New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Copper vs silver cables - Page 8  

post #106 of 245
You can't EQ clarity or prat and you can't make a slight tone adjustment with an IC. Both will color the signal if done deliberately.
post #107 of 245
sorry for the topic derailment, but Happy Camper, your avatar is hilarious.
post #108 of 245
Our boy Patrick.
post #109 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentmacbeastie View Post
Personally, I think at test where the listener does not know a damn thing about anything is best Philadox. This way there should be no preconceived ideas or conclusions. My opinion with copper and silver and even gold or construction techniques is irrelevant as long as they are built to last. In the end, the best way is to buy a few pairs, listen to them and sell the others you don't like. Besides, I am a firm believer that the information is always present regardless of the cable, the difference in sound in just your perception. Your perception of that information CAN make cables sound different though. I am not talking about placebo at all either. I truly believe that the material and construction method used cannot alter the sound, just your perception of it! My gold plated silver/copper/gold alloy cables sound best to me but I am not suggesting that there is more or less info, bass weight, treble smoothness, or midrange purity, just that my body and mind work better alongside these materials.

When I am happy and healthy, silver and copper sound very similar to me. At a little stress, lack of sleep(my problem) and the silver is very tiring and often bright in my system. The alloy I am using tends to sound the same all of the time. This is why EE will often argue that there is no way the metal used can mechanically alter the sound, because they don't(IMHO)! It happens to sound different on a level that occurs in your physiology. The whole metaphysical thing! Nobel prize winning scientists(not EE's) believe in the metaphysical attributes of conductors so I feel OK about my ideas. Not to say that EE's ideas are not sound, just that they generally regurgitate theory accepted as fact and taught to them, not create theory to further science. However, if my and some of the top research minds' theories do not please you and you want a empirical approach, carbon is by far a better conductor over any of the previously mentioned.

Here are the resistivity values for a few [ρ (nΩ·m)]
-silicon dioxide(1300 °C) 0.004
-carbon, amorphous 0.35
-germanium 0.46
-carbon, diamond 2.7
-silver 15.9
-copper 17.1
-gold 22.1
-tungsten 52.8
-zinc 59
-brass 64
-nickel 69.3
-lithium 92.8
-iron 96.1
-platinum 105
-palladium 105.4
-tin (0 °C) 115
-solder 150

So, based on resistive numbers alone(I hate to do that), silver betters copper only by a little and it all becomes mute when you see the resistance in the solder used to hold them together. Keep in mind that non-metal semi-conductors must be doped to achieve good results. Find a way to join wires and not use solder and you will find that could mean more of an improvement. Also, this may show why high carbon cables are the best for performance but are not practical due to their very fragile and rigid nature. If you want the best bar none, heat up your new silicon dioxide cables to 1300 degrees since it is very resistive at room temp. I am thinking that the best results for getting the best from you circuit is to point to point wire it and then gold plate everything(especially the solder). Why gold plate and not silver? CORROSION IS VERY BAD FOR CONDUCTIVITY! I could be wrong but the information I read was from three dudes who won the Nobel science prize for work in semiconductors. However, I thought the resistivity and conductivity are similar but not the same... Maybe an EE can verify this before I preach this as the gospel according to Rodent.

interesting bumpification
post #110 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockinCannoisseur View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentmacbeastie View Post
Personally, I think at test where the listener does not know a damn thing about anything is best Philadox. This way there should be no preconceived ideas or conclusions. My opinion with copper and silver and even gold or construction techniques is irrelevant as long as they are built to last. In the end, the best way is to buy a few pairs, listen to them and sell the others you don't like. Besides, I am a firm believer that the information is always present regardless of the cable, the difference in sound in just your perception. Your perception of that information CAN make cables sound different though. I am not talking about placebo at all either. I truly believe that the material and construction method used cannot alter the sound, just your perception of it! My gold plated silver/copper/gold alloy cables sound best to me but I am not suggesting that there is more or less info, bass weight, treble smoothness, or midrange purity, just that my body and mind work better alongside these materials.

When I am happy and healthy, silver and copper sound very similar to me. At a little stress, lack of sleep(my problem) and the silver is very tiring and often bright in my system. The alloy I am using tends to sound the same all of the time. This is why EE will often argue that there is no way the metal used can mechanically alter the sound, because they don't(IMHO)! It happens to sound different on a level that occurs in your physiology. The whole metaphysical thing! Nobel prize winning scientists(not EE's) believe in the metaphysical attributes of conductors so I feel OK about my ideas. Not to say that EE's ideas are not sound, just that they generally regurgitate theory accepted as fact and taught to them, not create theory to further science. However, if my and some of the top research minds' theories do not please you and you want a empirical approach, carbon is by far a better conductor over any of the previously mentioned.

Here are the resistivity values for a few [ρ (nΩ·m)]
-silicon dioxide(1300 °C) 0.004
-carbon, amorphous 0.35
-germanium 0.46
-carbon, diamond 2.7
-silver 15.9
-copper 17.1
-gold 22.1
-tungsten 52.8
-zinc 59
-brass 64
-nickel 69.3
-lithium 92.8
-iron 96.1
-platinum 105
-palladium 105.4
-tin (0 °C) 115
-solder 150

So, based on resistive numbers alone(I hate to do that), silver betters copper only by a little and it all becomes mute when you see the resistance in the solder used to hold them together. Keep in mind that non-metal semi-conductors must be doped to achieve good results. Find a way to join wires and not use solder and you will find that could mean more of an improvement. Also, this may show why high carbon cables are the best for performance but are not practical due to their very fragile and rigid nature. If you want the best bar none, heat up your new silicon dioxide cables to 1300 degrees since it is very resistive at room temp. I am thinking that the best results for getting the best from you circuit is to point to point wire it and then gold plate everything(especially the solder). Why gold plate and not silver? CORROSION IS VERY BAD FOR CONDUCTIVITY! I could be wrong but the information I read was from three dudes who won the Nobel science prize for work in semiconductors. However, I thought the resistivity and conductivity are similar but not the same... Maybe an EE can verify this before I preach this as the gospel according to Rodent.

interesting bumpification

Bumps again for a very insightful read. If I had the money I'd do what you think would be the best set-up for audio cables.

post #111 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul02 View Post

Bumps again for a very insightful read. If I had the money I'd do what you think would be the best set-up for audio cables.

