I usually don’t jump in on the physics end too much here because of the audiophile-ish twists, but Defiant, when did you study under Jackson?
mg
The Science of Cables
It seems to me that there is too little scientific, objective evidence for why cables sound the way they do. When I see discussions on cables, physical attributes are discussed; things like shielding, gauge, material, geometry, etc. and rarely are things like resistance, impedance, inductance, capacitance, etc. Why is this? Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
Seems to me like that would increase the customer base. I know several “objectivist” that won’t accept any of your claims unless you have measurements and blind tests. If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables.
I know cables are often system dependent but there are still many generalizations that can be made.
802 responses Add your response
@ ieales To claim "TEO’s Liquid Cable interconnect cables are best characterized by their absence of character. … etc." strains credibility. A couple of things. First the cables in fact use a liquid metal as a conductor, an eutectic alloy of gallium, indium and tin, which neatly undercuts your claim that the only metal that is liquid at room temperature is mercury. And btw it does not behave at all like that mercury based straw-man fabulation you just created, so we can throw that bit of nonsense out the window as well. And two, if you haven’t actually heard the cables you most certainly have no credibility in making judgement about our cables, strained, diced, mashed or otherwise. |
Hi Dan My cables are similar with a few treatments applied. I have mine made in bulk single rolls and then do my baking, cracking the seal, baking again and curing, then spinning, and more curing. A few steps kind of tricky to get my sound. But, if I were a DIYer I would do exactly what you are talking about. I’d get me a box of that stuff and start playing around till I got the sound I wanted and be done with it. I’ve compare the Plenum Cat 5e against mine doing the same treatment on it that I do and was pretty please with it’s performance. It’s not quite the performance I look for because it’s made spun but with a little work and a few very slow back and forward spins it almost relaxed enough to start from scratch. That stuff did however beat up on a lot of wire out there, most I would say. It’s fun designing wire but for the guy not going over board and wanting a wire that out does the big bucks guys, there you go. I know you don't need my indorsement but nice job! good to see you Michael Green |
@mkgus and others here 1. The real science of "cables" is too difficult for most audiophiles to understand. Don't believe me? Try reading this book https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electrodynamics-Third-David-Jackson/dp/047130932X If you get through Chapter 8 and solve the problems in it (I have), then you can claim the moral right to talk about the science of "cables". Otherwise, please show a bit of humility. 2. If you do the above, you will understand that the audiophile babble about "cables" is mostly stupidity, spewed by dumb or uneducated people who want to sound knowledgeable. 3. And finally, at audio frequencies, cables don't matter. If they make a difference in you system, you have a crappy amplifier. |
Good info in many directions. When I developed the Proclaim Audioworks Dmt-100 I contacted many speaker cable manufacturers to get samples to try. I had a unique problem though, crosstalk between bass, midrange, and high. I put the crossover external to take the caps and coils out of the tubulance happening inside the speaker enclosure, thus calling the components to sing. What I found for the best cable in numerous hours of experimenting, Teflon coated, plenum cat 5e solid conductor, 5 of them braided. 2 for the woofer, 2 for the mid and one for the tweet. It jumped out! In all aspects of the listening criteria. So experimenting and the technical are both needed in my opinion:) |
| Post removed |
@ ieales Film?!?!?! go away! <vbg> Z-curve? Bleccchhh. I effing hated doing music for films and TV! Great music buried for a door slam or tire squeal. What a waste! Very sorry to hear that your experience with the great sausage making machine was such a bummer. For me it was for the most part awesome, the crews were great, the problems were wild and crazy which forced you to do what I sometimes call "acoustic trauma surgery" ( like whatever it takes, just save the scene ). |
