Какой взять акустический кабель!

Да? И можете подтвердить не голымы словами?
Чтобы в свою очередь не быть голословным привожу статью того самого специалиста. Его легко можно найти на конференции упомянутой в заголовке в статье. Там же можно прочитать и про него самого и про его квалификацию:
-----------------------
Having read some of the recent comments on rec.audio.opinion and high
end, concerning "audible" differences between interconnect and
loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the
subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.

To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and
interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized
electrical properties for the audiophile applications
intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling
cables reveal significant differences that call into question the
technical goals of their designer.  These differences also question
the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of
important cable performance properties. For example, any company not
possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a
Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband
precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they
are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium
performance.

The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to
their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance
and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including
additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency),
dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.),
velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into
different impedance loads, etc.

Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above,
with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that
contribute to "microphonic noise" in the presence of ambient
vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a "D.C. off-set" created
by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).

While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these
measurements and the need to make them during the design of their
cables, the raw truth is that most do not!  Proof of this can be found
in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising
claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for
audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech
appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in
accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper
physics and engineering disciplines.  (Where are the costly Government
Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent
members of the public by identifying and policing questionable
performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat
Emptor!

For example, claiming that copper wire is "directional", that
slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the
signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals
propagate along them, that a "final energy component" (improperly
labeled as "Joules") is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad
nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to
describe "cable performance".

Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a "special configuration"
included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to
"terminate the cable" in a matter intended to deliver more accurate
tonality, better imaging, lower "noise", etc.  The real truth is that
this "special configuration" contains nothing more than a simple,
inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers,
with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability
caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected
to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this
"box" appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains
nothing more than a "Zobel network", which is usually a "series
resistor-capacitor" network, connector in parallel with the wires of
the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably
either a "parallel resistor-inductor" network, connected in series
with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve
covering both conductors).  But the proper place for such a network,
if it is needed to "insure amplifier stability and prevent
high-frequency oscillations", is within the amplifier - not along the
loudspeaker cable.  Hmmm!

Having said all this, are there really any significant "audible"
differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by
experienced listeners?  The answer is simple: very seldom!  Those who
claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old
"Placebo-Effect" - which is very alive and well among even the most
well-intentioned listeners.  The placebo-effect renders "audible
signatures" easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which
cable is being heard.  But, take away this knowledge during blind or
double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either
disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing.
Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and
manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than
being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive
score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it
only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!

Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able
to consistently identify "huge, audible differences" between cables.
But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the
test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to
yield a score any better than "chance".  For example, when led to
believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size
from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a "high-tech looking" cable
with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking
cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED
and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.

Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always
audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons
are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being
heard is not known by the listener.  We have accomplished too many
"true blind comparisons" with listeners possessing the right
credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that
"real, audible differences" seldom exist - if the comparisons are
properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system
interactions with cables, etc.

Indeed, during these "comparisons" (without changing cables), some
listeners were able to describe in great detail the "big differences"
they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the
participants were never told the "NAUGHTY TRUTH", lest they become an
enemy for life!)

So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and
manufacture of audiophile loudspeaker cables and interconnects?  The
answer is simple: Since significant measurable differences do exist
and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines
optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and
the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an
interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not
design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach?  And,
since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite
successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave,
telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance,
etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical
audiophile applications?  Hmmm!  To say, as some do, that there are
factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to
identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called
"pure snake oil and buzzard salve" - in short, pure "fraud".  If any
cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an
audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab
equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a
nomination for a "Nobel Prize".

Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding
cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the
net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction
with regard to cable performance.  I also welcome comments from those
who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have
missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret
criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be
measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to
the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.

I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true
engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take
a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the
blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising.  If we
fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine
editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished
beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed
to serve.

Best Regards,
John Dunlavy
--------------------------------------------------------

Юрий, ради интереса, а вы сами эту статью читали? )
Или просто по поиску нашлась?
Забавная статья сначала измеряется величина фазового сдвига при разных условиях, а потом такой небольшой абзац - данные по величине фазового сдвига вносимого усилителем и другими компонентами аудиотракта неизвестна.
Статьи ведь все таки читать надо, перед тем как приводить.
А цифирьки по левому краю графиков вы заметили, там масштаб очень мелкий если что. И жуткие пики на диаграммах лежат в пределах одного децибела.
Если вы посмотрите АЧХ любой колонки, то оно значительно более неравномерное )

Дмитрий, про скин-эффект в проводах упомянул не я )
Я как раз и написал про то что в звуковом диапазоне это синекура.
А про 80% систем мне вовсе не обидно, к чему бы )
Особенно при современном отношении производителей к производству электронных компонентов это очень даже неудивительно. Хорошая система обойдется тысяч в 8-10.
Я например не в состоянии потратить такие деньги на аудиокомплекс.
Аппаратуру себе подбирал точно так же на слух как и все остальные люди, не думаете же вы что я с измерительной аппаратурой по магазинам хожу? )
И именно потому что разницу между разными нормально сделанными кабелями, как акустическими так и межблочниками я не слышу я и привожу свое мнение.
Насчет уровней фильтрации можно посмотреть ту же статью, ссылку на которую прислал Юрий. Максимум что там есть - это некоторые фазовые искажения, а это вопрос совсем неоднозначный среди специалистов - насколько они уловимы на слух - можете почитать более профессиональные международные форумы, там время от времени пишут дельные дядьки.

На №183:

Вадим, я не Realist, которому все надо разжевать и выложить в готовом виде. Я читал достаточно много, и в случае необходимости мог бы отстаивать вашу точку зрения, приводя ссылки гораздо более жесткие и не менее авторитетные.
Но данная ссылка утверждает обратное:

"Точные измерения нескольких широко продающихся кабелей выявляют значительную разницу, которая ставит под сомнение технические цели их разработчиков"
Выводы: 1) параметры кабелей можно измерить, 2) результаты измерений различны для разных кабелей, 3) это различие не настолько мало, чтобы им можно было пренебречь.

"Фирма, собирающаяся всерьез разрабатывать аудиокабели, обеспечивающие наивысшее качество должна обязательно иметь следующие приборы (идет перечисление, заканчивающееся и т.д."

Выводы: создание кабеля дело серьезное и невозможное без серьезных измерений (не только LRC). Это мнение авторитетного (для меня) человека. Похоже, он не считает, что все кабели одинаковы, а разница в их параметрах лежит ниже порога слышимости.


Перечисляется масса параметров, которые нужно мерить у кабеля (многие - в зависимости от частоты). Потом, дополнительные параметры для межблочников. Кстати, что же вы всех донимали "какие параметры? какие параметры кроме LCR?"? Вот ведь все у вас есть, просто опять невнимательно прочли.



И вот его основная мысль: большинство производителей кабелей, похоже, измерениями не занимаются, а больше сил уделяют рекламе, в которой несут техническую чушь. Очень мало дорогих кабелей сконструировано с соответствии с законами физики.

Далее он рассказывает о том, что при слепом тестировании очень редко удается отличить один кабель от другого, хороший от плохого, так что кабелями можно пренебречь.

Да и ради бога. По мне, так каждый имеет право пренебречь чем угодно. Я, например, пренебрегаю разницей между CD-плейерами. Только не надо напрягать других людей, чтобы порадоваться, что они не могут вас переубедить. Пусть 50% (пусть 90 или 99) не слышат разницы между кабелями, это их счастье, могут сэкономить деньги. Но не надо равнять всех по себе, есть люди, которые слышат, можете считать, что это их беда.