If this keeps up it may be time for another straightened coat hanger v mystery X ($$$$$) cable blind listening test.
So far all the conclusions point to a lack of consensus with the only regular perceived sonic differences being in the listener's own head. And even then, not consistently. One day A might be better, the next B, and so on and so on.
All cables claiming to be better than basic OFC simply must be sold with a money back guarantee. Especially when there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support this claim. Even the sellers dare not say why and how their cables are better, instead they merely suggest it to avoid any potentially ruinous legal challenges.
If they are obviously better sonically then surely there's no need for dealers to take the money and run, is there?
Apart from charity on the behalf of the consumer of course.
|
@kalali, yes me too. I've become quite fond of those transparent high grade OFC speaker cables recently.
I shudder to recall those days of the ridiculously thick and unwieldy Naim NAC5 cables which they insisted were designed for their amps.
I loved the impressive construction and reliability of their amplifiers but shame on Naim for that particular piece of opportunism. Not even stylish or pretty, just thick and crude.
|
@jhills, "Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to. While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation." Thanks for putting it as clear as it possibly can be as of 2019. Perhaps one day things might actually improve... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity |
@jmlmx, "What I find interesting is that the second highest rated cable in the test had the worst fidelity, and the worst rated cable was right there in the middle when frequency and amplitude were measured."
The magazines realised a while back what the implications of these kind of results were. That's why they turned their backs on them years ago. What magazine would want to report a coat hanger/ zip cord being preferred to a high end cable? Then what about amplifiers, or even CD players, DAC's etc??
Had the results supported their opinions I'm certain that blind listening tests would have become the gold standard of audio testing and reviewing.
As things stand it's up to the likes of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and a few others out there to continue to demonstrate that there is no reason for us consumers to be scared of blind listening tests.
|
We seem to be struggling to make progress beyond the comments earlier from @jhills who wrote , "Not sure how gallium, indium and tin, a semi liquid goop, 1/15th the conductivity of oxygen free copper, is somehow superior to pure grade, oxygen free copper as a conductor for cables. I guess whatever makes a great sales pitch and you can stick the highest $$$ to. While there are a lot of bogus claims of all kinds of miracle insulative coatings and shieldings for audio conductors, in reality, the best material, as an insulator for either data or audio signal conductors, is either PTFE (Teflon) or polyethylene, with as little shielding and protective covers as necessary, for a particular situation." Oh well at least the expensive HDMI cable scam has been widely exposed. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.outofcontrol.online/expensive-hdmi-cables-are-a-scam/https://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs-entertainment/7976/expensive-hdmi-cables-make-no-difference-and-...https://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/the-ugly-truth-about-hdmi-cables-2951010https://www.cnet.com/news/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/ |
"@astelmaszek, Let me just mention that majority of the recordings you listen to were done with about 500ft of Canare microphone cable, and that's if the studio was fancy."
A timely reminder. If the dubious notion of doubling up cables (bi-wiring revisited 2019 style?) has any discernible effect can we begin to imagine the results of 'fixing' the weakest links of the audio chain?
Or does tea really taste better in a China cup? |
@douglas_schroeder
"cd318, you are still skeptical. Are you willing to test your skepticism? A person who is unwilling to test their skepticism is trapped in their current experience even though observational evidence exists that much better can be obtained. You do not know if you are right or wrong. You think you are right, which is of marginal significance in the face of people who are trying and finding it efficacious. Are you willing to try Schroeder Method and find out?"
Hi Doug, in lieu of any convincing logic (resistance, capacitance and inductance should be well within required limits for audio signals by any decent piece of wire, even a coat hanger) I am not currently willing to try out the so-called Schroeder Method. Or other equally whacky theories such as the Paleo diet, or investigate flat earth theories, the antics of Uri Geller, etc. Sorry, but we've seen all this before courtesy of Peter W Belt amongst others.
Having previously tried out bi-wiring, solid core cable, twin and earth electrical, silver plated copper, pure copper, bell wire, etc without hearing much of a difference I hope you can understand my reticence to embark upon another wild goose chase.
Brands diverse as Ecosse, Monster, Chord, Linn, Naim, QED have all been tried in various systems over the years and found to be alike.
