[Steve Eddy]

This is based on what (or who's) criteria? I have nothing to sell. I have no financial dog in the fight. MOTs typically refrain from these discussions for obvious reasons. Unless perhaps they only sell copper for higher profit margins and might have vested interests? This statement may have no truth, but neither do your accusations that anyone that has a different opinion than you has motives other than what's stated.
 

 
I already stated the criteria. It is when someone tries to pass off their subjective experience as something more than that. A good recent example comes from macandmar, when he stated, "Its easy to prove, take one copper and one silver interconnect and join an amp/dac together.  Trust me if one channel sounds different from the other you will notice."
 
Here he is talking about "proving" that copper and silver are audibly different. That's going beyond simply relating one's subjective experience and should not be protected by the "subjective" umbrella and should be open to question or challenge.
 

Let's not forget the purpose of the question. Can copper be bettered sonically? Science says silver is a better conductor than copper. Some say it can sound better. Some say they can't tell a difference. Some say copper sounds better. That's subjective commentary. They each give their personal experience for their opinions. If you accept the premise that subjective review is acceptable in principle, then you can't pick and choose what it's definition is from topic to topic to suit your point of view.

 
Let's get back to your original statement. In response to Seann saying that most recordings were done using copper wire, you claimed "Based on economics and not ultimate performance. Copper was 'good enough'." I don't see this claim as being subjective. You say "economics and not ultimate performance" as if to be making some sort of objective claim, and then add "good enough" in some rather derogatory quotes. You say "Science says silver is a better conductor than copper." Well, silver does have slightly higher conductivity compared to copper, but when it comes down to a cable, that just translates into simple resistance. You could just use a little bit more copper and achieve the same resistance as a given wire made of silver. So would you say such a copper cable would have the same "ultimate performance" as a silver cable?
 

 Proof is for the science forum, not subjective commentary & experiences of our members. Here, it's not on the members to lay out their lab credentials and show their DBT, calibrations, testing protocol, etc. It's not a court of science but a place of experiences and opinions offered without judgement of objective persecution. That drives some crazy and that's why they have their own playground.

 
What drives me crazy are people who say they are "subjective," but make objective claims.
 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Not to enter the fray, but to ask a question. I have mostly silver cables -- audio note vx and sogon, as interconnects. I have had copper cables that I liked but never really have a/b'd comparable copper and silver cables in my system. I have however heard the audio note Lexus at a shop, which is described by audio note as the copper version of the sogon in that they have similar construction. They do not sound that much alike and if you let people choose even up I do not think many people would choose the Lexus straight up unless they were looking for warmth and less detail. Why is there so much more music and detail in the silver. I am not saying that you cannot make a copper cable of comparable quality to the sogon, but if the conductors are so close why are these so different. Thanks

 
I don't know that there is any more music and detail in the silver beyond our own subjective biases (it's embarrassingly trivially easy to manipulate our subjective perceptions). No one has ever demonstrated any actual audible differences between copper and silver cables so at this point we can't point the answer toward anything actually going on within the cables themselves. In fact, in my nearly 30 years of being involved in this industry, I've not seen anyone even present a plausible theory with regard to the two being audibly different.
 
Personally, with regard to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I really don't care what the reasons are. And to that end I don't make any assumptions as to the cause. But if someone were to put a gun to my head, I'd lay my money down on human beings simply being human with all the limitations that go along with that.
 
se

 

[Chris_Himself]

Why spend the time on theory when it just takes the single audition?
 
Nobody really has actually been able to lay down conductivity and it's direct correlation into making things sound the way they sound actually, even with just plain ol' better copper. I can explain why a cable is better structurally, thermodynamically in the case of conduits, and electrically, but even though I legit went to school for materials engineering, I couldn't tell you why IMO copper sounds like X and silver sounds like Y despite full well knowing it.
 
I mean you have to look at a lot of cable naysayers too.. are those particular members representing the bleeding edge of the hobby? Have they really done anything to further the study into cable science, or do they just regurgitate "information"? Steve you can't win the war for us all bro.. although I appreciate that you try your damndest..
 
I know that personally, long before I became an MOT, I've actually spent good money on cables with Moon Audio. I pretty much have Drew to thank for starting me on this journey of mine. I've had cables of different conductor material side by side multiple times with my HD600's, and I can tell you as an audiophile with plenty of years of experience, that the difference was not subtle. I'm not saying night and day improvement and my headphones become god-tier, but as a hobby where gains can be scaled in the smaller percentages, that it was immediate that I got my money's worth.

