[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Mogami wires seem to sound better than the basic stuff from Belden or Carol or Canare. Of the brands that produce huge rolls of professional use type wire, theirs is the best. I'm not sure why, whether it's better copper or what, but it is.
 

This is the Sound Science forum, remember? And in here, such comments are meaningless.
 
Quote:

Monster is just big neon pink insulation over the same level of copper that you can buy at Home Depot.

 
And that "same level of copper you can buy at Home Depot" is used by the military, the aerospace industry, etc. It's used in the most sensitive instruments made.
 
You keep using terms like "crappy" and "copper you can buy at Home Depot," but you continually fail to quantify these statements with anything meaningful. It's pretty clear by now that all you're doing is denigrating that which you know nothing about.
 
Again, until you can offer up something meaningful instead of just repeating the same nonsense over and over, I suggest you refrain from using such terms.
 
se

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

This is the Sound Science forum, remember? And in here, such comments are meaningless.
 
 
And that "same level of copper you can buy at Home Depot" is used by the military, the aerospace industry, etc. It's used in the most sensitive instruments made.
 
You keep using terms like "crappy" and "copper you can buy at Home Depot," but you continually fail to quantify these statements with anything meaningful. It's pretty clear by now that all you're doing is denigrating that which you know nothing about.
 
Again, until you can offer up something meaningful instead of just repeating the same nonsense over and over, I suggest you refrain from using such terms.
 
se

I don't get why you are having such a big issue with this. Do you accept that copper grades exist? Or are you trying to imply that all copper is the same?
 
"The first family, the coppers, is essentially commercially pure copper, which normally is soft and ductile and contains less than about 0.7% total impurities. Commercially pure copper grades are designated by UNS numbers C10100 to C13000. The dilute copper grades contain small amounts of various alloying elements that modify one or more of the basic properties of copper.

Electrolytic tough pitch copper C11000 is made from cathode copper, that is, copper that has been refined electrolytically. C11000 is the most common of all the electrical copper grades. It has high electrical conductivity, in excess of 100% IACS. It has the same oxygen content as C 12500, but differs in sulfur content and in over-all purity. C11000 has less than 50 ppm total metallic impurities, including sulfur.

Oxygen-free copper grades C10100 and C10200 are made by induction melting prime-quality cathode copper under nonoxidizing conditions produced by a granulated graphite bath covering and a protective reducing atmosphere that is low in hydrogen."
 
From Paul at PS Audio:
 

Professor Atsumi Ohno began the study of the solidification of metals in the mid 1960's, and published his landmark book, Solidification; The Separation Theory and its Practical Applications, in 1984. In this book, Ohno describes his many theories and concepts regarding the processing and solidification of molten metals, and the resulting crystal structures. He goes on to describe his unique process for casting metals with virtually no crystal structure, the O.C.C. process. This concept was first conceived of in 1978, and utilizes heated molds in a continuous casting process. Eventually, international patents were granted for O.C.C. (Ohno Continuous Casting).

The copper produced by this method is small rods of O.C.C. pure copper, from which wire can be drawn and which can have Copper grains of over 700 ft in length.  A Japanese manufacturer is currently using this process and produces O.C.C. under the trade name PCOCC (Pure Copper by Ohno Continuous Casting).
 
Some type of continuous cast copper is generally what you find in high-end copper cables. Incidentally, according to Paul they measure their cables with time-domain reflectometers.
 
 
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

This is the Sound Science forum, remember? in here comments are meaningless.
 
 
se

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

 
IMO that does not mean the blind test is a fail.

Once again I need to clarify a misrepresentation/miscommunication.  I didn't say the test failed or that tests fail.  I said humans fail tests.  Please try to understand the nuance which isn't really nuanced tbh.  Even when they know the answer, humans can answer incorrectly.  
____________________
 
My problem w/ the majority of the 'objective' camp as they portray themselves here is the lack of skepticism in their own arguments.  They tend to be more prejudicial than skeptical.  As someone who has debated more significant topics than speaker cables for many years, the fact of the matter is that those who seek objectivity will have to accept the absence of proof and no more.  There is no path to the proof of absence.  The rest is intellectual auto-erotica.  
 
It should be noted as well, that the second a sound experiment is made demonstrating a repeatable result supporting the 'subjectivist' claims the objectivists should now switch sides and support the new data if it holds true.  In reality this is rarely the case around these parts.

 

[drez]

Quote:

There is no path to the proof of absence.  The rest is intellectual auto-erotica.  

Excellent point, I wish I thought of that one.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

 
It should be noted as well, that the second a sound experiment is made demonstrating a repeatable result supporting the 'subjectivist' claims the objectivists should now switch sides and support the new data if it holds true.  In reality this is rarely the case around these parts.