@taras22 I'm sure you and Ken are justifiably proud of your cables. The problem I have is the hyperbole. Most metals' conductivity decreases when liquid. If there are any voids in the 'fill', conductivity drops like a stone. The only natural metal liquid at room temperature is mercury which has 1/60 Cu conductivity. The DCR could be overcome by making the wire 60 times as large, but then L would decrease by a factor of about 6. C could be kept the same by changing dielectric. So if one keeps R and C constant, changing L by a factor of 6, one has created a new filter and one that is probably quite audible. Depending on source and destination response, the new filter may be a plus and maybe not. To claim "TEO’s Liquid Cable interconnect cables are best characterized by their absence of character. … etc." strains credibility. If the cables are not in fact a flowing material, then the "Liquid" moniker is just more marketing malarkey. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@boxer12 Some of us have been hearing cable differences for more than half a century. We then used science and numbers to determine how that could be, given the prevailing wisdom that everything sounds the same. cf Stereo Review @chrissain Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Regardless of the cable, it is quite possible to assemble systems where Brand X beats the pants off the Gold Standard. There is no universal best and COST DOES NOT CORRELATE TO SOUND QUALITY @taras22 Film?!?!?! go away! <vbg> Z-curve? Bleccchhh. I effing hated doing music for films and TV! Great music buried for a door slam or tire squeal. What a waste! @kalali Exactly. So much of the attraction is bling. And the names!! If it keeps up there will be Chocolate fudge, Caramel swirl... @cd318 Perhaps it would be instructive to model the Naim output, the cable and their loudspeakers. While Ivor could often be off the beam, often he was spot on. |
Looks? HEA sold a bag of tricks about looks. Pretty funny when you think about it. Here's a hobby based on looking at the recorded soundstage and the magazines sold massive looking things actually robbing the soundstage from appearing. Pretty strange hobby we had there for a while. I'm glad to see listeners using their space for space again. Michael Green |
@kalali, yes me too. I've become quite fond of those transparent high grade OFC speaker cables recently. I shudder to recall those days of the ridiculously thick and unwieldy Naim NAC5 cables which they insisted were designed for their amps. I loved the impressive construction and reliability of their amplifiers but shame on Naim for that particular piece of opportunism. Not even stylish or pretty, just thick and crude. |
@stevecham You have no idea what you are saying and this is just lame regurgitation of some nonsensical mumbo jumbo speak that you read in some quasi-science comic book. Funny, I distinctly remember it as a graduate program at a university. And I will leave you with the following to contemplate. As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
|
@taras22: "You may want to go take a peak at this thing called proof theory, which talks about what numbers can and can’t do. One of the things it says is that numbers are an abstract concept that relate most perfectly to themselves and only tangentially to the reality around us. And btw was a key development in the movement that led to the "quantum" revolution that has defined physics over the last century or so, which introduced us to the concept of curved space. So relativity you are much closer to flat earth than you may want to admit." What a bunch of goobledeegook. You didn’t say anything nor did you make one single, coherent point. The "movement that led to the ’quantum’ revolution that has defined physics..." You have no idea what you are saying and this is just lame regurgitation of some nonsensical mumbo jumbo speak that you read in some quasi-science comic book. |
One thing that is missing in all these discussions is the esthetic value of the cable. It applies to speaker cables, interconnect cables, and power cords. In most other components in the system, people are willing to pay more, sometimes a lot more, for something that is more pleasing to the eyes. Cables are no different. The question is how much is the esthetic value worth to an individual. I’m willing to bet most everyone will pick the prettier “cable” all else being equal. |
@mkgus
Is this related to the fact that when you are in a large, noisy crowd you can “tune in” to your conversation and clearly hear the person you’re talking to? There is some sort of highly advanced filtration going on in the brain in that scenario. A microphone cannot do that. It’s just a vibrating membrane - it can’t selectively hear what it wants. Exactamondo....very well stated....and that ability is even much more pronounced in rooms that are acoustically correct ( in fact that is one of characteristics of a "good" room ). Btw a neat little bit of theatre that we sometimes do for clients is to record our conversation and then play it back. What you hear on playback is a conversation in a very noisy/echo laden room, something that was definitely not apparent in the original conversation because our ear/brains had done an effective job of editing the noise out by, uhhh, actively ignoring the noise. And this has proved a very effective sales tool cause after the shock wears off we usually get the contract. So when time and budget allows film acoustics involves creating an environment around the set that not doesn't have the sound of the huge studio volume and is tuned to actually sound like what the set looks like. And all of this done with the strengths ( its really sensitive and picks up everything ) and weaknesses ( its really sensitive and picks up everything ) of the microphone first and foremost on the agenda. Btw this is also a pretty neat way of evaluating a listening space since it kinda short circuits that editing function and it very effectively deals with the low frequency issues that all rooms have. |
