HIGH END CABLES - The truth revealed! (personal opinion only)
Mar 10, 2007 at 6:08 AM Post #196 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
do you know how electrical signal is propagated on a molecular level?

Here are some hints: valance electron, energy level, electron excitement, level jump.

If you can't figure out why Cu is a better conductor than Al? and Why is Ag a better conductor than Cu? I have nothing more to say. You lack basic engineering/scientific knowledge.

You need to explain this to me so I know you passed at least high school science class
biggrin.gif
And while you are using Google for your answer you might as well look up propagation and phase delays.

It's quite sad when the ones who lacked knowledge hold views that are incorrect, and yet are so stubborn that they ignore the ones with the knowledge.



They are better conductors. I never disagreed with that. But when the resistance is the same between two wires, regardless of composition, current flow will be the same.

Are you saying that a silver cable with a resistance of one ohm is different than a copper one that is also one ohm? That's like saying a pound of bricks is heavier than a pound of feathers.

Phase delay? The phase delay is there and can be calculated again with RLC (back to RLC again
rolleyes.gif
). The fact of the matter is that the phase delay even for a very poorly designed cable is to small to be distinguished with human hearing. But yet again it can all be calculated. Yet again you are being childish.

The effects of signal propagation are also all calculated by RLC. Also the effects of signal propagation and the need to properly match cables with input/output impedance isn't a factor until the frequency of the signal is over 100khz (roughly). Way beyond human hearing. And I though you knew this stuff?
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 6:10 AM Post #197 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Maybe those with the knowledge have failed to provide a convincing argument, based in a real scientific explanation, to those stubborn, that lack of the proper knowledge...(instead of the same yada yada of that I hear this and that)


answer these 3 questions before we continue:

1. Sound is made up of superimposing of various electric wave at difference frequencies. Do you agree?

2. If the there is a difference in electron prorogation, then there is a difference in the waveform. Do you agree?

3. If there is a difference in waveform, then there is a difference in sound. Do you agree?

k1000smile.gif
I guess it doesn't hurt to do a little more explanations, but no equations because I don't remember them
k1000smile.gif


I guess I can give you some of my background. since I don't do any actual engineering these days
biggrin.gif


BSEE University of Michigan Ann Arbor
Circuit/VLSI design IBM PowerPC Team (I don't work for IBM anymore)
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 6:35 AM Post #198 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
answer these 3 questions before we continue:

1. Sound is made up of superimposing of various electric wave at difference frequencies. Do you agree?

2. If the there is a difference in electron prorogation, then there is a difference in the waveform. Do you agree?

3. If there is a difference in waveform, then there is a difference in sound. Do you agree?



Yes I agree in all 3, but that doesn't imply that those differences are necesarily big enough to be taken into consideration or heard...also temperature, weather conditions, humidity will affect them, that doesn't mean that you need a completelly controlled enviroment to listen music, OK? There certain levels of sanity in audio as well...
very_evil_smiley.gif


You probably know that the level of tolerances are not set by random, sometimes you will not get any better tangible result going any further once you reach certain level, or maybe is possible that some of those differences are more noticeable at other frequencias above or below the audio spectrum, not sure if this explains whay so many people do not believe in those differences...BTW in some way I do, OK?
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 6:48 AM Post #199 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
answer these 3 questions before we continue:

1. Sound is made up of superimposing of various electric wave at difference frequencies. Do you agree?

2. If the there is a difference in electron prorogation, then there is a difference in the waveform. Do you agree?

3. If there is a difference in waveform, then there is a difference in sound. Do you agree?

k1000smile.gif
I guess it doesn't hurt to do a little more explanations, but no equations because I don't remember them
k1000smile.gif



1. Or a wave of varying frequency and amplitude.

2. There sure is. But that difference is different for any given frequency and is dependent on the properties of the cable (RLC again) and impedance of the device being used. And those differences are amplitude and phase.

3. Yes and no. There is a level at which human hearing (that's all humans. Evan those that think they have super hearing.) can't detect a difference in amplitude and phase.

4. If a person can hear a difference in the sound it can be measured.

5. If they measure the same they will sound the same. If you take cable X that costs $10,000 dollars and sounds the best to person A and find another cable that measures the same as cable X but you found at Walmart, it will will sound the same to person A. Why? Because if two cables change the phase and amplitude the same the signal will be the same.