I will spin on a dime, if a well designed and executed experiment under reasonable conditions shows a quantifiable objective measurement we can then apply to audible characteristics. 
 
The reason you see such a person rarely, is it is rare that the subjectivists claims are held up under a well controlled experiment. 
 
But seriously - show me good, reliable data - and I'm all yours. 
 
I try to maintain skepticism regarding my own stance as well. But those who want objective results do not have to accept the "absence of proof" as anything at all. If there is no proof, you cannot with certainly claim something is. That's all. No ifs ands or buts. We are happy to accept objective results with known caveats regarding resolution and measurement limits - as well as required suppositions on which to base our science... but that is a very different ball-game than "absence of proof."
 
That is to say, I'll take 98% sure of something as "good enough for me" - 100% is a rare thing - but I will not take an inconclusive result, or some small percentage chance of something as evidence that it MUST be. At best you can say it MAY be... but that it isn't very likely.

 

[DaveBSC]

Curious, does anyone know of any tests between high-end cables and Monoprice type stuff done on TDRs? I don't recall seeing any.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

 
 
......
 
Oh wait, I just looked on youtube, it exists, thanks Marco Angelo, the difference is night and day! you saved me! (this was the best I could find)
 
 

 
 
Edit: Skip to 1:31... this is the proof you have all been waiting for!
 

Here is more evidence that guitar cables do make a difference
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/563603/guitar-cables-evidence-that-they-do-make-a-difference-to-sound-quality
 
and yet that thread was virtually ignored and some responses were pathetic.
 
Here is even more evidence, this time a null test were there is a clear audible difference
 
http://web.mac.com/davewronski/audio/null.html
 
I accept that guitar cables make a difference. We do concentrate a bit too much on blind testing. There are two other ways of proving a cable will make a difference. One is showing a clear audible difference backed up by measurements (so that we know it is not placebo) and the other is Null testing.
 
Looks like it takes an objectivist to gather the necessary evidence and to have an open mind. If we had waited for subjectivists to gather any evidence, we would still be here next year.

 

[Willakan]

Quote:

I don't get why you are having such a big issue with this. Do you accept that copper grades exist? Or are you trying to imply that all copper is the same?
 
"The first family, the coppers, is essentially commercially pure copper, which normally is soft and ductile and contains less than about 0.7% total impurities. Commercially pure copper grades are designated by UNS numbers C10100 to C13000. The dilute copper grades contain small amounts of various alloying elements that modify one or more of the basic properties of copper.

Electrolytic tough pitch copper C11000 is made from cathode copper, that is, copper that has been refined electrolytically. C11000 is the most common of all the electrical copper grades. It has high electrical conductivity, in excess of 100% IACS. It has the same oxygen content as C 12500, but differs in sulfur content and in over-all purity. C11000 has less than 50 ppm total metallic impurities, including sulfur.

Oxygen-free copper grades C10100 and C10200 are made by induction melting prime-quality cathode copper under nonoxidizing conditions produced by a granulated graphite bath covering and a protective reducing atmosphere that is low in hydrogen."
 
From Paul at PS Audio:
 

Professor Atsumi Ohno began the study of the solidification of metals in the mid 1960's, and published his landmark book, Solidification; The Separation Theory and its Practical Applications, in 1984. In this book, Ohno describes his many theories and concepts regarding the processing and solidification of molten metals, and the resulting crystal structures. He goes on to describe his unique process for casting metals with virtually no crystal structure, the O.C.C. process. This concept was first conceived of in 1978, and utilizes heated molds in a continuous casting process. Eventually, international patents were granted for O.C.C. (Ohno Continuous Casting).

The copper produced by this method is small rods of O.C.C. pure copper, from which wire can be drawn and which can have Copper grains of over 700 ft in length.  A Japanese manufacturer is currently using this process and produces O.C.C. under the trade name PCOCC (Pure Copper by Ohno Continuous Casting).
 
Some type of continuous cast copper is generally what you find in high-end copper cables. Incidentally, according to Paul they measure their cables with time-domain reflectometers.
 
 
 

 
You are in danger of making missing the point into an art form. There are indeed lots of different types of copper. They are in no way superior to the copper wire you can buy at Home Depot, assuming a sufficient gauge for the application. As far as audio cables are concerned, virtually* all copper is the same.
 
*Finding a grade of copper that is 32% cake is not a sensible counter-argument.
 
As for guitar cables, capacitance doesn't result in audible differences with all but the most broken of amplifiers outside the guitar cable world(I believe NwAvGuy documented an instance on his blog somewhere where the input stage of an amplifier oscillated ultrasonically to different degrees depending on the capacitance of the input cable used!)
 
