Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Go back to my original post....

I said:

There's no correlation yet between any measurements on cables and the reported subjective character of those cables.

There are only two possible reasons (that I can think of):

1) The subjective reports are wrong (i.e. sonic differences don't really exist as described), or

2) We're measuring the wrong things.

AFAIK, there is no current way to differentiate between them. Any cable analysis work that doesn't attempt to address this question is a waste of time.

I think we're in agreement about the need to measure RLC parameters, and establish best practices targets to ensure likely compatibility between equipment. What I'm referring to is the extrapolation to the conclusion that better conformance to some RLC ideal directly confers an improved MUSICAL experience. You just can't get there from here!

You used an example of documenting a process that didn't give the desired result as being a starting point for process improvement. Can't argue with that, BUT IMO it is not a good analogy because (in the case of audio cables) we can't even tell what constitutes a good result. A starting point is of little value if you don't know where you're going.

Establishing a quality ranking for a cable based on RLC measurements is useless beyond gross characterization.

Let's take an example: Is lower capacitance always better? Since we cannot even agree on how to describe or measure "better", in terms of a cable's ultimate application, I defy anyone to establish a meaningful quality rating using capacitance.

BUT, there is one way in which you make this work: you create an artifical frame of reference that IS measurable and assign a quality rating based on performance within that frame of reference. If the frame of reference is, say, " flatter frequency response measured at the cable load end when terminated with a 10k ohm non-inductive resistor is better", then you could unambiguously define lower capacitance to be better.

HOWEVER (and this is what I was trying to point out in the first place) that frame of reference is artificial; it's an analogue of reality rather than reality itself. The conclusion that (e.g.) "lower capacitance causes less fr/signal degradation, therefore it is better" is still based on indirection and assumption.

When you can establish a measurement methodology that can predict which of two DUTs will yield a better subjective result THEN you can assign quality ratings. Gene et al are arriving at value or quality conclusions based on unsupportable assumptions about what makes a better cable. Given that, it seems pointless to argue about what the results mean.

BTW, you said:

"The lack of established correlation between those measurements and audibility does not mean the measurements cannot be used to ultimately define the cable and it's merit within the application...

Think about what you said! We can make a value judgement about applicability with measurements that don't even measure the ultimate application? Huh?

How about an automobile rating system based on the tensile strength of the seating material? It's easily measurable and clearly relevant to performance of the product.

Peter

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]