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.
128x128mkgus
Post removed 
I was just getting ready to try the Schroeder Method on my cheap Sony Walkman. Then I realized my system is not a $50K system, it’s more like a $5 system. And I don’t even use interconnects. Boy, is my face red!

astelmaszek
99 posts
02-24-2019 7:24pm
Let me just mention that majority of the recordings you listen to were done with about 500ft of Canare microphone cable, and that's if the studio was fancy."

I always wonder about these types of comments, this is all the more reason to fix the audio chain that we can control in our own environment.

People say the same thing for power conditioners and power cables. Yea the power system is messy and dirty if it were perfect we wouldn't need to correct things on our end.


glupson, I think one will hear a greater improvement in SQ with the SM of interconnect placement on an entry level audio system than on a $25k-$50k audio system. The SM of interconnect placement has certain universal truths that cannot be denied with any level audio system. 
File under just sayin’ eh.

...Bertrand Russell once said: “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the foolish are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

One part of which refers to real practitioners of science, the other to those who play scientists on the interwebs.