Quote:

steve eddy said:

Which is pretty much right on target for your basic Plain Jane ETP (otherwise referred to as "crappy" by some here) copper. Most of the rest is oxygen, which is used during the smelting process to scavenge impurities and take them out of solution which increases the conductivity of the copper to that of OFHC copper which must have a higher inherent purity to achieve the same conductivity because it can't use oxygen for scavenging.
 
se
 
 
 

Click to expand...

 
So for the same purity level, am I understanding that ETP copper is more conductive than OFC?  Pretty interesting, I never knew that (then again this is not really my field.)
 

Quote:

drez said:

So for the same purity level, am I understanding that ETP copper is more conductive than OFC?  Pretty interesting, I never knew that (then again this is not really my field.)
 

Click to expand...

Not quite. What I said was that ETP copper, which is less inherently pure than OFHC copper, is AS conductive as OFHC.
 
If you just leave the impurities in suspension, it would have a lower conductivity. But if you add a precisely controlled amount of oxygen during the smelt, the oxygen reacts with the impurities and takes them out of solution. And this results in a conductivity that's the same as OFHC which has a higher intrinsic purity.
 
In other words, there's really no difference between the two as far as conductivity is concerned.
 
The reason OFHC copper was developed was for situations where the copper may be heated in a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen. Since ETP copper contains oxygen, it can react with the hydrogen which can cause the copper to become brittle. Since OFHC copper can't have any appreciable oxygen content, it has to have a higher intrinsic purity in order to be as conductive as ETP copper.
 
Bottom line, with regard to audio applications, OFHC copper is just a marketing buzzword. I mean, Oxygen Free High Conductivity copper sounds sexier than Electrolytic Tough Pitch copper.
 
se
 
 

Quote:
 
So when companies like Sony and Sennheiser include OFHC cables on some their stock phones and IEMs you think they are doing it because some accountant and marketing tool figured out the cost of adding another form of cable to their manufacturing process would prove more profitable?  Seems the added complexity and inefficiency would do the opposite.  I for one know of not one person who ever bought a specific stock, off the shelf Sony or Sennheiser product because it used OFHC cable.  Most people that buy them don't even know there's a difference in the manufacture.  Probably 90% of HD800 owners I've run across didn't even know the stock cables use silver plated OFHC wire.  I'm not saying a cable does or doesn't sound like anything.  My point is that these larger applications don't seem to indicate any sort of marketing success by adding a different and more costly, less efficient process to their lineups.  So while that's a nice argument to make for smaller boutique shops that only sell cables, the same does not follow for larger manufacturers that go to the trouble of incorporating such processes when it offers them little to no marketing benefit to do so.

Quote:

I'm not saying a cable does or doesn't sound like anything.  My point is that these larger applications don't seem to indicate any sort of marketing success by adding a different and more costly, less efficient process to their lineups.  So while that's a nice argument to make for smaller boutique shops that only sell cables, the same does not follow for larger manufacturers that go to the trouble of incorporating such processes when it offers them little to no marketing benefit to do so.

Click to expand...

According to Mark Lawton, the stock cable that Denon uses for the D7000 (as opposed to the D2000/5000 cable) is really good. Mark says it's so good that he offers it as a swap for people who send in their D2000s to get modded. Denon makes a bit of a mention about the 7N-OFC cable they use, but they make no distinction between the cable used in any of three variants. If Denon is indeed using a larger, higher quality cable on the 7000, they make no attempt to advertise that. Could it be that... Denon just upgrades the 7000 cable because they think it sounds better?
 

Quote:

davebsc said:

According to Mark Lawton, the stock cable that Denon uses for the D7000 (as opposed to the D2000/5000 cable) is really good. Mark says it's so good that he offers it as a swap for people who send in their D2000s to get modded. Denon makes a bit of a mention about the 7N-OFC cable they use, but they make no distinction between the cable used in any of three variants. If Denon is indeed using a larger, higher quality cable on the 7000, they make no attempt to advertise that. Could it be that... Denon just upgrades the 7000 cable because they think it sounds better?
 

Click to expand...

Maybe they sound better because Sony, Sennheiser and Denon just go to the trouble of properly soldering the cables on those specific models.  
 

Or is a heavier gauge and so has better impedance/capacitance specifications... 

Maybe we could get you to evidence such, rather than make speculative claims

Quote:

prog rock man said:

Maybe we could get you to evidence such, rather than make speculative claims

Click to expand...

i believe him.

Quote:

dubstep girl said:

i believe him.

Click to expand...

 
Based on what? His word? Denon doesn't say why they consider the cable an upgrade - assuming that it is sound reasons, rather than build quality reasons... or that the sound is as a result of a different material rather than better capacitance and impedance due to a larger conductor... is pure speculation. 
 
It's ok to believe him - but we are in the sound science forum and no scientific claim, much less evidence for it has been presented. We're just asking for the reasons. 

