Lindsay-Geyer Highly Magnetic Cables Page 2

How can this be accomplished? The skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of the product of electrical conductivity, relative magnetic permeability, and frequency. The relative magnetic permeability, or mu for short, is defined as 1 for air, copper, or any other nonmagnetic material. Thus, the way to reduce the skin depth at a given frequency involves increasing the product of permeability times conductivity. Even if mu remains at 1, one way to turn the trick is by greatly increasing the conductivity—which, practically speaking, means developing a room-temperature superconducting wire. For a superconductor, the signal will always propagate outside the surface of the conductor. A practical means of achieving this involves the use of highly magnetic materials.

Ordinary magnetic materials are well-known. These include iron, steel, magnetic stainless steel, nickel, and cobalt. As a class, these feature relatively low mu in the range from 100 to 1000. Specialty magnetic materials have been developed specifically for their magnetic properties and provide mus in the range from 10,000 to 100,000. Examples include grain-oriented nickel, chemically pure iron, and alloys of iron and nickel containing other trace elements going under such trade names as: Mu-metal, Molly-Permalloy, Supermendur, Permunder, and Hy-Mu 80.

L-G cable uses something similar to Mu-metal. The electrical conductivity of Mu-metal is much lower than that of copper, but this is more than compensated for by its extremely high mu in the equation for skin depth. Let's look at an example. Suppose the conductivity of Mu-metal is 1/20 of copper and that its mu equals 50,000. The product of these two is 2500, and because the skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of this product at a given frequency, the skin depth is actually reduced by a factor of 50. Therefore, a 1mm diameter wire of Mu-metal would behave (in terms of phase dispersion) like a 50mm, or almost 2"-diameter, copper wire!

The high-magnetic permeability material must be selected carefully. It is highly desirable for the material to have low-hysteresis losses and not to retain a magnetic field. Materials such as Mu-metal, developed for use as magnetic shields, have these characteristics. On the other hand, magnetic steel would not be a wise choice and would sound bad as an audio conductor (footnote 2). Many people have also formed a low opinion of magnetic materials on the basis of bad experiences with magnetic chassis. Unquestionably, a magnetic or magnetizable chassis does adversely affect sound quality in amps and preamps (footnote 3).

Physical details
A total of four individually insulated, 40-mil strands of "Mu-metal" are used in the L-G Model 4-40 interconnect. One strand is used for the "hot" leg and three for ground. For a 20' run of interconnect between the preamp and amp, I measured a 4.6 ohm DC resistance for the hot and 1.5 ohms for the ground. Speaker cable is also available (Model 10-35), which uses 10 individually insulated 35-mil strands in a symmetrical geometry with 5 strands for hot and 5 for ground.

Because the audio signal propagates outside the conductor, by necessity it must propagate through the cable insulation. Therefore, the choice of insulation material is important. L-G has opted to use materials that do not polarize. Materials such as fabrics, which have a relative dielectric constant of 1.0, would be ideal. L-G uses cotton and silk for insulation. They claim that all plastics, including polypropylene, sound bad because their large molecules take too long to polarize under the action of electric fields varying at audio frequencies. Cotton is used to individually insulate each strand, and the outer jacket is made of silk. Neither is L-G happy with standard methods of shielding cable; they've opted for a tightly twisted geometry in which the hot strand is surrounded by the three ground strands. Because the ground strands are electrical conductors and highly magnetic, they act as both electric and magnetic shields. L-G claims that this configuration is just as isolated from electric fields as standard shielded cables, and much more isolated from magnetic fields. However, I discovered that the cable is sensitive to radiated hum, at least in long runs between the preamp and amp. I found it important to route the cable away from AC lines and transformers.

Each strand is individually insulated to eliminate non-linear contact resistance between strands, as you might expect to find in a multi-strand construction where strands touch loosely. Because the "Mu-metal" does not tarnish or oxidize, the longevity of the cable should be excellent, much better than typical copper cables. Copper oxidizes fairly quickly, which further exacerbates the performance of bare multi-strand designs because the oxide layers act as non-linear conductors.

The RCA plugs provided on my interconnect samples were far from visually impressive, looking every bit like cheap plastic and nickel-plate. But that apparently is by design. According to L-G, gold-plating is always dirty: first, because the layers of material under the gold (usually gold over nickel over brass) cause junction problems and partial reflections of the signal sinking into these layers; second (supposedly first noticed at Bell Labs during the Second World War), gold surfaces catalyze the growth of polymer chains, causing poor contacts that act a bit like diodes. A word to the wise: Be sure to clean gold surfaces on your RCA plugs and jacks frequently. L-G also feels that lots of metal in the plug body is detrimental to good sound. Consequently, they use plugs with a minimum of metal (ie, lots of plastic).

