A physicist explains why we need cable lifters...

[Galliardist]

Thank you for you excellent explanation on this matter having a very revealing system and always thought raising the cable of the floor made sense electronically to me i appreciate you taking the time to explain it,to bad for the ignorance described in some responses to your teaching,I found it very useful

Welcome to ASR.

The “ignorance” you see here, isn’t.

If you spend more time here, you will find that various beliefs - because that is what they are - get mocked here.

Cable lifters are one such belief.

No matter what the qualifications or reputation of the person making the claim that they work, however many long words they chain together, nobody has ever actually demonstrated any real evidence that they change the sound coming from the loudspeakers and that we can hear that difference.

All we have from the expert in this video is an untested hypothesis. When he proves it, properly, we’ll take notice.

Hawever as a newcomer here, you base your own ideas on what you call common sense. So let me raise a common sense point of my own.

If cables on the floor are so bad that we need to lift them for audio to work, why is it totally fine for cables to be not just on the floor, but ducted between floors of buildings, and even run for huge distances under land and sea, and they still work as expected? Why is there no market for cable lifters for sensitive medical and scientific equipment?

Even audio cables. Analogue auduo snd video signals, and most of the analogue telephone network we used for decades, all were run on underground cables and they worked.

If most of the “breakthrough” explanations for cable lifters were true, the international phone system of the 1950s wouldn’t have worked.

Yes, you will find a lot of mockery here, and it may take you some time to get past that. One function of this place is that it attracts people who spent years, and massive amounts of money, chasing poor beliefs before finding out that so much in audio, like the “common sense” of cable lifters, is in the same place - no real evidence.

But if you persist here, you will find some truths.

 

[Keith_W]

I have previously suggested using the Large Hadron Collider as the world's most expensive audio cable. You will see that they use ... cable lifters!

Take that, objectivists!!!

 

[charleski]

I have previously suggested using the Large Hadron Collider as the world's most expensive audio cable.

The LHC is, of course, transporting charged particles, thus meets the definition of a cable. But electricity in ordinary cables is only travelling at 90% of light-speed, whereas the LHC boosts protons up to 99.9999991% of c. This would obviously be the perfect upgrade for those looking for a truly 'fast' sound. I'm shocked that current cable-makers haven't latched onto this yet!

 

[Killingbeans]

Thank you for you excellent explanation on this matter having a very revealing system and always thought raising the cable of the floor made sense electronically to me i appreciate you taking the time to explain it,to bad for the ignorance described in some responses to your teaching,I found it very useful

 

[xaviescacs]

The LHC is, of course, transporting charged particles, thus meets the definition of a cable. But electricity in ordinary cables is only travelling at 90% of light-speed, whereas the LHC boosts protons up to 99.9999991% of c. This would obviously be the perfect upgrade for those looking for a truly 'fast' sound. I'm shocked that current cable-makers haven't latched onto this yet!

I'm not sure one can say it's a cable because particles travel through a void to avoid "friction" through collisions with the medium and magnetic fields are used to bend their trajectories and stay on track. AFAIK, It uses superconductors cooled with liquid helium to avoid spending too much electricity to bend those charged particles trajectories. So it would be a kind of "active cable", the new generation of HiFi cables.

Edit: I speak from memory, I'm sure there is a ton of detailed videos on youtube.

 

[Sokel]

Why lifters? Wouldn't a mattress work equally well?

Why mattress?
True ultra hi-end stuff can use paid-slaves instead,you can even steer them for real time comparison

 

[fpitas]

The part about it making sense electronically was kind of funny.

 

[ahofer]

I have previously suggested using the Large Hadron Collider as the world's most expensive audio cable. You will see that they use ... cable lifters!

Take that, objectivists!!!

But how does it SOUND?

 

[wwenze]

But how does it SOUND?

Black-hole black

 

[TonyJZX]

what would happen if i buy those long planter troughs you put flowers in and use them to hold my speakers cables and immerse them in water?

of course i would keep the banana terminals on both ends dry, i'm not stupid?

surely water immersed cables is a thing? i'm not saying a good thing, but a THING?

 

[fpitas]

what would happen if i buy those long planter troughs you put flowers in and use them to hold my speakers cables and immerse them in water?

of course i would keep the banana terminals on both ends dry, i'm not stupid?

surely water immersed cables is a thing? i'm not saying a good thing, but a THING?

It has to make the music more fluid.

 

[Thomas_A]

Cable lifters, if high enough and secure, will restrain the connection to the gear and save them from breaking using these heavy monster cables. So there, I found one benefit.

I myself try finding the lightest cables possible to save gear connectors.

 

[Killingbeans]

Black-hole black

 

[Philipp]

I‘d be embarrassed if I was the Professor(s) who taught him Physics.

There is nothing to be embarrassed about, in fact it is vice versa, the professor who taught him should be embarressed of himself, not working in the avant-garde cable industrie like all real physicists do! It is the new rocket-science, just more fame and more money in it!

 

[mhardy6647]

Consider Linus Pauling’s odd advocacy of mega vitamin therapy.

Linus Pauling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yup. Good point.
There is such a thing as apostasy amongst scientists, too.

