2. cables
  3. 146425-122613

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
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

Elizabeth, while celander provided the answer, I thought I would respond as well. While a particular IC may may have multiple conductors, Schroeder Method specifically pairs full cables, which means paired ground wires as well.

celander likes the HAVE Inc. product, and I enjoy the Audio Sensibility products (reviewed in a short Audio Blast article at dagogo.com).

My understanding is that theoretically Schroeder Method should sound like a double length IC (Over the years I have found 1m to sound slightly better than 2m), but the outcome that is happening with Schroeder Method is a vastly superior performance to even the shorter single IC. It seems logically to be completely wasteful, redundant, potentially causing problems, etc. In other words, it seems a stupid idea.

However, the sound is fundamentally improved over single IC, on the level of a big dollar component change, not a tweak. Ergo, not wasteful, redundant, causing problems, etc. Smart.   :)

fleschler
1,911 posts
 
I must add that some very musically involving systems used $300 to $700 cables (Tiode Labs, Wireworld and others not as well known) while the best one used $400,000 of cabling (an extensive amount in a $1.5 million system).
cd318
2,636 posts
 
We seem to be struggling to make progress beyond the comments earlier from @jhills who wrote , "Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to. 
 
While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation."

Oh well at least the expensive HDMI cable scam has been widely exposed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.outofcontrol.online/expensive-hdmi-cables-are-a-scam/

https://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs-entertainment/7976/expensive-hdmi-cables-make-no-difference-and-...

https://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/the-ugly-truth-about-hdmi-cables-2951010

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/


Post removed 
fleschler
1,911 posts
 
That is one cable that I have found no difference with.    HDMI cable for video purposes produce all the same video quality on a high end 4K 75" top of the line Sony LCD TV.  Someone lent me a $170 cable to compare to my $15 or $20 Fry's HDMI cable (6' length).   Many video enthusiasts told me the same thing.  No difference. 

USB cables differ in audio quality, but not HDMI high speed cable for 4K.  Maybe they will need a higher speed transfer rate for 8K or the future, but not now.
More to discover