It's important to emphasize that my samples were pre-production, but I'm told that the only aspect of the cable that will change during production is the RCA plug. I was not very happy with the plugs I received. This was apparently the second type of plug to be tried, and one that was supposedly sonically superior to an earlier plug with a more metallic body. My problems had to do with reliability. I found it easy to break the solder joints at the connector, either by an inadvertent tug on the cable or by bending the cable near the connector. L-G has ordered sturdier connectors that will presumably be more reliable without affecting the sound.

Another peculiarity of this cable is its susceptibility to "ground loop" hum, at least in long runs between the preamp and amp. At first, this hum proved to be most puzzling, a gremlin if you will, because it seemed to appear and disappear unpredictably. There it was during one listening session, and nothing I could do short of switching back to the Cardas HexLink would get rid of it. Another time, there would be no hum. With a little bit of luck, I ultimately traced this anomaly to a dimmer-switch–operated floor-lamp plugged into the same AC circuit. During the day, the lamp was naturally off and the hum was gone. In the evenings, the lamp was on and with it the hum. This was not a case of radiated hum, so I'm postulating some sort of ground-loop problem as the culprit, possibly a consequence of the relatively large resistance of the cable ground. Of course, that spelled the end of the line for the floor-lamp, but I didn't really mind; candlelight listening is such an inspiring experience.

A final word of caution. The Model 4-40 interconnect is stiff, and consequently has a mind of its own. It is difficult to tuck neatly out of the way. I mention this because I presently share the listening room with Thomas J. Norton, whose aesthetic sense was offended by this cable. Tom and I are really an "Odd Couple" in this respect: he's Felix and I'm Oscar. I enjoy a controlled mess (eg, cables everywhere)—now that Tom's sorted and neatly tied down all the cables, I have a tough time finding things. A cable that asserts itself and does not blend into the carpet is a cable after my own heart.

But you do need to be careful when untying the L-G from the coiled mass it arrives as, inside its own plastic bag. It's just like a Slinky in this regard, and unravels with the lightening-fast strike of a cobra. It could easily bonk you in the face or, worse, zap you in the eye. Exercise caution; if you're a real chicken, you might even consider wearing safety goggles.

I first heard of the Lindsay-Geyer cable through a phone call from Irv Sherman, a Las Vegas audiophile. In his words, this interconnect was smoother in the treble, with fewer HF "glitches," than anything he'd ever tried. The few facts he was able to relay concerning the cable's composition not only had me dubious as to the viability of the concept, but at the same time piqued my curiosity. Subsequent discussions with David Lindsay alleviated much of my anxiety. Here was a man with substantial educational credentials who was able to eloquently explain the rationale behind the design. So it appeared that there was indeed a method to his "madness." However, all would have been for naught had the cable failed to perform as advertised.

The amazing thing about the L-G is just how convincingly it devastated the competition. It consistently displayed the ability to resolve spatial nuances at a level of precision I had not experienced before. Many cables are capable of preserving soundstage dimensions and of providing a realistic illusion of the depth and width of the original recording space. A few cables can even adequately delineate and focus instrumental outlines within the soundstage. But only the L-G was able to squeeze image outlines into the confines of a realistic parcel of space to a degree I had previously only associated with live music. And it was able to do this across the entire spectrum of instrumental size, from voice and violin to cello and piano. Take a piano, for example. What makes for a convincing illusion of a piano is not only timbral accuracy and proper dynamics, but also the image size projected by the system. Hearing a piano live, one cannot help but be impressed by the sheer size it projects. But no matter how big the wave launch, the piano's fundamental underpinnings, together with its harmonic overtones, can be clearly localized within the same unambiguous space. This rarely happens with reproduced music. The treble, midrange, and bass all too often fail to integrate.

A good example of this is Bruch's Kol Nidrei (from Collected Works for Cello and Orchestra, ebs 6060). With AudioQuest Lapis, Cardas, and Kimber interconnects in my system, the cello was right there during its lower registers; then, as more and more overtones crept into the music, the upper mids and treble would meander away from the cello's center of gravity. The end result was that the image became smeared across more real estate during certain passages. The effect is akin to an expanding balloon being pumped up, then deflated in concert with the harmonic content of the music. To a certain extent this is a natural effect, often referred to as "dynamic bloom." However, when the cello expands to width and height that threaten to engulf the soundstage, the effect looses its credibility. Like the science-fictional eggplant that ate Chicago: eggplants can get pretty big—but there are limits. It was indeed spectacular to have a cello engulf the soundstage, and I'm sure there are audiophiles out there who would enjoy this sort of effect, but for me it is a question of accuracy.

