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
Interesting - for the most part, the only ones you hear blowing about the greatness of the Schroeder Method, are those making and selling high dollar cables - go figure.

They boast that their particular $$$ cable is a revolution in cables and the best sounding thing on the planet - But Wait - if you want them to sound really, really good , you should double them. What is better than the best, oh yea - "The Really, Really Best". The next generation of mega dollar cables and wild ideas - The Really, Really, Really Best! Oh where does it end?
jhills, please refrain from characterization of the Schroeder Method as collusion on the part of manufacturers or those associated with the industry. You have not done your homework prior to posting. There has been largely manufacturer participation in this thread. However, you state generally, "Interesting - for the most part, the only ones you hear blowing about the greatness of the Schroeder Method, are those making and selling high dollar cables - go figure." That is incorrect, and an attempt to derisively dismiss it. 

If you wish to be taken seriously, you will need to avoid obvious bias aimed at discrediting a method with which you have no experience. You have damaged your reputation here with your post, and would do well to refrain from further faux pas. 

Mention has been made repeatedly here and in the thread linked above, the one on this forum entitled "Doug Schroeder Method, Double IC", about audiophiles unassociated with the industry who are rightly amazed, thrilled and thankful for the Schroeder Method. The community can plainly see that this is not the industry, but everyday users who found it efficacious. I invite those who wish to check me on this to visit that thread where it will be obvious that the community is loving the Schroeder Method for its efficacy. 

I grant you this; your criticism stems from a valid observation, that every cable maker promotes their wares as the best. Obviously; that's marketing. Then, however, you mistakenly equate that marketing as the bulk of response to the Method. However, the Schroeder Method is not being sold by myself, and cable makers were free to examine the method and if not suitable let it alone. My point is that you have lumped in the Method with bias against cable makers in general, which I understand, but do not find justification. People can use whatever ICs they wish, even low cost ones, in order to do double ICs. So, your skepticism, imo based on promotion of cables is unwarranted, especially in light of the number of persons who elected to share their experiences in order to congratulate it themselves after trying it. 

Would you like to try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? 
You likely would not have confirmation bias in trying it! :) 

If you respond with belittling comments, mockery, etc. then I will discontinue conversation, as I have no desire to discuss this with persons whose goal is to wrangle in a contest of whits. If you respond with further objections theoretically, I will presume you are not interested, and I will move on. So, yes or no, will you try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? 



Nope! Plenty much happy with the cables I have and have no desire to double the capacitance on my system......Jim

Not picking on you in general, just stating that cable makers, who would have us believe that their incredible $k per ft cable is the ultimate, now concede they sound even better if you double them.

I have no bias against cable makers, in general, but I do, at times, have a problem with their greed and looseness with the truth.......Jim
Post removed 
Jim, Thank you for your thoughtful, cordial reply.

Elizabeth, yeah, the cost to play is pretty prohibitive. Kills.  You would think I was asking people too try a $5K cartridge. 

Which brings up this question: What is the substantive difference scientifically/analytically between analogue, in the industry and among users, and cables? I see vanishingly little difference. Which would make analogue lovers who mock cables huge hypocrites. It would also open up all the same sweeping criticisms of the industry and users that are applied to cables. I am very close to making that a proclamation, but I leave it open at this point for input.  

Call me a very serious analogue skeptic, but not absolutist yet. If anyone can demonstrate objectively how analogue is applied and assessed in systems differently (I mean differences with significance, not passing differences) then I will be open to reconsideration.  :) 

I have a digital source; I do not use analogue. However, be careful how you reply, for if you as a cable skeptic would condemn my habitus, then you condemn yourself if you eschew aftermarket cables. 

Perhaps this has all been hashed out for aeons over in the analogue forum. I don't know, I have plenty to do elsewhere. If this is a perennial debate in the vinyl world feel free to enlighten me.

Am I radically off-base, or do I have a point?   :)