6. This still does nothing to explain how a power cable could change the output of a components power supply.

7. This also doesn't bring into argument on what the amplitude and phase change a human can actually hear.

8. Maybe you should do some math on a cable to see what the changes are and if they are within a humans hearing ability.

9. Why wouldn't a high end cable manufacturer publish all the specs of a cable? Is it because they don't want someone to copy their magic, or someone to figure out they are no better than any other cable.
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 7:20 AM Post #201 of 229
To the vets here, of course you are right. Your patience is appreciated.
redface.gif


I was given my first lesson today with ICs. I was given 30 seconds of the same music with each cable a/b through a system. I did this a few times and couldn't hear any difference. I was listening for the instrument tones, background noise, any change of the sound.........everything but the music.

I was told to tap my foot to the rhythm. The timing of the instruments were skewed with the wrong cables. The recordings were hard to listen to as each instrument's timing was slightly off. The right cable had me tapping multiple rhythms like a conductor. The instruments blended into single notes in unison. Miles Davis and Eric Clapton was used to demonstrate so the live performances were outstanding.

Second was the emotion of the artist. My level of concentration did not recall the lyrics or emotional condition of the singer with the bad cable. Of Layla. A song I've listened to for most of my life. The right cable sounded like Eric was in the room with me. The presence grabbed my attention & I felt Eric was performing for me. Eric's painful sarcasm of Layla's indecisiveness. He is hopelessly in love and begging her to decide. How do you measure emotion?

Most of us non-musicians listen to music differently. It's more of a sensory occupation while engaging in other tasks. What I call ear bubblegum. When your senses are in tune with the music, you are almost in a trance. Makes it hard to do anything else. So RLC differences do affect the sound IMO. Having the right IC will make a difference. But the wrong one will make a bigger difference.

He also suggested replacing the toslink cable so next week, I start testing my system with stock, computer and audio grade optical and three different makers entry ICs. Once I find a maker that has the most impact on the sound, I can try the vertical quality based on price.

On a short sidetrack. This is why the independent specialist earns his money and should be supported. Chain stores couldn't do this. They wouldn't know how. The specialist can teach you the listening skills to hear the differences. Kudos Lou.

Thank you good folks for making me aware of the possibilities. And damn you head-fi
tongue.gif
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 7:43 AM Post #203 of 229
Fundamental Understanding of the Transmission line

Metallic bond and its effect on signal propagation
The propagation of signal through an element is directly affect by the atomic makeup of that element. Atoms are made up of the nucleolus and a cloud of electrons. The cloud of electrons are usually represented by energy levels, where the electrons with the highest energies hang out in the outer layer while the weaker ones are closer to the core. Valance electron is the electron that hangs in the outer most rim of the electron cloud. In order to conduct current, which is the transfer of energy from one electron to another, or you can call it drift current, the valance electron must be able to move around. Metallic bound, unlike covalent or ionic bound, do not restrict the movement of their valance electrons. Although semiconductors are the exception with covalent bound (that's another topic all together).

So why is one metal a better conductor than the other? The simple answer is the more levels of energy a given metal has, the better it conducts electricity. The easier and less restrictive the movement of the electron the better it conduct electricity. One of the most important reasons is that when valance electrons are further from the core, there is less positive force pulling on it and since the valance electrons are usually the stronger ones that jumped from the level below, it has enough energy to 'swim' around the cloud. When an electric field is applied to the element, the energy is transferred from one electron to another and from one atom to another down the chain. Ag is a larger atom than Cu, but both have 2 valance, so they are pretty good conductors, with Ag being the better of the 2. Al, on the other hand, is pretty bad. It has 3 valance electrons and the atom is small. So the electric energy is freely passed in Ag and Cu, but is no so in Al.

In theory, the speed of propagation is c (speed of light, 3x10^8m/s), but there is loss in energy when one electron hand over the energy to another electron and to another electron. Thus, the propagation delay is material dependent. Cu has a theoretical propagation of 66.667%c or (2x10^8m/s). This, of course, does not count any boundary electron jump between bonding materials (solder).

So what is phase delay? Phase delay is a shift of the waveform in the time domain.

Voltage drop across transmission line
To calculate voltage drop across a transmission line, the propagation delay and the frequency which the signal is traveling at is important.

V1 = V0 cos(w(t-l/c)) where w= 2pif. And c is the speed which the energy travels. and l is the length of the cable

The determining factor in voltage drop is wl/c. By comparing theoretical c to the c of the copper, the power loss is measurable. One also need to taken into account the dispersive effects of the material, which for cu, I am not sure what that is. Dispersive effects are generally thought as different frequency propagate at different speed, so not only do you have phase delay of the superposed waveform, there is a phase delay in different frequency components as well!