The upper registers were in general cleaner and smoother-sounding with the L-G in the system, compared with my previous reference interconnects. Background levels of treble grit, grain, edginess, sibilant sizzle, and transient smear all lapsed into inaudibility. Low-level upper-register detail was now much easier to resolve against a background of velvety smoothness.

Soundstage transparency increased as well. It was easier to see deeper into the soundstage and resolve layers of detail that were previously clouded over. For example, Lesley's vibrato (The Lesley Test: track 13, Stereophile Test CD) was clearly resolved to an extent I normally associate only with live music. Massed voices were naturally layered and spatially defined to the point where the depth perspective became much more palpable. It became easier to pinpoint individuals in a chorus, while their outlines remained rock-stable over the entire tonal range.

Every link in my system benefited from the introduction of L-G interconnect. I tried it between the turntable and preamp, preamp and amp, CD processor and preamp, and even as the digital link between a CD player and processor. In all cases, treble smoothness, image cohesiveness, and soundstage transparency improved. As each link was upgraded, I got another glimpse of heaven. When my system was completely wired with the stuff, it was time to celebrate: the musical experience had become that much more intense.

I even found a home for the L-G speaker cable. Clearly the realm of high currents is not entirely amenable to a highly-magnetic wire design. Even a 6' run of the Model 10-35 between the Classé DR-8s and the Apogee Stage was not entirely satisfactory. With the impedance rating of the Stage at around 3 ohms, this represented a worst-case scenario. The quality of the upper octaves greatly improved when I made the switch from SYMO cable, but the bass suffered. The impact and tightness of the deep- and midbass registers diminished. There was also a reduction of upper-midrange liveliness which the Stage could ill afford. However, paralleled with the SYMO, I was able to retain the best of both worlds: the treble purity of the L-G together with the bass drive and midrange clarity of the SYMO.

The Lindsay-Geyer interconnect is physically stiff and hard to diaper, but in the context of a high-end system I feel it pushes the art of music reproduction a mile forward. It will require careful routing to avoid radiated hum, and may still be susceptible to ground-loop hum in long runs. L-G offers an intensely musical experience, however, founded on three cornerstones: treble purity, harmonic integrity, and image cohesiveness.

Over a period of several months the L-G proceeded to trounce every cable I could throw at it, including my established references. It is the most musically convincing and accurate interconnect that I've heard to date. It is not cheap, but is much less costly than some, and as the best interconnect money can buy it has to be viewed as a bargain to boot—at least at the current asking prices.

It bears emphasizing that my samples represent pre-production prototypes. Full-scale production should commence in early 1991. I have been told that, except for the connectors, the cable will not change. Still, I would prefer to verify this, perhaps in a future "Follow-up."

After living with the L-G for a length of time, I discovered that nothing else would do. As always, it is difficult to fall back onto second bests. Here is an interconnect that, in a flash, sweeps clean a host of established cables. Everything that is not highly magnetic by design can be seen in retrospect as being either fuzzy or grainy. Long live the new king!—Dick Olsher

Footnote 2: I carried out some listening tests some years ago comparing resistors with steel leads against supposedly identical resistors using copper leads. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of the resistors with copper leads.—John Atkinson

Footnote 3: Engineers at the Japanese Kenwood company showed 10 years ago that the presence of a magnetic chassis in close proximity to a signal-carrying conductor induced distortion into that signal due to the non-linear magnetization of the chassis.—John Atkinson

Company no longer in existence (2018)

Ali's picture

Thanks for such an informative review. But is this cable brand still iin business since you mentioned the company is no longer in existance. Are they availabel for purchasing?

geoffkait's picture

Couple things. One is that High Fidelity Cables also employ mu metal as conductor. As well as magnets in design of their cables. Two, drift velocity of electrons in a conductor is extremely slow, about a foot per hour, whereas the audio signal travels at a high percentage of the speed of light in a copper conductor due to the fact that the audio signal is comprised of photons. Photons are the only particles/waves capable of lightspeed in a vacuum, in fact they must travel at lightspeed as their speed is a constant. In a medium they travel at some large fraction of the speed of light. All electromagnetic waves are comprised of photons, everything from X-rays to radio waves to the audio signal.

