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
I am not a tech guy nor a scientist...

This thing being said...

I learn ONE thing...

Cables cannot be more important than speakers and amplifiers...And certainly not beat the room...



In my experience for most people systems, NOTHING could compare in upgrading power to acoustic mechanical active controls with Hemholtz method and passive conventional material treatment...


Thinking otherwise is negating 2 thousand years of acoustic science and thinking...Sound come from the acoustic settings of the original event to be acoustically recreated in your treated and controlled room through and with your ears....


Timbre is NOT reducible to a frequencies spectrum NOR explanable for the times being by frequencies spectrum... The reason is AS deep than simple: Timbre is a subjective perceived event, frequencies spectrum is an objective translation... Your room acoustic CORRECT or DEFORM this original acoustic event translated PARTIALLY by microphones location and choices before the recording process itself....


Acoustic is not electronic engineering.... Cables are conveyor that matter for sure and different from each other....But Acoustic is so powerful i am astounded that so much people never experience that which is evident on all counts...

The sound speed cross average room 15 times in fraction of a second and your 2 ears syhthetize all the acoustic information of the recording through your INFORMED room...Which is a complex distributed sound resonant   pressure zones...

Nobody listen the original recording, everyone listen to this original event through his speakers/room INFORMED relation...

Or through the shell chamber of an headphone.....It is the same acoustical event through different rooms uncontrolled or controlled with all the possible scale in between...

Ouffff !

Cables are different, yes like amplifiers, speakers, dac, microphones, etc....

Acoustic is the sea where all this boats are floating.... And the laws governing sea are not the law governing the boats...The boats are constructed for the sea not the sea here for the boats....

And by the way psycho-acoustic science is not reducible either to physical acoustic....And psycho acoustic science is more harder subject than only physical acoustic , including also with acoustic itself neurophysiology ,phonology, music, etc ...

I apologize but i could not resist....


😁😊


@maghister I’m not reading anything of that because it’s all ridiculous poop unless you eventually come to the same conclusion as mr. “Einstein” @danager. Speakers are the least important link in the chain. Your speakers don’t matter. 
BRB need to listen to these new cables. New speakers come in tomorrow, Logitech 5.1 THX certified setup, hopefully they complement my wires well or I’m going straight back to mr. Quest (audio, that is) to ask for a refund! 
maghister I’m not reading anything of that because it’s all ridiculous poop unless you eventually come to the same conclusion as mr. “Einstein” @danager.


I will not comment...

Save to say that someone who claim cables beat not only speakers design but especially acoustic science, if not ignorant, sells cable with the wrong marketing ploy....

Your 40 years of "selling" your cables dont beat acoustic, psycho-acoustic and all speakers designers experience in the world...

Your claim is the most ridiculous one i ever encounter here...

Huge boner indeed... i apologize but i could not resist after my "pooping".....
😁😊😊😊

Enjoy your cables....

Your 40 years of "selling" your cables dont beat acoustic, psycho-acoustic and all speakers designers experience in the world...

I think he is claiming that his 40 years is in-line with the psycho-acoustic part. Which makes sense if he was selling cable to people and using psychological methods.

Speaker designers are different than the cable people.