That said... even "in his wheelhouse", Pauling was (edit: perhaps) a bit short-sighted narrow-minded. He suffered from the "helix-mania" of the early 1950s (and, of course, not without reason), going to the (in retrospect) laughable extreme of proposing a triple-helical structure for DNA that, among other things, did not account for the known acidic nature of the, ahem, nucleic acids.

“A Proposed Structure for the Nucleic Acids” (1953) by Linus Pauling and Robert Brainard Corey | Embryo Project Encyclopedia

In February 1953, Linus Pauling and Robert Brainard Corey, two scientists working at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, proposed a structure for deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, in their article “A Proposed Structure for the Nucleic Acids,” henceforth “Nucleic Acids.”...

embryo.asu.edu

The Search for the Molecular Helix

profiles.nlm.nih.gov

Pauling and Corey (1953) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (US) 39:84-97.
note the year of publication, too!

When I "teach" my glycobiology students the rudiments of protein structure, I also like to point out that the (arguably) seminal paper describing the protein alpha helix had not two authors, but three. Everyone knows Pauling and Corey, but I am not sure (at least, from my own education in the '70s) that "everyone" is aware of the work of H. R. Branson, an African-American scientist who had a sterling career -- almost astonishingly so given the era in which he "came of age".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Branson

but... we remember crazy Linus

 

[krabapple]

Consider Linus Pauling’s odd advocacy of mega vitamin therapy.

Linus Pauling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Aka "going Emeritus"

(cf Jack Vance)

 

[Spkrdctr]

Yup. Good point.
There is such a thing as apostasy amongst scientists, too.

That said... even "in his wheelhouse", Pauling was (edit: perhaps) a bit short-sighted narrow-minded. He suffered from the "helix-mania" of the early 1950s (and, of course, not without reason), going to the (in retrospect) laughable extreme of proposing a triple-helical structure for DNA that, among other things, did not account for the known acidic nature of the, ahem, nucleic acids.

“A Proposed Structure for the Nucleic Acids” (1953) by Linus Pauling and Robert Brainard Corey | Embryo Project Encyclopedia

In February 1953, Linus Pauling and Robert Brainard Corey, two scientists working at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, proposed a structure for deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, in their article “A Proposed Structure for the Nucleic Acids,” henceforth “Nucleic Acids.”...

embryo.asu.edu

The Search for the Molecular Helix

profiles.nlm.nih.gov

Pauling and Corey (1953) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (US) 39:84-97.
note the year of publication, too!

View attachment 295367

When I "teach" my glycobiology students the rudiments of protein structure, I also like to point out that the (arguably) seminal paper describing the protein alpha helix had not two authors, but three. Everyone knows Pauling and Corey, but I am not sure (at least, from my own education in the '70s) that "everyone" is aware of the work of H. R. Branson, an African-American scientist who had a sterling career -- almost astonishingly so given the era in which he "came of age".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Branson

but... we remember crazy Linus

My cat looked at that picture of that you inserted into your post. He then looked at me for help. His questions were Can I eat it?, Can I play with it? and finally, Can I sleep on it? When I told him no, he could not do any of that with it. He looked at me like all cats do and said, What good is it? Oh and I'm going to go take a nap too. So, in the cat world science doesn't account for much. I think cats are all sneaky subjectivists!

 

[egellings]

The boutique cable companies are specialists in indoctrination. They spend a lot of time making YouTube videos, making and placing "upscale" ads etc etc. Obviously they take the whole process very seriously. Piles of cash will do that.

It's easy to make a lot of money on cable products because cables, lifters and other related paraphernalia are relatively easy to make, and materials aren't expensive compared to what can be charged for them. And of course, BS is cheap, and there is a lot of it about.

 

[fpitas]

It's easy to make a lot of money on cable products because cables, lifters and other related paraphernalia are relatively easy to make, and materials aren't expensive compared to what can be charged for them. And of course, BS is cheap, and there is a lot of it about.

And obviously, marketing can be done using YouTube.

 

[krabapple]

Yup. Good point.
There is such a thing as apostasy amongst scientists, too.

That said... even "in his wheelhouse", Pauling was (edit: perhaps) a bit short-sighted narrow-minded. He suffered from the "helix-mania" of the early 1950s (and, of course, not without reason), going to the (in retrospect) laughable extreme of proposing a triple-helical structure for DNA that, among other things, did not account for the known acidic nature of the, ahem, nucleic acids.

“A Proposed Structure for the Nucleic Acids” (1953) by Linus Pauling and Robert Brainard Corey | Embryo Project Encyclopedia

In February 1953, Linus Pauling and Robert Brainard Corey, two scientists working at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, proposed a structure for deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, in their article “A Proposed Structure for the Nucleic Acids,” henceforth “Nucleic Acids.”...

embryo.asu.edu

The Search for the Molecular Helix

profiles.nlm.nih.gov

Pauling and Corey (1953) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (US) 39:84-97.
note the year of publication, too!

View attachment 295367

I wouldn't dun old Linus P too much for that. Watson and Crick also considered a triple helical structure (and decided , nope)

And triple helical DNA does exist, just not in Corey and Pauling's form.