cable dielectric cause of artificial sound

Sean

The dielectric becomes more conductive / lossy over a period of time. As such, the electrons DO interact with the dielectric, both in terms of conductivity and magnetic field. The measurements that i mentioned above pertain directly to this subject.

Well, since you didn't provide any information whatsoever about your measurements, there's no way to evaluate your claim.

se

Steve,

It seems our point of view is different, you're looking at it from the technical side, mine is from an audiophile talking about audiophile cable.
Some of you sound like many of the electrical types I've talked to where everything has to be proven with numbers and measurements. These people will never believe two audio cable can sound different because it can't be measured. Audio cable is NOT and never an exact science, I repeat NOT. While skin affect does occur at frequencies above 20khz, differences can still be heard.
High End cable designers don't come up with a design so that their cable will only sound as they intend after oxidation has occured, they do their best to limit oxidation with the use of Teflon & PE, this is why we don't see many exposed copper in high end cable design.
Many cable brand has it's signature sound, for example the consistent smoothness of Cardas cables, if they don't limit oxidation after a short period of time highs will be affected and the sound is not as George Cardas intended to be.
My point of all this rambling is, oxidation has to be taken seriously in a high end cable because the signature sound that the designer intended will be no longer be after corrosion occurs. I don't think audiophiles want to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on a corroded cable anyway.

Dazzdax,
Sorry we hijacked your thread with all this rambling.
It's what makes discussion fun!

Scar

Tgrisham

If the issue is that the dialectric potentially changes the sound, and oxidation of copper potentially changes the sound, wouldn't pure copper wire covered in something to prevent shorting, and oxidation, be ideal?

Ideal? I dunno. That rather presupposes that if the sound is in fact to be changed, it must be a change for the worse.

Is this all really just a numbers game when you get to the bottom of it?

I've always found it curious that often the same people who think that a SET tube amp, with horrendous amounts of distortion, high output impedance, limited frequency response, etc. sounds absolutely fantastic, but when it comes to something like wire, everything changes. The wire needs to be the most conductive. It must be of the highest purity. The dielectric constant of the insulation must be as close to 1 as possible.

Just seems a bit schizophrenic to me.

se

I can't help but laugh at all the measurement techno-jumbo talk and electrical training with facts to back it up talk going on in an audiophile forum, this hobby is the farest thing from best measurement equal best product. Why do we even talk about spending hundreds of dollars on an audio cable when a $10 interconnect from Wal-Mart measure much better. The capacitance, resistant, inductance numbers of the most respected audiophile cable brands out there such as Kimber, Cardas, XLO, etc. consistently measured worse than some .25¢ coaxial found at the local hardware store. How can an audiophile spend hundred of dollars on a wire and corrosion is not even important? hope someone here agrees with me...
Why do so many love tube amps when a solid state has much less measured distortion? it's never been about the technical side people.
Cardas and Kimber cable measurements are in the same ballpark, why do they sound so different?

Audiophiles are the ones who hear the difference and believe, engineers are the ones who believe the numbers and never hears.

Scar

Scar972

It seems our point of view is different, you're looking at it from the technical side, mine is from an audiophile talking about audiophile cable.

I don't know what that means, "an audiophile talking about audiophile cable."

You have made a number of objective claims of fact, none of which have been substantiated with any sort of objective evidence or proof.

Some of you sound like many of the electrical types I've talked to where everything has to be proven with numbers and measurements.

Well, when one makes objective claims of fact, the substantiation of those claims must also be objective. If you have no objective substantiation for your objective claims, then you're doing little more than trying to pass off opinion as fact.

Is that what it means to be an "audiophile talking about audiophile cable"? To pass opinion off as fact?

These people will never believe two audio cable can sound different because it can't be measured.

It has nothing to do with whether it can be measured. It has to do with first establishing that there is in fact an actual audible difference between them.

Audio cable is NOT and never an exact science, I repeat NOT. While skin affect does occur at frequencies above 20khz, differences can still be heard.

And here is yet another objective claim of fact. When exactly was this established as fact?

High End cable designers don't come up with a design so that their cable will only sound as they intend after oxidation has occured, they do their best to limit oxidation with the use of Teflon & PE, this is why we don't see many exposed copper in high end cable design.

How do you know this is necessarily the case? How do you know they don't do it simply because many people have been prejudiced against it by people trying to pass off opinion as fact?

My point of all this rambling is, oxidation has to be taken seriously in a high end cable because the signature sound that the designer intended will be no longer be after corrosion occurs. I don't think audiophiles want to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on a corroded cable anyway.

Now here you are spouting off while demonstrating you don't even know what you're talking about.

First, oxidation and corrosion are not one and the same. Corrosion is a two part process that requires both oxidation and reduction, where material is actually lost.

Copper actually RESISTS corrosion. This is what gives it such high value in applications such as roofing material and water pipes.

As I said in a previous post, the microscopically thin film of oxidation that quickly forms on the surface when it's exposed to air actually acts as a protective barrier against both further oxidation and corrosion.

So please, before you go trying to scare people about "corroded cable," get your facts straight.

se