How to properly calculate RLGC in Coaxial Cable

The Coaxial Cables are constructed with two coaxial conductors separated by dielectrics (of course conventional construction includes an outer layer of shielding).

R = (Rs/(2pi))(1/a+1/b) where a=2r(inner) and b=2r(outer), and Rs= sqrt(pi(f)(uc)(qc)) where uc = magnetic permeability and qc = electric conductivity (sorry no roman letters

As you can see, the resistance is a function of frequency and R is independent of V1 where V1 is the voltage drop due to propagation and again R is not dependent on phase delay and dispersion effects. Also notice the math does not involve any effect of the imperfect dielectric and electron deposition.

L = u/(2pi) x ln(b/a) Again no baring on phase delay

G = (2pi*q)/(ln(b/a))

C = (2pi(e))/ln(b/a)

Notice none of the RLGC is responsible for power loss, phase delay and dispersion effects and R is a function of frequency.

Now if you look the transmission line equation

-dV/dz = (R+jwl)I(z) and -dI(z)/dz = (G+jwC)V(z)

Now if differentiate both sides, you will arrive with (y) or complex propagation constant, which is y=alpha + jbeta

Alpha = Re(sqrt((R+jwL)(G+jwC))
Beta = Re(sqft((R+jwl)(G+jwC))

So basically, after doing all the math, the traditional RLC measurements are not only inaccurate, its down right faulty as RLC is a function of frequency at which the wave travels, and is dependent on the electrical permittivity, magnetic permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the individual material. This however does not even consider the power loss or dispersive effects.

I hope the above analysis answers some questions regarding why a manufacturer may want to optimize multiple areas of the cable to give it a lower propagation delay, optimize RLGC with different material and also optimize RLGC with the use of novel geometries. Of course you can ignore this entire discussion and just use your ear.
k1000smile.gif
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM Post #204 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Using that logic, a black cable sounds darker and a skinny cable sounds thin.

See ya
Steve



You always sound silly, no matter what logic YOU use.
tongue.gif


I am not kidding. Due to patricks research and my own, i know thicker silverplating results in more body in the sound. The valkyrja has thinner silverplating, is more detailed but has less body. The valhalla has thicker silverplating and has even more body! Since the used cores are the same and only the silverplating is different, yes, i can conclude that the thicker the silverplating, the more body you get but you also loose some details.

I also have other cables with silverplating wich is much thinner then Nordost is using and they sound considderably thinner!

For powercables, the thicker the core, the more body you get, the thinner, the better the focus is but less body and warmth.

I know you never tried anything at all.
wink.gif
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 11:45 AM Post #205 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Fundamental Understanding of the Transmission line

Metallic bond and its effect on signal propagation
The propagation of signal through an element is directly affect by the atomic makeup of that element. Atoms are made up of the nucleolus and a cloud of electrons. The cloud of electrons are usually represented by energy levels, where the electrons with the highest energies hang out in the outer layer while the weaker ones are closer to the core. Valance electron is the electron that hangs in the outer most rim of the electron cloud. In order to conduct current, which is the transfer of energy from one electron to another, or you can call it drift current, the valance electron must be able to move around. Metallic bound, unlike covalent or ionic bound, do not restrict the movement of their valance electrons. Although semiconductors are the exception with covalent bound (that's another topic all together).

So why is one metal a better conductor than the other? The simple answer is the more levels of energy a given metal has, the better it conducts electricity. The easier and less restrictive the movement of the electron the better it conduct electricity. One of the most important reasons is that when valance electrons are further from the core, there is less positive force pulling on it and since the valance electrons are usually the stronger ones that jumped from the level below, it has enough energy to 'swim' around the cloud. When an electric field is applied to the element, the energy is transferred from one electron to another and from one atom to another down the chain. Ag is a larger atom than Cu, but both have 2 valance, so they are pretty good conductors, with Ag being the better of the 2. Al, on the other hand, is pretty bad. It has 3 valance electrons and the atom is small. So the electric energy is freely passed in Ag and Cu, but is no so in Al.

In theory, the speed of propagation is c (speed of light, 3x10^8m/s), but there is loss in energy when one electron hand over the energy to another electron and to another electron. Thus, the propagation delay is material dependent. Cu has a theoretical propagation of 66.667%c or (2x10^8m/s). This, of course, does not count any boundary electron jump between bonding materials (solder).

