The Science of Cables

lols there are about 15 pages so there is no way I'll read through them all. But anyway, some conclusions are needed.

-----------------

YES, cables do make a difference and I think we (or most of us) would agree. If you don't agree with this, then might as well arguing about 2+2 = 4 and basic number theory.  

YES, we can measure cables and different cables will exhibit different "objective" set of measurement results. You may need some sensitive and expensive equipment from Agilent and not some cheap 24Kbit PC audio sound card running MS OS lols.

The part where it gets tricky is how to relate what we measure and what we hear. YES, we can get some basic "objective" measurements to correlate with some basic audiophile terminologies, but only up to a point since our hearing is really too complicated to understand even with the advent of today science (lols dark energy not withstanding). For example, if a cable has too much capacitance, the sound will lack dynamic. Or if a cable has too much inductance, there will be ringing so the sound will be a bit edgy, nervous. If the cable has too much resistance, it will also reduce dynamic (like putting a 1ohm resistor in series to the bass driver of your speakers). And of course some basic “LCR” can be measured so nobody will argue with this. But beyond some basic correlations between objective measurements and hearing, it gets complicated and we don't have any hard science to explain or at least not that I know of. Modern science has a lot of equations but I don't know of any equation that if you plug in your “LCR” parameters, it will tell you how musical the cable will sound.  So at the end, you have to rely on your own hearing, God forbids.

-------------- Entering a bit more “scientific realm”.

What is a “perfect” cable? A perfect cable is one that can deliver a signal from one end to the other with perfect phase and amplitude relationship (that is no phase shift or amplitude attenuation in all freq.) But since all audio cables are transmission line in theory, there is no such thing as a perfect cable. Some freq. (even at audio freq) will have some phase shift or attenuation with respect to some other freq. If you solve Maxwell equation, it works all the way down to DC so audio freqs get affected too even in theory and not just at RF freq.  So here you have three basic variables: phase shift, amp. attenuation, and freq.  Since these are analog, you end up with literally infinite number of combinations that your ears have to deal with.  And although all cables will only have these three basic variables, the number of permutations are infinite so there is zero chance that two cables will measure the same.   And you're in a bit of a bind.  And if you're an "objective" type, then you believe in theory.  And just as I said above, "objectively", all cables will measure differently (remember infinite permutation).  Heck, the same cable will measure differently at different times.  Therefore the conclusion is all cables will sound differently due to measurement.

A lot of measurements are way too overly simplistic. For example, I've read a lot of on-line measurements were done on a single frequency, @1KHz. The person who carried out this measurement and proudly proclaimed that since both equipment have the same jitter at 1KHz, therefore they should sound the same. The problem is these measurements were done at steady state (not to mention at a single freq), whereas our hearing is transitory. For example, if you play a C note on a piano, you get the fundamental frequency but also the ovetones which decays at lower (or higher) frequencies at specific timing interval and amplitude. If your audio cable somehow delays (as in phase shift) a certain overtone frequency or incorrectly attenuate an overtone amplitude with respect to the fundamental frequency (vs real life) then it does not reproduce the C note properly. It's very difficult to devise a test where you can measure this on a cable. Maybe there is but it's not easy and personally I don't know of such.

I once read The Art and Science of Motorcycle Maintenance and the guy said gravity is not that different from religion lols. Good thing I got some open minded head to know what's he talking about. Anyway, as someone already brought it up, the term “LCR” is kind of like gravity in that sense. It's just some made-up stuffs we invented so we can solve the Maxwell equations which are in themselves made up stuffs. And if you believe LCR is something that ends all then you're are just as bad – hiding behind your own misguided science.

Descartes, Hume, Kant

Do they know

Do you know

Nobody really knows

Except the shadows

...

From the beginning

Has anyone tried Iconoclast cables?  How they compared to some high end cables such as SilTech Crystal Absolute Dream that costs about $9K each?

I've read the articles from Iconoclast and it's refreshing to see someone who discussed these issues with no prejudice or preconceptions.  

One thing I still don't understand is which cable parameters that are responsible for what we call "transparency"?  How do we measure "transparency" in cables?  I mean we measure "LCR", impedance, propagation time and so on but how can we translate all of those parameters into "transparency"?  Hm... I see a bunch of black a$$ ... err I mean black art lols.

