The Science of Cables

danvignau, imo you are ignorant on both points. But, to not inflame the discussion further, I will refrain from commenting further. I do not care to engage you in a debate here, if it would mean that the moderators would pull the thread - a very real possibility, and one that I imagine some might enjoy/hope for. 

Now that you have expressed yourself on the topic, I trust that you will refrain from doing so in the future on this thread. Most participants know that injection of religion can cause rancor and get a thread deleted. I hope that is not your intention. 

Why don't you try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? If you seem assured of your position, why not put it to the test? I presume you would see double interconnects as "unscientific" and since there is no thorough explanation (I am NOT saying no explanation exists), I would guess you to be derisive of it. Fine. Why not try it, because imo every once in a while skepticism needs to be put to the test. 

As if science is incontrovertible and scientists are never swayed by agenda. Just another participant that wants everyone to know how he stands on a particular issue not related to cables.

 Cables? Cables? 

 Coming from a electronics technician background of 35 years, I am always astounded at the extremely over analyzed critiques of cables. I am also blown away by the extravagant cost. 

 I suppose my background makes me look at them from an  inductance, capacitance, resistive ( DCR ) and impedance  point of reference . 

 While there is an apparent technological advancement in the materials used to make cables,  it’s still all comes down to capacitance, inductance, impedance, and DCR.  Now,  with all those new advanced cable components ,  they do have an affect on the previously mentioned  technical characteristics. 

So, I decided to make my own cables. I bought some reasonably priced  American designed Australian made RCA male connectors.  Then I began looking for a good two conductor and single conductor with shield cables. I hate the stif inflexible “high end“ cables that you can buy online and through hi-fi audio vendors.   I found some very good Japanese made highly flexible shielded cable and was able to easily assemble them. 

Got to catch a plane will return with my results!

@tubegeek,

"While there is an apparent technological advancement in the materials used to make cables,  it’s still all comes down to capacitance, inductance, impedance, and DCR"  

Hopefully, the above is a statement we can all agree upon. The science of cables.

As the OP asked,

"If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables."

As far as I know, nothing beats high purity OFC. Not in performance, not in sound,  nor in price.

OFC is ridiculously under priced for what you are getting. 99.99% purity. 

"Oxygen-free copper (OFC) or oxygen-free high thermal conductivity (OFHC) copper is a group of wrought high conductivity copper alloys that have been electrolytically refined to reduce the level of oxygen to .001% or below.[1][2]


Use in home audio

The high-end speaker wire industry markets oxygen-free copper as having enhanced conductivity or other electrical properties that are supposedly advantageous to audio signal transmission. In fact, conductivity specifications for common C11000 (ETP) and higher-cost C10200 Oxygen-Free (OF) coppers are identical;[12] and even the much more expensive C10100 has only a one percent higher conductivity—insignificant in audio applications.[12]

OFC is nevertheless sold for both audio and video signals in audio playback systems and home cinema.[12]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-free_copper

Pretty sure that it is the corrosion resistance of OFC that makes it the material of choice.