So what is phase delay? Phase delay is a shift of the waveform in the time domain.

Voltage drop across transmission line
To calculate voltage drop across a transmission line, the propagation delay and the frequency which the signal is traveling at is important.

V1 = V0 cos(w(t-l/c)) where w= 2pif. And c is the speed which the energy travels. and l is the length of the cable

The determining factor in voltage drop is wl/c. By comparing theoretical c to the c of the copper, the power loss is measurable. One also need to taken into account the dispersive effects of the material, which for cu, I am not sure what that is. Dispersive effects are generally thought as different frequency propagate at different speed, so not only do you have phase delay of the superposed waveform, there is a phase delay in different frequency components as well!

How to properly calculate RLGC in Coaxial Cable

The Coaxial Cables are constructed with two coaxial conductors separated by dielectrics (of course conventional construction includes an outer layer of shielding).

R = (Rs/(2pi))(1/a+1/b) where a=2r(inner) and b=2r(outer), and Rs= sqrt(pi(f)(uc)(qc)) where uc = magnetic permeability and qc = electric conductivity (sorry no roman letters

As you can see, the resistance is a function of frequency and R is independent of V1 where V1 is the voltage drop due to propagation and again R is not dependent on phase delay and dispersion effects. Also notice the math does not involve any effect of the imperfect dielectric and electron deposition.

L = u/(2pi) x ln(b/a) Again no baring on phase delay

G = (2pi*q)/(ln(b/a))

C = (2pi(e))/ln(b/a)

Notice none of the RLGC is responsible for power loss, phase delay and dispersion effects and R is a function of frequency.

Now if you look the transmission line equation

-dV/dz = (R+jwl)I(z) and -dI(z)/dz = (G+jwC)V(z)

Now if differentiate both sides, you will arrive with (y) or complex propagation constant, which is y=alpha + jbeta

Alpha = Re(sqrt((R+jwL)(G+jwC))
Beta = Re(sqft((R+jwl)(G+jwC))

So basically, after doing all the math, the traditional RLC measurements are not only inaccurate, its down right faulty as RLC is a function of frequency at which the wave travels, and is dependent on the electrical permittivity, magnetic permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the individual material. This however does not even consider the power loss or dispersive effects.

I hope the above analysis answers some questions regarding why a manufacturer may want to optimize multiple areas of the cable to give it a lower propagation delay, optimize RLGC with different material and also optimize RLGC with the use of novel geometries. Of course you can ignore this entire discussion and just use your ear.
k1000smile.gif



Interesting read!

If you take the ohno single crystal process, then the flow of the current is even more efficient. The crystal structure is one single crystal and has no boundaries in the atom structure, because of this it measures even much better then a normal constructed coppercable. frequency loss is much less, resistance is much less.

You understand that this technique is more expensive then ordinairy cables and you know why some high end cables are simlpy more expensive.....add good plugs like the silver eichmann's and you'll know why some sound much better!

So, if you all know this, you know why it is so difficult to make really good IC's and needs lots of research and why the top end is sooo expensive.
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM Post #206 of 229
i really appreciate your efforts to explain this stuff cheesebert.
having spent several years (before quiting
wink.gif
) as a physics undergrad i am aware of the mess coaxial cable can make of a signal, having done experiments with oscilloscopes etc. of course this was with signals in the 1 MHz range and quite long cables (30m+) (see you've made me go and read my old lab notebook - shame on you
tongue.gif
)

anyone got any typical figures for those variables so we could do the calculations and see what order of magnitude the differences between cables are ?

i think we need to remember that the debate is not that there is no difference between cables - most cables have slightly different properties i would have thought- the issue is if those differences lead to differences in sound that could be detected by the human ear.
(not talking about power cables, which is a different argument imho)

to be honest i am undecided about the issue, and i dont have the money to investigate and try out cables, which is why i do find it a bit frustrating when people say 'just listen - you will hear the difference', especially since some people who have listened to cables were unable to hear a difference.
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM Post #207 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Fundamental Understanding of the Transmission line

Metallic bond and its effect on signal propagation
The propagation of signal through an element is directly affect by the atomic makeup of that element. Atoms are made up of the nucleolus and a cloud of electrons. The cloud of electrons are usually represented by energy levels, where the electrons with the highest energies hang out in the outer layer while the weaker ones are closer to the core. Valance electron is the electron that hangs in the outer most rim of the electron cloud. In order to conduct current, which is the transfer of energy from one electron to another, or you can call it drift current, the valance electron must be able to move around. Metallic bound, unlike covalent or ionic bound, do not restrict the movement of their valance electrons. Although semiconductors are the exception with covalent bound (that's another topic all together).

