cable dielectric cause of artificial sound

There are many factors other than just dielectric that affect cable sound. Geometry and the use of shielding have a greater impact on sound quality than dielectric, IMO. I've heard excellent cables that employ teflon, polyethylene or foamed PE. I suspect that many cable manufacturers feel they must use teflon insulation to be considered 'serious'.

Sean,

Are you talking about an extruded dielectric that has that property?

Sean,

As far as the AQ DBS system, it definitely does 'something'. I'll leave judgement about it's effects aside for now, since I have experienced the 'effect' on one AQ model only, but I found recently that the DBS system does have an effect on the cable to which it's attached. I had previously owned two 1 meter long AQ Eagle Eye digital cables which I was using from my transport to DSP, and from the DSP to my digital crossover. Having heard some positive improvements in the past by using .5 meter digital cables (I know, I know, shame on me for breaking the "rule"),after contacting Audioquest and confirming that they would make .5 meter digital cables, I ordered two .5 meter AQ Eagle Eye cables through an AQ dealer, who told me they would have to be special-ordered from AQ, who would make them in that length, and then drop-ship them to me.
To make a long story short,when I received the cables and plugged them in, I thought I'd made a huge mistake by buying the .5 meter Eagle Eyes. Instead of revealing more detail and dynamics as I'd expected from prior experience, they were slow, bloated in the bass, and lacking the kind of top-octave extension I was used to from the 1 meter Eagle Eyes. Thinking they needed to break-in, but not really expecting them to ever change enough to be acceptable, I put them back in their boxes, and didn't touch them for about 3 weeks. When I plugged them back in so I could begin 'burning' them in, I gave them a quick listen to confirm my earlier evaluation.
HOLY COW...what a difference!!! 3 weeks of sitting untouched in the box and they'd transformed into tight, revealing, highly-textured digital cables. Since I'd made no other changes to my main system in that time, I can only attribute the huge change to the "charging" of the dielectrics in the DBS field over the 3 weeks they went unused. Apparently the only way to really hear the effect of the DBS system is to listen to newly-manufactured cables, and then wait a few weeks and listen again.

I have to throw in with Steve, and agree that surface oxidation is not necessarily something to be afraid of.
It's important to remember that most wire used in audio is annealed, and annealing takes place at high temperatures, which can cause functionally significant oxidation within seconds. However, this can be controlled somewhat by manipulating available oxygen levels and cooling times.
When considering stranded wire, such as that used in speaker wire and power cables, a small amount of surface oxidation can actually reduce the negative effects of strand interaction and eddy currents, without the higher dielectric losses seen with strand coatings.

Tim

LeVasseur Audio

Trelja,

I don't think we can underestimate the confusion sewn by the cable industry itself. When some cable designers claim that cable "x" in their lineup is more detailed than cable "z" because of some proprietary treatment or improved dielectric, when if fact they've also changed the geometry of cable "x" (but don't mention it), they just add to the confusion of listeners who are lead to think the sonic change is caused by factors that may have very little sonic impact compared to geometry.
JMO.

Audioholics?
Since they don't believe that cables make a difference, they should just shut up about it and let us 'delusional' audiophiles enjoy our hobby.

Sean,

Excellent post, but I think you need to be very carefull when addressing the EMI/RFI issue. Some cables that reduce EMI/RFI issues also dull the musical signal. I think it's important to focus on clarity and dynamics when listening for EMI/RFI problems, not just tonality, because there are already too many people who falsely believe (IMO) that because a cable has reduced the treble response in their system, that it has 'only' removed EMI/RFI grunge, and that their sound is now more accurate; when in fact they have indeed given up some musical information.
A useful learning tool is to apply ferrites to analog interconnects to see how much of a change they make in the sound of a system. Once the listener can quantify that level of change in their mind, it makes determining whether other cable designs are actually better at shielding/rejecting RFI, or are just rolled-off.
(I Should state at this point that I AM NOT endorsing the use of ferrites on analog interconnects).
EMI is trickier, in that so many products use materials that reduce EMI to the detriment of their sound. By placing shielding/insulating materials too close to the signal carrying components, they interfere with the EM field, which impacts the resulting sonics of the system. It seems like some manufacturers would like their potential customers to believe that if a little EMI shielding is good, a ton of it must be great, when nothing could be further from the truth in my experience.

You're right, I feel like I could go on ad nauseum, and still not completely describe my ideas on this subject.
But I guess that's why I love this hobby so much, there's always something more to think about.