 

[JohnSantana]

Steve and CHris, you both are an awesome people !

you nailed the exact conclusion on the cable differences

even one of the custom cable maker in this forum said that there will be no audible difference apart from ergonomic and aesthetics in using a new cable other stock.

 

[spook76]

That is NOT the conclusion Chris Himself stated. Steve as an objectivist finds no sonic difference because it cannot be scientificly measured and Chris as a subjectivist does. So it is not merely ascetics and ergonomics to Chris.

Not to stir the pot, but Steve's conclusions are based upon scientific measurements as of right now. Is that alone conclusive? Steve absolutely does believe it is conclusive. I am not ready to dismiss all of the claims of sonic improvement simply because current testing cannot detect it.

Science is about inquiring. Most science (including audiology) is by no means a complete disciple. The amount we do know now can be outweighed by what we do not know. As an example, remember in physics all current cosmological models are based upon a certain amount of total mass in the universe, yet close to 80% of the mass cannot be detected. Leading to theories of dark matter or dark energy with neither of which has been found.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Steve absolutely does believe it is conclusive.

 
Would you please care to quote me where I said such a thing?
 
se

 

[spook76]

Silver would have been better in what respect exactly? And I mean with respect to actual performance. What exactly is the " bad" property of copper that silver improves upon in any meaningful way? If you do not have an answer to this, then your claim above is meaningless.

se

Steve

This is just one example in this thread of your dismissing a claim unless it can be proved by the current science. The inescapable inference that one can draw from that statement is that you rely solely on scientific measurement to prove a hypothesis as that is exactly what you are asking the person to do.

May we just agree that the science of audio cannot provide all the answers and we must leave room for speculation as otherwise how is our knowledge to grow.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Steve absolutely does believe it is conclusive.

 
Once again, would you please care to quote me where I said such a thing?
 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

This is just one example in this thread of your dismissing a claim unless it can be proved by the current science. The inescapable inference that one can draw from that statement is that you rely solely on scientific measurement to prove a hypothesis as that is exactly what you are asking the person to do.

May we just agree that the science of audio cannot provide all the answers and we must leave room for speculation as otherwise how is our knowledge to grow.

 
First, i didn't see any speculation in HappyCamper's statement "Based on economics and not ultimate performance. Copper was 'good enough'."
 
Second, even if it was speculation, it is meaningless unless you follow through and put your speculations to the test. You can sit and speculate for years, but unless you follow through, you'll not have advanced a single inch in terms of adding to our knowledge and understanding.
 
se

 

[spook76]

True if you accept the premise that current testing methodology is conclusive and can prove or disprove his statement. That is where we disagree. Further, speculation is the wellspring of new ideas in science or anything else without it science becomes static.

 

[Steve Eddy]

True if you accept the premise that current testing methodology is conclusive and can prove or disprove his statement. That is where we disagree. Further, speculation is the wellspring of new ideas in science or anything else without it science becomes static.

 
Well, he's the one who made the statement. All I did was ask him to substantiate it. So what exactly is your disagreement?
 

 Further, speculation is the wellspring of new ideas in science or anything else without it science becomes static.

 
Yes, speculation is the wellspring of new ideas. But speculation is only half the equation. Unless you put those speculations to the test, then you're just as static as you were if you had not made any speculations.
 

 Steve absolutely does believe it is conclusive.

 
And for the third time, please quote me where I said such a thing. If you can't, then please withdraw this statement.
 
se

 

[spook76]

I think the inference I made is obvious so my statement stands.

The reason I chimed in to begin with was Steve you are an overbearing bully on this thread with no room for any augment but your own. You dismiss any claim unless supported by your understanding of audio science and belittle and intimidate the messenger. Head-Fi exists for a free and open discussion not one person's opinion however well founded.

 

[StanD]

True if you accept the premise that current testing methodology is conclusive and can prove or disprove his statement. That is where we disagree. Further, speculation is the wellspring of new ideas in science or anything else without it science becomes static.

Speculation may be a source of ideas, however, it becomes science when there is proof. Theorem alone is not enough. Remember in math or physics we ask for a proof of a theorem.

 

[spook76]

Speculation becomes science when there is proof. Theorem alone is not enough. Remember in math or physics we ask for a proof of a theorem.

Agreed. But I hope you agree that all theorems start as speculation and my point is dismissing all speculation will lead science nowhere. My first example is the best, for over 20 years cosmetologists have found no proof of dark energy or matter but the current models of the universe still stand.

 

[manbear]

 for over 20 years cosmetologists have found no proof of dark energy or matter but the current models of the universe still stand.

That is because the cosmetologists are busy applying makeup to customers while the cosmologists are looking through the telescopes.