@mkgus Good luck putting those concepts in a formula. Your post nicely nailed that. Now if I could add something. The reason that the formulas are lacking and the ear/brain has a marked advantage is the ability of the ear/brain to hear into noise floors/ceiling which as I mentioned earlier is a serious limitation for measurement systems. And this is especially important in the room generated lower frequencies ( room "lift" is a big issue below 500hz and it generally gets quite dramatic at around 125hz ) where we can be pretty successful hearing thru the reverberation artifacts and microphones not so much ( actually their issue is they pick up everything and can't separate the wheat from the chaff the way our ear brain has evolved to do...and while we can do that trick it is much more enjoyable not to have to, which is where successful room acoustics comes into play ). And speaking of the experience issue mentioned above "my day job" is in the film industry were "we" provide/build good acoustic environments in which microphones can more efficiently capture sync sound off the floor. "We" have been doing this for over 35 years and have contributed to over 65 major film and television projects. We have successfully worked in tiny rooms and in rooms as large as 15 million cu ft, This is why I sometimes "lose my mind" and blather on about microphones and acoustics because this is what I have done, and if the repeat business is any indication, quite successfully, read, I would like to think I can speak from experience and a reasonable understanding of the underlying theory. |
Earlier rotarius stated that cable manufacturers used the same bulk cable supplied by the same sources. Even if this were true, and it is for many cable manufacturers but certainly not all, he is making the assumption that the conductor is all that truly matters. This is an erroneous assumption. The solution to this entire debate is very simple as it applies to the individual. Of course if you truly "know" as does rotarius and a few others, no need to experiment. But if you allow for the possibility, order a few different types of cables with return guarantees and experiment. |
The reason that the formulas are lacking and the ear/brain has a marked advantage is the ability of the ear/brain to hear into noise floors/ceiling which as I mentioned earlier is a serious limitation for measurement systems. Is this related to the fact that when you are in a large, noisy crowd you can “tune in” to your conversation and clearly hear the person you’re talking to? There is some sort of highly advanced filtration going on in the brain in that scenario. A microphone cannot do that. It’s just a vibrating membrane - it can’t selectively hear what it wants. |
| Post removed |
I agree with michaelgreenaudio with regard to "experience." I have several times over the years encountered people in work environments and in other situations in which someone professes "twenty five years experience in (fill in the blank") and then it later becomes apparent that more correctly they have one year of experience twenty five times. |
@mkgus They truly are better than the microphones used to take measurements. That’s crazy! Actually it isn’t. OK lets look at it this way. As a machine a microphone is a speaker driver in reverse. And we all know that no matter how wonderful the driver design it will never ever replicate a real sound in any absolutely accurate manner, and we can easily hear that ( both the original sound and the replication ) and if the equivalence btwn drivers and microphones holds true and I think it does it should lead one to see the ear as the superior instrument ( sorry if that is a bit convoluted and circuitous and I hope youse guys get the point ) The other thing about microphones is their range is limited, and often brick-walled, by noise floors and ceilings, whereas the ear/brain has much greater range in that regard ( in fact in certain circumstances "looking" into noise floors the ear brain has something in the range of 50db advantage over microphone based measurement systems...and especially in the bottom 4 octaves ). |
@ stevecham More flat earth. Just way too funny. Actually more like curved space. You may want to go take a peak at this thing called proof theory, which talks about what numbers can and can’t do. One of the things it says is that numbers are an abstract concept that relate most perfectly to themselves and only tangentially to the reality around us. And btw was a key development in the movement that led to the "quantum" revolution that has defined physics over the last century or so, which introduced us to the concept of curved space. So relativity you are much closer to flat earth than you may want to admit. |