Quote:

anaxilus said:

 
So when companies like Sony and Sennheiser include OFHC cables on some their stock phones and IEMs you think they are doing it because some accountant and marketing tool figured out the cost of adding another form of cable to their manufacturing process would prove more profitable?  Seems the added complexity and inefficiency would do the opposite.  I for one know of not one person who ever bought a specific stock, off the shelf Sony or Sennheiser product because it used OFHC cable.  Most people that buy them don't even know there's a difference in the manufacture.  Probably 90% of HD800 owners I've run across didn't even know the stock cables use silver plated OFHC wire.  I'm not saying a cable does or doesn't sound like anything.  My point is that these larger applications don't seem to indicate any sort of marketing success by adding a different and more costly, less efficient process to their lineups.  So while that's a nice argument to make for smaller boutique shops that only sell cables, the same does not follow for larger manufacturers that go to the trouble of incorporating such processes when it offers them little to no marketing benefit to do so.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Marketing contributes to saleability which is just another way of saying profitability.
 
Quote:

Seems the added complexity and inefficiency would do the opposite.

Click to expand...

 
Don't know just what added complexity and inefficiency you're referring to here specifically. I mean, the company has to tool up for virtually every new model. Don't see that adding OFHC to the shopping list makes it any more complex and inefficient in any meaningful way.
 
Quote:

 I for one know of not one person who ever bought a specific stock, off the shelf Sony or Sennheiser product because it used OFHC cable.  Most people that buy them don't even know there's a difference in the manufacture.  Probably 90% of HD800 owners I've run across didn't even know the stock cables use silver plated OFHC wire.

Click to expand...

 
So then tell me, why do they even bother to mention it in their marketing literature? What exactly does OFHC bring to the table beyond a marketing buzzword?
 
se
 

Quote:

davebsc said:

According to Mark Lawton, the stock cable that Denon uses for the D7000 (as opposed to the D2000/5000 cable) is really good. Mark says it's so good that he offers it as a swap for people who send in their D2000s to get modded. Denon makes a bit of a mention about the 7N-OFC cable they use, but they make no distinction between the cable used in any of three variants. If Denon is indeed using a larger, higher quality cable on the 7000, they make no attempt to advertise that. Could it be that... Denon just upgrades the 7000 cable because they think it sounds better?
 

Click to expand...

I recently recabled both a D7000 and a D2000. Other than the D2000 being fitted with a 1/8" plug and the D7000 fitted with a 1/4" plug, I found no differences at all between the two cables.
 
se
 
 

Quote:

steve eddy said:

Which is pretty much right on target for your basic Plain Jane ETP (otherwise referred to as "crappy" by some here) copper. Most of the rest is oxygen, which is used during the smelting process to scavenge impurities and take them out of solution which increases the conductivity of the copper to that of OFHC copper which must have a higher inherent purity to achieve the same conductivity because it can't use oxygen for scavenging.
 
se
 

Click to expand...

 
Actually when I measured 99.95%, that was excluding oxygen. The SEM I used lacked the ability to accurately detect/quantify elements that low so they were excluded from analysis. While I don't recall exactly, I think the impurities were mostly iron and aluminum, and probably a touch of sulfur.
 
Quote:

steve eddy said:

Not quite. What I said was that ETP copper, which is less inherently pure than OFHC copper, is AS conductive as OFHC.
 
If you just leave the impurities in suspension, it would have a lower conductivity. But if you add a precisely controlled amount of oxygen during the smelt, the oxygen reacts with the impurities and takes them out of solution. And this results in a conductivity that's the same as OFHC which has a higher intrinsic purity.
 
In other words, there's really no difference between the two as far as conductivity is concerned.
 
The reason OFHC copper was developed was for situations where the copper may be heated in a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen. Since ETP copper contains oxygen, it can react with the hydrogen which can cause the copper to become brittle. Since OFHC copper can't have any appreciable oxygen content, it has to have a higher intrinsic purity in order to be as conductive as ETP copper.
 
Bottom line, with regard to audio applications, OFHC copper is just a marketing buzzword. I mean, Oxygen Free High Conductivity copper sounds sexier than Electrolytic Tough Pitch copper.

 
se
 
 

Click to expand...

Surphur embrittlement is a problem too, though I think that's more a concern for steels and nickels.
 
For ETP copper, I wonder if when the oxygen reacts with the impurities if the entire impurity is skimmed from the melt or if its left as a precipitate (which might actually be a strengthening mechanism I suppose).
 

Quote:

steve eddy said:

Uh, I hate to tell you, but Saran Wrap doesn't make for an adequate blindfold.

 
se
 
 

Click to expand...

Yeah but it's excellent for bondage...
 

 


 

Quote:

warriorant said:

Yeah but it's excellent for bondage...

 

 


 

Click to expand...

i like your thinking 

Quote:

dubstep girl said:

i believe him.

Click to expand...

I don't disbelive him. It is just that this is the Sound Science part of the forum and as a matter of principle I think if you have a theory, you should go look for some evidence to back it up.