 

X2. Great read. I've always felt copper cables sounded better actually, more realistic sounding.

post #112 of 245
I currently have the moon audio, blue dragon v3 audio cable made from up-occ copper for my sennheiser hd650's, and I definitely think they're a superb improvement over the stock cable....so, copper is very good to my ears...but I heard silver is better...but I've never tried a silver cable yet....so, can't comment on silver...
post #113 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyl1dyl View Post

 

X2. Great read. I've always felt copper cables sounded better actually, more realistic sounding.

 

Same here. For years ive only ever used stock cables and recently bought a SilveryRay IEM cable for the 1964-q after drinking a bottle of wine. 

Anyhoo to my great surprise the difference bordered on startling. Im still not sure if I like yet to be honest but im satisfied in my mind that there is at least a difference between the two. All the usual claims of "brighter" and more forward are true but there was an aluminium quality that im not sure about. It also sounds like there is some fairly intense frequency carving going on somehow. My copper cable is much more even across all frequencies. 

Colour me surprised. Im leaving it for a while to see if I adjust. Had a long listening session with it today and im beginning to like it more I think.

post #114 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuicyBruce View Post

 

Same here. For years ive only ever used stock cables and recently bought a SilveryRay IEM cable for the 1964-q after drinking a bottle of wine. 

Anyhoo to my great surprise the difference bordered on startling. Im still not sure if I like yet to be honest but im satisfied in my mind that there is at least a difference between the two. All the usual claims of "brighter" and more forward are true but there was an aluminium quality that im not sure about. It also sounds like there is some fairly intense frequency carving going on somehow. My copper cable is much more even across all frequencies. 

Colour me surprised. Im leaving it for a while to see if I adjust. Had a long listening session with it today and im beginning to like it more I think.


How is that cable working out with your Quads? Mine are being re-shelled as we speak, and I'd love to hear your impressions of the SilverRay and their effect on the 1964s as I'm sure I'll be replacing the stock cable before long. Cheers!

post #115 of 245

The top-end copper will give you good "first impression" about the cable.  You will like the warm mid / lows and gorgeous detail pop and sweet orange treble (not sour), or should I say, "matured" treble.   You will find it pleasing on many songs.  However, there is no headroom for songs that are more treble region.

 

 

The top-end silver (100% solid) + top end insulation (minimal noise carrier) will get you happy in the "long run".  It has plenty headroom for treble region.  It is superior in the detail from mid to top.  Low detail is about as good as the top-end copper, just not as "weighty", or better word "meaty" as the copper.  But still, absolutely beautiful.   You will thank yourself you went for the silver several months later.

 

 

The coolest and the most famous quote on earth -- "You get what you pay for".


Edited by goodolcheez - 6/23/12 at 2:05pm
post #116 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post


How is that cable working out with your Quads? Mine are being re-shelled as we speak, and I'd love to hear your impressions of the SilverRay and their effect on the 1964s as I'm sure I'll be replacing the stock cable before long. Cheers!

 

Really well actually. Had a couple of weeks of AB testing and I can say with confidence that they do a bang-up job of filling that trademark top end roll-off. I still think there is an aluminium quality (think tapping a coke can with your fingernail) but its not apparent in all music - heavily mastered stuff mainly. Acoustic recordings now really shine.

Microphonics are off the chart.. not one for walking unless you can pull the cable a bit to tighten it. The plug terminals are also a touch narrow and come out quite easily compared to stock. Hasnt really been an issue, just mindful of losing an earpiece one day. The only other niggle i had was the isolating material and heat shrink at the terminal end are quite thick end tend to push a bit at the top of my ear meaning I have to keep bending it about to get a good seal back. 

Apart from that it looks pimp, the stiffness of the cable for some strange reason meant a lot less tangles when I travel. I put the stock cable back on tonight after a solid week with SR and after about 10 minutes was actually pretty bored. 

But yeah - overall thumbs up from me. 

post #117 of 245

Thanks for the response, Bruce. I'm a bit wary of having a less-than-snug connection - maybe that wouldn't be a problem for me after a UM re-shell...I'll have to check with the man Himself. A bit more sparkle and detail in the highs might be nice. The stock cables are tangle-prone, at least the ones I have. Well, first things first - let's see how I like them and whether I think the custom cables are needed at all...thanks again.
 

post #118 of 245

Check out the mods page for BTG-Audio:

 

 

 

http://btg-audio.webs.com/mods.htm
 

At the bottom of the page, there's a super-cool mod of a full-size CAL! with a Sansa Clip....it's such a bad-ass idea no matter how odd it would look in use.

post #119 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul02 View Post

Bumps again for a very insightful read. If I had the money I'd do what you think would be the best set-up for audio cables.

Wrong bumpification.  It's more like trolling or spamming.  We do not tolerate spamming here.

 

resistivity values means squat.  It doesn't give you the final result of how each cables perform.  it's meaningless and worthless info that should have been removed from thread, not bumpification.  This is a huge fail.

post #120 of 245

Just how is that trolling or spamming? And what's this "we" business? You speak for yourself and nobody else, pal.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked