Do audiophile cables make a difference?

Unraveling the Mysteries of Audio Mogami's research 
2. Full extract from research  
Are audio cables mere conduits for sound, or do they wield an unseen influence over our listening experiences? This question has long intrigued audiophiles and industry experts alike. Today, we delve into the fascinating world of audio cables, guided by insights from a seminal paper by Mogami.
In their exploration of cable design and sound quality, Mogami reveals a captivating narrative that challenges conventional wisdom. Part numbers 2803 and 2804, despite their complexity and low yield rate, have remained in production for years due to their exceptional performance. But why are these cables so special?
The story begins in the early 1970s when Mr. Akihiko Kaneda of Akita University and audio critic Mr. Sabro Egawa sparked a paradigm shift. Their groundbreaking research suggested that audio cables could indeed impact sound quality, igniting a wave of curiosity and skepticism within the industry.
Initially met with skepticism, Mogami embarked on a journey of engineering calculations and experiments to uncover the truth. What they discovered defied expectations – cable design, specifically the phenomenon of skin effect, wielded a profound influence on sound reproduction.
Through meticulous testing and analysis, Mogami confirmed that subtle variations in cable design could produce audible differences in sound quality. This revelation challenged the prevailing notion that audio cables were mere conduits, devoid of sonic character.
The culmination of their research? The 2803 interconnect and 2804 speaker cable – products hailed for their exceptional sound quality and meticulous craftsmanship. But what sets these cables apart?
Here's where Mogami's approach stands out: they not only conducted extensive listening tests to evaluate the sonic characteristics of their cables but also delved into the intricacies of human perception. Mogami recognized that while our brains perceive sound in a multidimensional space, traditional test equipment operates in a linear fashion, capturing only a fraction of the sonic experience.
This discrepancy between perception and measurement underscored the complexity of sound reproduction, highlighting the limitations of conventional testing methodologies. By acknowledging this disparity, Mogami paved the way for a more nuanced understanding of audio cables and their impact on our listening experiences.
Despite the challenges posed by their production, Mogami remains steadfast in their commitment to offering these high-performance cables to discerning listeners.
2. Full extract from paper: 
"Part No. 2803 and 2804 are difficult to manufacture and have a very low yield rate. So we can make
relatively small amounts of them. These present the paradox that if they became very popular it would
take too many factory resources which could be used more profitably in making other products. Frankly
most companies would discontinue them as too much trouble for the revenue they generate.
How they came about and why we have continued production for so many years is an interesting story.
The reader must remember that for many years it was assumed that audio cable did not affect the sound
of audio systems. This is taken for granted by most people today.
Then, back in April 1974 Mr. Akihiko Kaneda of Akita University presented in the technical magazine for
amateur "MUSEN TO JIKKEN" (Wireless & Experimentation) that the sound quality of an amplifier could
be changed even by wire or cable. Further, sonic effect was assumed to be caused by skin effect, and
also made worse by the common tin plate over copper structure.
At the same time, audio critic Mr. Sabro Egawa presented his experimental results in a music magazine
"Record Geijyutsu" (Record Art) in its December, 1975 issue that the sound quality is different between
speaker cables, and he pointed out the possibility of its relation to skin effect as well.
These two statements that I called "Kaneda-Egawa prospect" were in error in the following points:
 It is against common sense of electro-acoustical engineering (we knew electrical characteristic
of a cable cannot change sound and skin effect at audio frequencies is extremely low,
un-measurable in level.) Since it referred to the electrical property which caused difference
 in sound definitely as skin effect, it could become a verification and argument subject with
 non-ambiguous electrical engineering.
I started engineering calculation and experimentation, assuming at the beginning I could easily prove
that skin effect could never affect sound quality. However, before long I was forced to realize that it was
not so easy. In fact, I had to recognize the fact that sound is changed by cable, as a result of the very
experiments by the discoverers in front of me, so that I was compelled to research it seriously.
Skin effect is a part of eddy current nature, and although it is not possible to measure it at audio
frequency range, it can be calculated electromagnetically and the calculated result can be verified by
several methods. Therefore I did listening tests myself and asked many people for double blind tests,
making many cable models that had different eddy current loss. These listening tests made me sure that
skin effect has a rather large role in the sound differences.
Given this result, the next question became if we human-beings could detect such minute differences
that they could not be measured by electrical measurement. On the other hand, we can identify the
same sound source even though it is quite different in electrical characteristics. Therefore, it became
understood that our brain percepts sound by a different mechanism from electrical measurement.
What became apparent after many experiments was that "Frequency Derivative of the transfer function"
(system function - magnitude and phase response) of an audio system was deeply related to this issue.
If so, humans are very sensitive to the difference between close frequencies and not good at
comparison between greatly separated frequencies. These are quite different characteristics from
electrical measurement.
The reason for this difference seems to relate to the fact that the transmission system from ear to brain is
two-dimensional, and operation is done at orthotomic surface; further, total brain operation is processed
three-dimensionally. However, an electrical measuring system is a one-dimensional operation, so that it
becomes hard to make frequency derivative operation of the transfer characteristic. (In an optical
computing system using lens and mirror with laser light, this kind of operation can be easily realized).
Back to blog

Leave a comment