believers (ie. the SANE sector of the "audiophile community" are the ones being labelled as "Flat Earthers".
I rather think you've got your cryogenically-treated wires crossed! Cables raised off the floor?? That's a nutty as the nuttiest Flat Earther.

We really need a collective term for a group of nutty audiophiles. Maybe a Placebo of Audiophiles. An Idiocity of audiophiles? A mid-life-crisis of Audiophiles? A Brainwashing of Audiophiles? So many great possibilities.

Buffaloes have a group as an “obstinancy”.However here is no word for a group of chefs.

The idea of a Heston chef approach where one cryogenically cools the cables in liquid nitrogen, and then needs to cook, or “burn in” cables has a sort of witches brew, or cauldron feel to it… So coven comes to mind.
Maybe “A Resonancy of Audiophiles” since there is a group think to it?
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





Lol @ Ignatius. See, this is exactly the problem with people like you...full of "conspiracy theories". Like, you MUST be right that I used to be on here under a different name. (Well, you're wrong, not sure what else I can say). I have never been on here before. I am indeed "an Englishman in NY", with 32yrs professional/broadcast engineering under my belt, and I find most of these "Audiophile" claims to be absolute nonsense. It's really that simple. Of course, bankers, doctors, businesmen, retirees, whatever they are, with zero professional experience but a subscription to Stereophile (or wherever these hifi myths eminate from) know more than me, because they "can hear it". Lol, sure, with their rolled-off HF hearing loss and a touch of tinnitus....sure they can hear the difference made by swapping the fuses for "audiophile fuses" (etc ). I find it amusing, but also rather silly. 
englishman-in-newyork"I am indeed "an Englishman in NY", with 32yrs professional/broadcast engineering under my belt, and I find most of these "Audiophile" claims to be absolute nonsense. It’s really that simple. Of course, bankers, doctors, businesmen, retirees, whatever they are, with zero professional experience but a subscription to Stereophile (or wherever these hifi myths eminate from) know more than me, because they "can hear it". Lol, sure, with their rolled-off HF hearing loss and a touch of tinnitus....sure they can hear the difference"


That is AMAZING that you are able to conduct medically valid and scientific analysis of users haring without ever conducting an examination you truley have benefiied all of us with your experience, knowledge, wisdom and professional prowess!
@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.