T.S. Gnu's picture

Dear Sir,

While it is a fitting addition to your narrative, your comment that.


But it was later discovered that Eddington's results were fortuitous.

is incorrect.

This trope has been dealt with and put to rest as far back as 2007 with the final analysis showing that Eddington did not allow any personal bias to influence his results. This has been published in one of the more prestigious peer-reviewed journals — Nature; there has been no refutation since. It is now the accepted version of history and, is indeed taught as such in physics.

While the trend to occasionally ignore scientific information is disturbing but is, however, par for the course, it is not befitting a publication such as this to promote information that is wrong. It would be much appreciated by the general readership if this error were corrected.

T.S. Gnu

misterc59's picture

It appears to me that the author says "The experimental errors associated with his photographic plates were such that he could just as easily have obtained a negative result". At no time do I read that "personal bias" was the part of the message. I would interpret this as the experimental method used at that time was not as accurate as we may be able to do in this day and age. However, perhaps my interpretation of the author's writing/intent is incorrect, but I believe the words speak for themselves, bias intent is not mentioned.


T.S. Gnu's picture

You may perhaps read the article again if "at no time" you read what was pointed out in my post. In particular, you may find it useful to refer to:


The observer structures and interprets the data in accordance with his cognitive or theoretical framework. A scientist's preconceived notions, or theoretical view he is out to prove, will provide cues as to which data are essential or on how to pattern the data in order to support the theory.

A comment that the editor has, interestingly, now added a footnote to in an attempt to subtly establish grounds for argument from authority. I have, however, provided a peer reviewed reference rather than add my own substantial bonafides and degrees in physics.

Whilst I respect and admire the authors contributions to audio reporting, vague references to being "a physicist at Los Alamos" without more detailed background detract more than they add. My own work at present in JPL should not give me any more, or less, credibility. You may also have overlooked the line immediately following.


Thus, the data are imprinted with an unconscious subjective bias.

If "personal bias" were not part of the message, then the message ought not to be presaged by the aforementioned buildup. Also, while the author writes


The experimental errors associated with his photographic plates were such that he could just as easily have obtained a negative result.

And states that the results were "fortuitous," at no point is there mention of the fact the arrival at the (correct) conclusion was anything but fortuitous, although there is an implication to the contrary.

There is also a logical fallacy in the comment


The simplistic reduction of such an attitude leads to the following dictum: If it exists, it can be measured. The corollary of which is that if something cannot be measured, it does not exist

The corollary is a simplistic, and incorrect, reduction. The correct view is that if something cannot be measured, it is what Rumsfeld referred to as either a known unknown or an unknown unknown. Trotting out these convenient tropes to denigrate established scientific process is at best misguided, and at worst misleading, diminishing what we have accomplished as a species. This is the disturbing point that I addressed in my original post.

With respect to the questions


But how can you know a priori all of the factors which impact sonic performance? And at what level do these factors make an audible difference?

We don't. Possibly lower than (or in a different arena to) what we measure. I agree with the author on the existence of the gaps. I do not think that an agendum undermining Eddington's work (and scientific approaches in general) is necessary to make the point. I would say that this approach, in the authors words.lacks imagination" and lowers the tone of discussion.

Since English is not my first language, the effort to write a short post instead of a long one is a bit higher than the effort it would take a reader to peruse the long post. I would like to express my gratitude, in advance, for the readers indulgence to that effect.

T.S. Gnu

John Atkinson's picture
T.S. Gnu wrote:
A comment that the editor has, interestingly, now added a footnote to in an attempt to subtly establish grounds for argument from authority.

"Now"? This footnote was published as part of the original 1991 review and has always been included in this website reprint.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

PAR's picture

" This trope has been dealt with and put to rest as far back as 2007" etc.

You do appreciate that this article is dated February 1991 ? I doubt that Dick Olsher had the ability to foresee the orthodox opinion of 16 years in the future.

T.S. Gnu's picture

I trust you do appreciate that the column was posted in this space on the web in 2018 without correction or comment from the editor. While Olsher didn't have the luxury of foresight, Atkinson does have the luxury of hindsight. A magazine website and editor do have the obligation of presenting facts as they are at the time of online publication if they devote space to an article published online at the time of online, you would agree? Else it is merely propagating falsehoods.