Years ago I bought some cables from Blue Jeans which I think they use Belden cables.  The price is about $100 a pair which sounded pretty decent.  Then after a few years I bought a pair of QED silver cables which cost a little bit more at about $150 a pair but the QED sounds much more musical and transparent compared to the Blue Jeans.  The QED construction suggests a much more sophisticated technique was used compared to the Blue Jeans.  My guess is the QED construction was optimized for "TIME" which was discussed extensively in the Iconolcast technical papers. 

I quickly went to Iconoclast website to see how much a pair of 8ft speaker cables cost - about 1400 to 2400 depending on the material and configuration.  Definitely not cheap!  

My current cables is Acoustic Zen Hologram II which is $1200 at 8ft.  Hmm...  I initially thought Iconoclast would be some type of cable Robinhood lols.  It would be very interesting if someone could compare the Iconoclast to some well known cables at similar price.

Most people try to gain greater transparency by upping the intensity of the light ( in cable speak upping high frequencies which has been the standard method used for decades now to try to achieve some modicum of transparency ) we just clean the window ( or in cable speak drop the noise floor )

I suppose "cleaning the window" is better than trying to "upping the intensity of the light".  Galen Gareis  (Iconoclast designer) says extensively about "TIME" coherent in his cable design.  Some of the reviews seem to say that his cables are very "transparent", so I guess "TIME" coherent is one of the main ingredients for being "transparent".

Anyway, as for measurement vs. listening, Galen Gareis says that he notices differences in sound between different type of copper although he readily admits that he doesn't know how to measure them.  He also said that two cables with the same "RLC" measurements could have completely different sound.  

There innumerable ways to lumped L, C & R parameters. The signal responds to an infinite series of µL µC & µR. GEOMETRY is every bit as important.

"Lumped parameter" is an approximation.  The actual (at least as far as one can approximate) condition is distributed.  One can go deeper and deeper into the reality to find final truth.  

After reading some of the posts in this thread, it's interesting and ironic that the posts from the "subjective" camp seemed to have a better grasp of science whereas the "objective" camp was just content to regurgitate what they "read" and believed it as a religion.  Life is full of irony isn't it.

These from Iconoclast website may sum it up the conflicts within this thread.

Engineers and audiophiles have locked horns time and again, in one long argument about the attributes of speaker and interconnect cables for high-resolution audio reproduction. Audiophile designs for wire and cable products are often strange and fanciful, and haven't earned a lot of respect in the engineering world. Audiophiles, meanwhile, find that engineers do not take their evaluations of cable products very seriously. The result often is that these two groups talk past one another, as the audiophile appeals to the realm of subjective experience and the engineer dismisses it all as nonsense.

A standard approach to any problem in audio cabling begins with some fundamental measurable attributes of wire and cable: R (resistance), L (inductance) and C (capacitance). But Galen came to believe that while these factors account for MUCH of what goes on in a cable, it is still possible for cables with the same R, L and C to have different sounds. The difference comes down to time -- that some factors which are not taken fully into account in measuring overall R, L and C do affect the relative speeds of parts of the signal as they travel down the signal path. For example, while VP (velocity of propagation) is typically stated as a constant, it actually varies, and varies substantially, with frequency within the audio band. Ideally, one wants every part of a signal to travel at the same speed, and Galen looked to ways to mitigate and balance frequency-dependent effects upon signal timing.

It's interesting that the "objective" posts are all about attacking that have  nothing to do with engineering or science.  

I feel guilty making fun of Prof.  

Life is "life or death" and very serious.

I'm sure there is a differential equation or some such thingee that likely explains all that there.

Maybe prof is working on it ... a Nobel prize candidate.

An interesting review by Wes Phillips of the Transparent Music Link Reference interconnect & Music Wave Reference speaker cable.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/transparent-music-link-reference-interconnect-music-wave-referen...

And the brain's expectation after such a purchase will provide you with, not what you hear, but what you want to hear.

I agree.  Question your own brain first.  

"Know thyself first" ... forgot who said that lols.