Might I suggest starting this thread on the TuneLand forum or any expert audio forum who has a wider range than this thread. Without graphs, charts, diagrams and pictures your taking a subject that has been covered some 30 years ago and just adding to the circle of words. Not that these are bad words by any means, just repeated over and over for the last 3 decades. By now all of you should be cable experts (if you have been in the hobby over ten years). A new audiophile today can get up on cable knowledge easily within a couple of months if they know one thing, and only one thing needed, a community of folks who have already covered these topics and show the results in real time. Audiogon is a cool forum, but keep in mind it's a beginners forum. You can be an audio beginner for 50 years and still not be experienced on the basic topics and issues. That's why you see the same topics repeated for 30 or so years. Audio forum threads unfortunately are not designed to be places of building documentation and references. Opinions? Yes, both more experienced and little experience, but without a good foundation usually. Simply put, your only going to get so far before the inexperienced and experienced get mixed into the same brew. Having to start the same topic again and again only really proves one thing, the whole is not documenting things properly and ends up falling into a hole instead of understanding a whole. No ones fault, just the nature of mixing fresh wine with old wine, instead of drinking from a properly aged vintage. mg |
To continue on that thought - you can use measurements to build your system and get a pretty good room response, but you can’t fine tune with measurements. Why? Because the goal isn’t definable (at least at this time). What would your goal be with measurements? A ruler flat response curve? It’s been done, and usually it sounds bad. The goal is to fine tune the system in order to produce the most pleasing sound to the listener and ideally one that extracts maximum emotion and realism. Good luck putting those concepts in a formula. |
Guess it would be real interesting to find out who, on average, has the better sounding rigs. The folks who ultimately rely on the LCR or those that rely on the EAR. Good question! I would have to say without a doubt the system that relied on ears (assuming someone spent the time required to fine tune the system to their liking.) We cannot at the present moment explain all the measurements and chemical reactions that occur to make one system more enjoyable than the other. I say chemical reactions because you can’t remove your brain from the picture - it’s part of the system. |
@teo_audio: "It’s good to remember that numbers exist no where in the real world, that numbers are an abstract thing in a human mind. They can never be real. It’s a tool...and it is in charge of exactly nothing. Math can be one of those incredibly dangerous ultimate appeals to authority, if one is not careful." More flat earth. More hollywood moon landings. The very fact that you are reading and writing in this thread is because numbers are real. Go pound sand. |
@ rotarius That does not apply to cables though. Ever hear of this thing called super conductors, which last I checked are cables. And these items are the focus of much effort to push the limits of our understanding of lots of things including things that help explain how the reality around us operates at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, which oddly enough tells us a whole lot about the universe writ large. It’s just a cottage industry where some people source wire of various grades from the same known wire manufacturers . You might have a point for most generic cables but metallurgy and processing is a big factor in the audiophile cable making endeavor ( and we have experienced this first hand as a supplier moved his base of manufacturing from Japan to Taiwan to China....it started as a great sounding wire and went to high level of mediocrity and finally stopped at absolutely awful ). And lets not even get into the complexities of making and then using liquid metal alloys as conductors which are not at all like wires. |
Taras22, give it a rest. Yes, there is a lot to learn about the universe and quantum gravity. That does not apply to cables though. It's just a cottage industry where some people source wire of various grades from the same known wire manufacturers. They are not out there mining copper and then using some secret process to draw copper wire. They take widely available wire, put good connectors at the ends and make them look pretty. That's it. |
@ ieales IF it’s not simple, just exactly what wire properties other than LCR affect response? On page one are three quotes that I had to drag up a steep mountain through a monumental screaming snow storm to this thread to help illuminate the dark subject of cable building. Quite surprised you haven’t seen or read them seeing as they took up a lot of page one. They mention a thing or two outside of LCR (which for cable fundamentalists is The One True Gawd of Cable Building ) that pertains to said building. And yeah those things may be blasphemy for the card carrying Howling, errr, Hallowed True Believers and their various Ayatollahs but we ain’t stringing up old testament telegraph wires or wiring houses here. In fact, according to those quotes this cable building thingee is apparently pretty high falutin’ complisticated stuff but even NASA, the official home of rocket science, has recently bought into. Like it has quantums and phonons and nano-nanoisms and everything is spinning hither and tither. Geez makes my head spin just thinking about it, which I suppose explains the reverence that the Hallowed True Believers have for The One True Gawd of Cable Building. He makes things so easy, so simple, and doesn't make your head spin. Just sayin’eh |
| Post removed |