With respect to your comment title, it's not the problem with time, but the problem with the space devoted to propagating an (in retrospect) incorrect, or perhaps ill-represented, view. I hope you understand that this may be viewed as a particularly vexing problem especially when considering the image heading the article

T.S. Gnu

dalethorn's picture

In many cases it's best to read history without attaching commentary, unless there is a clear danger of accepting facts that have been proven false in the years since. I don't see such a danger here, because the article lays out the areas of investigation clearly, and the date is prominently noted at the top.

T.S. Gnu's picture

Ah yes the old, "I don't see a danger, therefore there is no danger" premise. Makes it a bit easy to be caught out by the existence of known and unknown unknowns there. Thanks for the insight and example, though.

dalethorn's picture

The actual danger is in propagating falsehoods, as you said. But who is propagating those falsehoods? I suggest it's persons who we don't know who they are.

T.S. Gnu's picture

As mentioned, your support for Messrs Dunning and Kruger is well received.

ThomasK's picture

This was all very interesting until I hit this:

'We all know that EM signals propagate at the speed of light—but that's true only in a vacuum. In copper at 1kHz, the signal speed is a relatively pedestrian 13 meters per second."

Do you really believe that signals propagate through a copper wire at ~29 miles per hour?

John Atkinson's picture
ThomasK wrote:
Do you really believe that signals propagate through a copper wire at ~29 miles per hour?

Please remember that the audio signal actually travels in the dielectric surrounding the conductor, penetrating the conductor in a frequency-dependent manner. See

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

spacehound's picture

You seem to be confused regarding signals, electromagnetic fields, maybe electron drift, and dialectrics.

A "signal", audio or not, will travel along a copper conductor at about 60% of the speed of light 'in vacuo', due to copper having a higher density than a vacuum, which of course doesn't have a density. Say 100,000 miles per second, NOT 29 miles per hour.

You don't agree? Think about this. The signal will still travel along the copper wire at that speed even if there is no dialectric at all, such as a bare copper wire in space.
Thus your "the signal actually travels in the dialectric" is wrong - what happens in the dialectric (if any, as above) is merely a side effect of the signal travelling in the copper conductor.

T.S. Gnu's picture

Unsurprisingly, your question has not been given a direct yes or no answer. Possible reasons would include an inability to differentiate between propagation velocity, Fermi velocity, and drift velocity amongst a myriad others. Confusion leads to some interesting conclusions, some of which best ought not to leap to without the aid of a parachute.

The number quoted is correct for A velocity; just not signal velocity, because that, as Pauli once said is not...even...wrong.

ThomasK's picture

Thank you for the reference, John.

About a third of the way down the second page, the author gives an expression for propagation velocity. Unfortunately, the expression given is for “phase velocity” which is a different quantity altogether. True propagation velocity or group velocity has no frequency dependency. The frequency dependent effect you mention is that of attenuation.

Joe8423's picture

if the signal hadn't already passed through 100 meters of typical cables before it got to its final place on the recording. We need a term to quantify cable distortion that is likely on the recording itself. How about Belden Meters. If the average recording has 100 BMs worth of distortion, can we really expect to hear an appreciable difference if we decrease the interconnect distortion from 1 BM to 0.15 BMs? I'm skeptical.

T.S. Gnu's picture

One wonders whether MQA might help with this blurring

dalethorn's picture

If we accept a recording as a done deal, to possibly be superceded by a remaster years hence, then the question becomes "Does my cable make a difference, and is the difference positive on most of my recordings?" Or I could phrase it as "Is there a cable that sounds neutral on the vast majority of my recordings?" The problem with changing any component is being certain of a neutral or positive effect, which is not just a boosted treble or agreeable distortion that "sounds better". If I were putting together a new system or adding new speakers, I wouldn't bet the farm on a cable choice made within the first few days.

doktorb's picture

This article dead on! Have gone through many cables over 20+ years, and always go back to the L-G. Modified the connectors with copper Eichmann Bullet RCA plugs (plastic connector housings)). Yes, ground loop needs to be managed at times. When accomplished, they are simply the best. Have compared them to Nordost, Analysis Plus, Shindo, and many others. Nothing comes close. Mine are .5 meter long. Not always good as they are ultra revealing. Ruthlessly will reveal weaknesses in your system or the recording. Keeping this set. Longest lasting component I have owned.

RH's picture

This old article but brings up some ongoing issues in high end audio writing.
It is typical of the “Science is great and all...BUT!...” article. Lip service is paid briefly
to the scientific enterprise - “it’s not like you have to be a flat earther to be an audiophile” - and then this is used to launch into some version of “science doesn’t know everything” where
enough suspicion is cast on the limits or problems in science to give space for whatever dubious
report you are about to read.