 

 

[Pudu]

Once again I need to clarify a misrepresentation/miscommunication. I didn't say the test failed or that tests fail. I said humans fail tests. Please try to understand the nuance which isn't really nuanced tbh. Even when they know the answer, humans can answer incorrectly.
____________________

My problem w/ the majority of the 'objective' camp as they portray themselves here is the lack of skepticism in their own arguments. They tend to be more prejudicial than skeptical. As someone who has debated more significant topics than speaker cables for many years, the fact of the matter is that those who seek objectivity will have to accept the absence of proof and no more. There is no path to the proof of absence. The rest is intellectual auto-erotica.

It should be noted as well, that the second a sound experiment is made demonstrating a repeatable result supporting the 'subjectivist' claims the objectivists should now switch sides and support the new data if it holds true. In reality this is rarely the case around these parts.

I will spin on a dime, if a well designed and executed experiment under reasonable conditions shows a quantifiable objective measurement we can then apply to audible characteristics. 
 
The reason you see such a person rarely, is it is rare that the subjectivists claims are held up under a well controlled experiment. 
 
But seriously - show me good, reliable data - and I'm all yours. 
 
I try to maintain skepticism regarding my own stance as well. But those who want objective results do not have to accept the "absence of proof" as anything at all. If there is no proof, you cannot with certainly claim something is. That's all. No ifs ands or buts. We are happy to accept objective results with known caveats regarding resolution and measurement limits - as well as required suppositions on which to base our science... but that is a very different ball-game than "absence of proof."
 
That is to say, I'll take 98% sure of something as "good enough for me" - 100% is a rare thing - but I will not take an inconclusive result, or some small percentage chance of something as evidence that it MUST be. At best you can say it MAY be... but that it isn't very likely.

This may be well and good in the realm of debating and philosophy, but in the physical sciences for an experimental hypothesis to be proved correct it has to be repeatable, by anyone who performs the experiment properly. Using the above logic we should all be investing heavily in cold fusion now and forget all this solar/wind/fuel cell rubbish.

The problem we have here is people are saying cable X is better than cable Y because I think it should be and because it sounds that way to me. That is not a hypothesis based on any kind of logical conclusion.

If the hypothesis was that cable X should sound better because it has property {XXX} that cable Y is lacking, then the onus would be to disprove the hypothesis by showing that property {XXX} doesn't affect the sound produced.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

If the hypothesis was that cable X should sound better because it has property Q that cable Y is lacking, then the onus would be to disprove the hypothesis by showing that property Q doesn't affect the sound produced.

No. The onus is on those making the claim to show that it does. Not on us to show it does not. 
 
But really - the purpose of the experiment would be to see what affect property Q has on the sound. Not to either prove or disprove. Just observe and make conclusions from the data. 

 

[Pudu]

Yes, I think you are correct - because we are dealing with the hypothesis that property {XXX} will affect sound quality. And one should start with a hypothesis that {XXX} could affect the sound because of some logical reasoning. Generally you don't randomly test things just 'because'.


I was thinking in bigger terms of theories, where a theory that has a sound logical basis is valid until proven invalid.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

I was thinking in bigger terms of theories, where a theory that has a sound logical basis is valid until proven invalid.

Provided it is in fact falsifiable in the first place, sure, I'll give you that. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

No. The onus is on those making the claim to show that it does. Not on us to show it does not. 
 
But really - the purpose of the experiment would be to see what affect property Q has on the sound. Not to either prove or disprove. Just observe and make conclusions from the data. 

If the onus is then on cable makers and they are to study the effect of Q on sound they have failed so far. All means of making a cable, all electrical the properties of a cable and all materials that a cable can be made from are apparently able to sound better than any other. I had a look at what cable makers say about their products here
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
 
and there is no consistency whatsoever. So no Q. That is further evidenced by subjective reports and reviews of what cables sound like which are also conflicting and inconsistent.
 

 

[Pudu]

If the onus is then on cable makers and they are to study the effect of Q on sound they have failed so far. All means of making a cable, all electrical the properties of a cable and all materials that a cable can be made from are apparently able to sound better than any other. I had a look at what cable makers say about their products here
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
 
and there is no consistency whatsoever. So no Q. That is further evidenced by subjective reports and reviews of what cables sound like which are also conflicting and inconsistent.
 

I know I introduced the term, but can we change it to Property {XXX}. In reading this I suddenly realized we might be making subconscious associations with certain products. And while I know some of you are completely and totally immune the effects of the subconscious, I think it's inappropriate all the same.