Like jhills, my experience has demonstrated that high purity OFC is more than sufficient for my needs. I don't even bother with using plugs, bare wire gives good contact (with only periodic cleaning for oxidisation required).
If you are serious about your method how about suggesting it to hardened industry professionals working in the world of audio recording? It isn't enough to say your method is better, you must be able to offer a rationale as to why you believe it to be so.
|
Let's face it some of us are here to share our experiences in the wish of it being helpful to those new to audio, some of us wish to perhaps learn something new - perhaps a different angle and some amongst us may wish to promote some products they may be associated with.
Some form of declaration of interest is always helpful, but I think most of us can usually deduce where the poster is coming from.
Hopefully, all of us share an interest in high quality audio playback regardless of whatever our intentions may be.
Of course we are always faced with the problems of semantics. Sensations are not the easiest to distill into words and this is compounded by the problems of memory as this Bruno Bettelheim quote illustrates,
"Instead of reflecting the impact of a symphony of feelings, interactions and experiences, played, so speak, by full orchestra, a stale report recalls to mind only selected motifs played by but a few instruments."
Ah! The problems of memory! Audio memory is often notoriously short for most of us, with only vague sensations remaining mere days later the event.
Then there's the question of shared meaning. The challenge of remaining within the current linguistic zeitgeist is one faced by anyone posting here or anywhere else. One persons 'warm' can equal another's 'muddy' in the same way slim / skinny and devious/ intelligent can all too easily.
One way around this may be to employ comparisons when comparing products. You may well love the Wilson Sasha speakers, but do you love them more or less than the Wilson Sabrina? And why? Ditto for cables. We may not always agree, but at least we can see where you are coming from.
What about tactics such as linguistic obfuscation? It's common for some to try to derail attempts at clarity as proposed by the lucid and detailed posts from the likes of prof among others here.
A recent case in point was a post about the uncertainty regarding quantum behaviour which neglected to mention that this phenomena is strictly confined to sub atomic particle behaviour.
In our world the sun always shines and will do for a good while yet - the same sun the dinosaurs once basked under.
|
@jsautter, too idealistic my friend. All through history wrong words in the wrong place had to power to get you killed. Nothing different today.
Most Audiogon posters are relatively civilised and tolerant. Thus we are able to converse freely and rationally as a result. To a point. |
@tubegeek, "While there is an apparent technological advancement in the materials used to make cables, it’s still all comes down to capacitance, inductance, impedance, and DCR" Hopefully, the above is a statement we can all agree upon. The science of cables. As the OP asked, "If there were measurements that correlated to what you hear, I think more people would be interested in cables." As far as I know, nothing beats high purity OFC. Not in performance, not in sound, nor in price. OFC is ridiculously under priced for what you are getting. 99.99% purity. "Oxygen-free copper (OFC) or oxygen-free high thermal conductivity (OFHC) copper is a group of wrought high conductivity copper alloys that have been electrolytically refined to reduce the level of oxygen to .001% or below. [1][2]Use in home audio
The high-end speaker wire industry markets oxygen-free copper as having enhanced conductivity or other electrical properties that are supposedly advantageous to audio signal transmission. In fact, conductivity specifications for common C11000 (ETP) and higher-cost C10200 Oxygen-Free (OF) coppers are identical;[12] and even the much more expensive C10100 has only a one percent higher conductivity—insignificant in audio applications.[12] OFC is nevertheless sold for both audio and video signals in audio playback systems and home cinema.[12]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-free_copper |
|
Engineers vs audiophiles?
I wonder which ones have studied electronics and have a firm grasp of principles?
Which ones have passed difficult examinations requiring an understanding of physics and maths?
One side is responsible for building the entire miraculous modern electronic world.
Still not sure?
Hmm, now let’s see, which one needs the other to exist...
Difficult, isn’t it. |
I could go on and ask which ones for decades now have been seen as gullible idiots waiting to be parted from their money?
Join the dots if you need, scratch your heads if it helps...but love, desire and passion can be dangerous impulses which all too easily can lead to an obsession.. which eventually turns out to be an expensive mirage. |
