Science that explains why we hear differences in cables?


Here are some excerpts from a review of the Silversmith Audio Fidelium speaker cables by Greg Weaver at Enjoy The Music.com. Jeff Smith is their designer. I have not heard these cables, so I don’t have any relevant opinion on their merit. What I find very interesting is the discussion of the scientific model widely used to design cables, and why it may not be adequate to explain what we hear. Yes it’s long, so, to cut to the chase, I pulled out the key paragraph at the top:


“He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.”


“One of the first things that stand out in conversation with Jeff about his cables is that he eschews the standard inductance/capacitance/resistance/impedance dance and talks about wave propagation; his designs are based solely upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of electron flow.


While Jeff modestly suggests that he is one of only "a few" cable designers to base his designs upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of the movement, or "flow," of electrons, I can tell you that he is the only one I’ve spoken with in my over four decades exploring audio cables and their design to even mention, let alone champion, this philosophy.


Cable manufacturers tend to focus on what Jeff sees as the more simplified engineering concepts of electron flow, impedance matching, and optimizing inductance and capacitance. By manipulating their physical geometry to control LCR (inductance, capacitance, and resistance) values, they try to achieve what they believe to be the most ideal relationship between those parameters and, therefore, deliver an optimized electron flow. Jeff goes as far as to state that, within the realm of normal cable design, the LRC characteristics of cables will not have any effect on the frequency response.


As this is the very argument that all the cable flat-Earther’s out there use to support their contention that cables can’t possibly affect the sound, it seriously complicates things, almost to the point of impossibility, when trying to explain how and why interconnect, speaker, digital, and power cables have a demonstrably audible effect on a systems resultant sonic tapestry.


He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.


As such, his design goal is to control the interaction between the electromagnetic wave and the conductor, effectively minimizing the phase errors caused by that interaction. Jeff states that physics says that the larger the conductor, the greater the phase error, and that error increases as both the number of conductors increase (assuming the same conductor size), and as the radial speed of the electromagnetic wave within the conductor decreases. Following this theory, the optimum cable would have the smallest or thinnest conductors possible, as a single, solid core conductor per polarity, and should be made of metal with the fastest waveform transmission speed possible.


Jeff stresses that it is not important to understand the math so much as it is to understand the concept of electrical energy flow that the math describes. The energy flow in cables is not electrons through the wire, regardless of the more common analogy of water coursing through a pipe. Instead, the energy is transmitted in the dielectric material (air, Teflon, etc.) between the positive and negative conductors as electromagnetic energy, with the wires acting as waveguides. The math shows that it is the dielectric material that determines the speed of that transmission, so the better the dielectric, the closer the transmission speed is to the speed of light.


Though electromagnetic energy also penetrates into and through the metal conductor material, the radial penetration speed is not a high percentage of the speed of light. Rather, it only ranges from about 3 to 60 meters per second over the frequency range of human hearing. That is exceptionally slow!


Jeff adds, "That secondary energy wave is now an error, or memory, wave. The thicker the conductor, the higher the error, as it takes longer for the energy to penetrate. We interpret (hear) the contribution of this error wave (now combined with the original signal) as more bloated and boomy bass, bright and harsh treble, with the loss of dynamics, poor imaging and soundstage, and a lack of transparency and detail.


Perhaps a useful analogy is a listening room with hard, reflective walls, ceilings, and floors and no acoustic treatment. While we hear the primary sound directly from the speakers, we also hear the reflected sound that bounces off all the hard room surfaces before it arrives at our ears. That second soundwave confuses our brains and degrades the overall sound quality, yielding harsh treble and boomy bass, especially if you’re near a wall.


That secondary or error signal produced by the cable (basically) has the same effect. Any thick metal in the chain, including transformers, most binding posts, RCA / XLR connectors, sockets, wire wound inductors, etc., will magnify these errors. However, as a conductor gets smaller, the penetration time decreases, as does the degree of phase error. The logic behind a ribbon or foil conductor is that it is so thin that the penetration time is greatly reduced, yet it also maintains a large enough overall gauge to keep resistance low.”


For those interested, here is more info from the Silversmith site, with links to a highly technical explanation of the waveguide model and it’s relevance to audio cables:


https://silversmithaudio.com/cable-theory/


tommylion
“Fwiw, Rick Schultz of High Fidelity Cables also uses this approach in his products”

I’m not positive, but I think Teo Audio and Townshend Audio also use a similar model in designing cables.

The point being, there are those who say that “science” shows that there can’t be any audible difference between cables. Many, many people have observed otherwise. While it may be true that the widely accepted and used scientific model doesn’t explain, or allow for, these differences, it seems that there is at least one other valid scientific model that supports these observed differences, both allowing for, and explaining, them.
Have they had an independent third party conduct ABX testing on the audibility?
I think its imperative that the theoretical nature of the thing is well understood.

That he eschews {avoids} inductance, capacitance, resistance and impedance "dances" in favour of wave model is troubling.

"his designs are based solely upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of electron flow".

Now, do any electrical engineers have an issue with this? I’m not, but since when has electricity been modelled on electron flow anyway? Isn’t he finding a distinction that doesn’t exist? Is there a straw man lurking around in the shadows?

Edit - and having waded through the words a couple more times I actually fail to find anything new.  Isn't much of what he is saying standard, but that he throws in things to make it appear as though he has a novel twist, like the maths don't matter as much as what the maths means (not a direct quote but something like that, which to me is all quite odd).
I've heard of remote viewing, but remote hearing?
Who knew there were so many psychics here on A'gon who could know what someone else is hearing so far away?

All the best,
Nonoise

secretguy
377 posts
10-29-2021 10:44am“Much like religion...I can’t decide if the true believers or the charlatans are worse.”

+1 @secretguy. Nailed it ! Point, set and match in tennis jargon!

Ignoring that I personally stand in thecables do matter”cohort , (…with a big caveat that it is entirely system dependent …), the other contrarian cohort comprises an equal 50% of our fellow enthusiasts, who have their own equally valid experiences and point of view. Fair enough…BUT AND ITS A BIG “BUT”… Neither side will be swayed by further cable debate posts.

THE POINT: these posts enter an eternal deeply divided and polarizing cables war no- man’s lands that’s been already beaten down into irrelevance in all the audio forums. As @secretguy highlighted above, continuing cable merit posts - both pro and con - have no validity in further advancing our hobby.

CANUCKAUDIOMART moderators have addressed it in part with a stern warning that aggressively pushing this well-travelled issue now may get the thread locked down; it may also draw a potential warning issued to the OP ; and it even may draw a potential suspension to anybody as a  repeat offender, or anybody with a post containing disrespectful, vitriol, or personal slams.

Because the merits of cable posts - pro or con- are entirely system dependent, the following quote encapsulates discontinuing a pointless debate where these polarized cohorts exist equally.

“ …There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each differently.”― Robert Evans “