ieales When trained listeners hear no difference, the purveyors claim inadequate biological capabilities.What test are you referring to? What "purveyors?" Fanboys poo-poo blind tests trained listeners pass with aplomb.It's not clear what you mean here. In any event, it's a misnomer that a listener "passes" or "fails" a blind listening test. Such tests aren't designed to test the listener - their purpose is to test the "device under test," which is why they call it a DUT. You really need an audiologist to test a listener. |
brucenitroxpro ... the reason there are so few articles on cables is... that MOST articles are so poorly researched that the questions they answer are not usually applicable to audiophiles ...Agreed. Not only are many tests poorly researched, but even the ones that are often leave unanswered questions, such as how the test was designed and administered. And then there are those that are based on deception; those prove nothing. But the extent to which even a scientific double-blind controlled test has value to an audiophile is debatable. You simply can’t question most audiophiles whose most important quality is their totally complete knowledge of what they THINK they know.I think most audiophiles do know what they hear, and that’s the most important thing. In fact, an audiophile is more likely to know what he hears than anyone else, which is one of the takeaways from the Laurel-Yanny controversy. |
"A single photon is detectable but it conveys no information. " Does anyone here know what the word contradiction means? I see it went down to name calling fairly fast. As in, your post is all about dismissal -poorly framed and delivered at that. With a sprinkling of polarization attempting to look like logic --as projections of appeals to authority. In other words, you’ve got nothing... and you are attempting to frame it as if you do have something. When that happens, all that is left is the sputtering. Which we can plainly see. As for LCR, it’s fine, it’s nice, whatever. A limited tool at best. It’s good to remember that numbers exist no where in the real world, that numbers are an abstract thing in a human mind. They can never be real. It’s a tool...and it is in charge of exactly nothing. Math can be one of those incredibly dangerous ultimate appeals to authority, if one is not careful. Forests and tress and all that. Actual real sciences puts humans in charge and never puts things like LCR in charge. It is also a human that fools themselves that LCR is biblical, singular, all encompassing... and immutably in charge. Man made dogma, such a thing is. Limited reach-reaching it’s limit. Totally anti-science. I’m trying to say.... a fully fleshed out argument would have no losers, just more illumination for all. And your argument is way out of whack, way off center. Certainly not fit for the professorial lunch room. So many holes that a sieve would be a better stopper. |
@taras22 IF it’s not simple, just exactly what wire properties other than LCR affect response? @teo_audio the tests were done on excised tissue and "it remains to be seen whether these findings are relevant in the normal inner ear of living animals." A single photon is detectable but it conveys no information. @bsmg Cables carry the signal which is ultimately detected by the ears. Ears, err I mean listeners, can be trained. Manufacturers make all manner of claims. When trained listeners hear no difference, the purveyors claim inadequate biological capabilities. Fanboys poo-poo blind tests trained listeners pass with aplomb. From start to finish, music recording and reproduction is a series of equalizers. Expecting 2m of balonium will undo everything that preceded it is utter folly. Expecting 2m of balonium will improve all systems is an even larger load. |
If this keeps up it may be time for another straightened coat hanger v mystery X ($$$$$) cable blind listening test. So far all the conclusions point to a lack of consensus with the only regular perceived sonic differences being in the listener's own head. And even then, not consistently. One day A might be better, the next B, and so on and so on. All cables claiming to be better than basic OFC simply must be sold with a money back guarantee. Especially when there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support this claim. Even the sellers dare not say why and how their cables are better, instead they merely suggest it to avoid any potentially ruinous legal challenges. If they are obviously better sonically then surely there's no need for dealers to take the money and run, is there? Apart from charity on the behalf of the consumer of course. |
@
brucenitroxpro
Speaking of evidence based research and academic rigour would be nice if you could provide a link to the study that your assertions made above are based on. Thanks in advance. |
Since I have taught Experimental Psychology, Statistics, and have worked in electronic design... I can say with certainty that the reason there are so few articles on cables is... that MOST articles are so poorly researched that the questions they answer are not usually applicable to audiophiles who often don't even respect a scholarly approach. You simply can't question most audiophiles whose most important quality is their totally complete knowledge of what they THINK they know. In other words, "forget about it!" |