Mr. Olsher starts out sounding like a skeptic, dismissive of “pseudoscientific technobabble” right up
to when he “tests” the claims of the cable maker. Then he relies on putting the cables in his system and listening with nary a thought about controlling for the effects of his imagination.

The same story seems to run through the manufacturer’s claims. It all sound “sciencey” right up until one asks for actual scientific methods of confirmation. David Lindsay
had essentially proposed a hypothesis based (it seems) on known measurable phenomena. Yet we see nothing in this report about the measured results from Lindsay showing at least he can measurably produce (or reduce) the effects he claims. That would be step one in Lindsay supporting his hypothesis. It would also include letting others know how to reproduce the measurements. Yet no measurements are given and John A was left to his own devices to figuring out how to test Lindsay’s claim. Sure enough, John could not confirm Lindsay’s claims via measurements.

But of course the reviewer “heard” this mysterious effect nonetheless, using only his own subjective impressions which are miraculously immune to all the known bias effects.

And so it goes, to this day, in high end audio reviewing. When there is no objective confirmation, well, too bad for science, my ears don’t lie!

I don’t think the article is “dedicated to the skeptics” as Olsher claimed so much as to the audiophile choir.

(Being an Audiophile and long time Stereophile reader I’m one of the choir, but this article certainly didn’t speak to the skeptic in me)

John Atkinson's picture
RH wrote:
But of course the reviewer “heard” this mysterious effect nonetheless, using only his own subjective impressions...

I am not surprised that the reviewer felt the L-G magnetic cables sounded different from conventional cables. How could they not? And it is always possible that in the context of specific system, that difference is perceived to be an improvement.

See, for example, the case of single-ended triode amplifiers, which can give large frequency response changes, depending on the loudspeaker's impedance curve, and can introduce significant amounts of second-harmonic distortion. As I wrote back in 1995 in a Cary review, these amplifiers are actually tone controls, and no-one would argue that a tone control won't have audible results.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

RH's picture

“How could they not?”

I’m not sure. I looked at your measurement section which seemed to suggest
capacitance effects of this cable (eg high frequency roll off) would only come in to play
in certain systems. Did your measreuments determine that the LG cables would have
likely audible variation in Olsher’s system? These things would be nice to know for audiophiles
trying to sift manufacturer and reviewers claims from the variables (I.e. if the sonic change Olsher
heard was more likely due to capacitance attenuation than the phenomenon claimed by the
manufacturer, that’s obviously relevant insight to gain).

I certainly did appreciate your efforts to evaluate the technical claims made for the cable.

John Atkinson's picture
RH wrote:
Did your measurements determine that the LG cables would have likely audible variation in Olsher’s system?

I am afraid I can't recall what components Dick Olsher was using when he prepared this review at the end of 1990, and contrary to Stereophile's policy, other than the power amplifier and speakers, he didn't say what products he used in the evaluation.

But the high capacitance may have been a factor, as was the tendency of the cable to pick up noise and hum. And I would not be surprised if the cable increased the level of non-linear distortion. But 27 years after the review was first published, I can only offer conjecture.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

spacehound's picture

It didn't prevent him writing pseudo-scientific technobabble, the very thing he accuses others of.
What's more 'skin effect' doesn't happen at audio frequencies.

And if he thinks his page 1 comments are an accurate description of how 'science' works he's wrong.
Also his "Maxwell" comments don't demonstrate a thing. Light is both waves and 'corpuscular' as they called it in Maxwell's time.
He is wrong about Eddington too. He said he needed further results, and he got them, as T.S. Gnu's reference shows.

[flame deleted by John Atkinson]

After two pages of utter nonsense I didn't waste my time reading beyond page 2.

Jack L's picture


Are you sure?

Apparently you only know your side of knowledge of 'skin effect'
May I suggest you to learn more about its the other side!

"Science is about the search for a hidden reality"
Lindsay-Geyer Highly Magnetic Cables
Review by Dick Olsher on May 08 2018 Stereophile.

Read this, pal:-

"History shows us clearly that science does NOT provide certainty. It does NOT provide proof. It only provides the consensus of experts, based on the organized accumulation & scrutiny of evidence."
written by Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway in their book "Merchants of Doubt".

FYI, I believe I know wires & cables more than many many out there as I had been involved in the electrical power industries for over 2 dacades.

Listening is believing

Jack L.