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

Showing 8 responses by mkgus

“Because if everything was spelled out to the uniformed these cables couldn't be sold with over the top prices . Have to keep the uniformed in the dark to be able to charge the ripoff prices.”

What if the secret to cables is that there is no secret. It’s just gauge, material and geometry and anyone can make a “world class” cable at home. Maybe that’s why cable manufacturer’s don’t give us every last spec. Ha!
“Own a hifi and you are required to be part of the customer base for cables.”

Yes, but if one fails to realize that the quality of the cables matter, or refuses to believe it, they might use the free cables that came with their equipment the entire time and never really hear what their system is capable of. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t help increase the cable market, and a bigger market means more competition, better designs, more discovery and better cables for everyone (who chooses the buy them.)
“I ask this question......how sophisticated must a system be to truly hear the difference in sound from a modestly priced cable and the super expensive ones? Is it just a matter of money?”

I’ll play devil’s advocate. In order to obtain a “sophisticated system,” one must not overlook cables. I often hear people say, “don’t spend money on cables, save it and put it where you’ll get better bang for your buck, like speakers.” I’m not sure I agree with this completely. Yes, get good speakers, but then go on to bring the rest of your system up to spec and that includes good cables. Even if you have the best speakers, you’ll never realize their full potential until you give the rest of your system the attention it deserves. Based on comments from others, when they have swapped a decent pair of bookshelves into their “sophisticated system,” they were blown away by just how good a mediocre pair of speakers can sound.

“I have noticed the members with the most technical knowledge here seem to have less expensive wires than the ones with less knowledge.”

I like to believe I have technical knowledge - two engineering degrees and an engineering license. A funny twist on your quote is that while I do have very inexpensive cables, I have put a significant amount of time and effort into DIY cable efforts. When I say “good” cables I don’t necessarily mean expensive - just good in the sense that they compliment your system and that one has put in the necessary amount of time and trial and error to get a lot out of their system. My latest escapade was changing some tweeter speaker cables from small gauge, solid core with a poor dielectric to the same wire with an air dielectric. Wow, the improvement it made!! Harsh treble that makes you want to turn down the music is no more. 

So while I don’t currently spend a ton on cables, I recognize their importance and go to great effort to pick the right ones. Sometimes you do have to spend a little bit - pure silver is expensive - no way around it. 😃
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. 
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. 
>>less than the width of an atom.<<

What?! If that’s true then ears are a form of nanotechnology. They truly are better than the microphones used to take measurements. That’s crazy!
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. 
Where do we start? It seems to me that we need a basic system from which to build knowledge. Tying together music reproduction, hearing, and human emotions into a scientific framework seems like a tall order. One I believe is conquerable.