So why is one metal a better conductor than the other? The simple answer is the more levels of energy a given metal has, the better it conducts electricity. The easier and less restrictive the movement of the electron the better it conduct electricity. One of the most important reasons is that when valance electrons are further from the core, there is less positive force pulling on it and since the valance electrons are usually the stronger ones that jumped from the level below, it has enough energy to 'swim' around the cloud. When an electric field is applied to the element, the energy is transferred from one electron to another and from one atom to another down the chain. Ag is a larger atom than Cu, but both have 2 valance, so they are pretty good conductors, with Ag being the better of the 2. Al, on the other hand, is pretty bad. It has 3 valance electrons and the atom is small. So the electric energy is freely passed in Ag and Cu, but is no so in Al.

In theory, the speed of propagation is c (speed of light, 3x10^8m/s), but there is loss in energy when one electron hand over the energy to another electron and to another electron. Thus, the propagation delay is material dependent. Cu has a theoretical propagation of 66.667%c or (2x10^8m/s). This, of course, does not count any boundary electron jump between bonding materials (solder).

So what is phase delay? Phase delay is a shift of the waveform in the time domain.

Voltage drop across transmission line
To calculate voltage drop across a transmission line, the propagation delay and the frequency which the signal is traveling at is important.

V1 = V0 cos(w(t-l/c)) where w= 2pif. And c is the speed which the energy travels. and l is the length of the cable

The determining factor in voltage drop is wl/c. By comparing theoretical c to the c of the copper, the power loss is measurable. One also need to taken into account the dispersive effects of the material, which for cu, I am not sure what that is. Dispersive effects are generally thought as different frequency propagate at different speed, so not only do you have phase delay of the superposed waveform, there is a phase delay in different frequency components as well!

How to properly calculate RLGC in Coaxial Cable

The Coaxial Cables are constructed with two coaxial conductors separated by dielectrics (of course conventional construction includes an outer layer of shielding).

R = (Rs/(2pi))(1/a+1/b) where a=2r(inner) and b=2r(outer), and Rs= sqrt(pi(f)(uc)(qc)) where uc = magnetic permeability and qc = electric conductivity (sorry no roman letters

As you can see, the resistance is a function of frequency and R is independent of V1 where V1 is the voltage drop due to propagation and again R is not dependent on phase delay and dispersion effects. Also notice the math does not involve any effect of the imperfect dielectric and electron deposition.

L = u/(2pi) x ln(b/a) Again no baring on phase delay

G = (2pi*q)/(ln(b/a))

C = (2pi(e))/ln(b/a)

Notice none of the RLGC is responsible for power loss, phase delay and dispersion effects and R is a function of frequency.

Now if you look the transmission line equation

-dV/dz = (R+jwl)I(z) and -dI(z)/dz = (G+jwC)V(z)

Now if differentiate both sides, you will arrive with (y) or complex propagation constant, which is y=alpha + jbeta

Alpha = Re(sqrt((R+jwL)(G+jwC))
Beta = Re(sqft((R+jwl)(G+jwC))

So basically, after doing all the math, the traditional RLC measurements are not only inaccurate, its down right faulty as RLC is a function of frequency at which the wave travels, and is dependent on the electrical permittivity, magnetic permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the individual material. This however does not even consider the power loss or dispersive effects.

I hope the above analysis answers some questions regarding why a manufacturer may want to optimize multiple areas of the cable to give it a lower propagation delay, optimize RLGC with different material and also optimize RLGC with the use of novel geometries. Of course you can ignore this entire discussion and just use your ear.
k1000smile.gif



Interesting read!

If you take the ohno single crystal process, then the flow of the current is even more efficient. The crystal structure is one single crystal and has no boundaries in the atom structure, because of this it measures even much better then a normal constructed coppercable. frequency loss is much less, resistance is much less.

You understand that this techneque is more expensive then ordinairy cables and you know why some high end cables are simlpy more expensive.....add good plugs like the silver eichmann's and you'll know why some sound much better!

One of the other things to considder is the isolation material. Teflon is the best! We know that all material stores energy and releases it back into the core, if it cannot turn the energy into heat. Without exception every material behaves like this.Teflon leaks the least of all materials and is also really good for heat, both important aspects of an isolation material since you want less as possible leakage back into the core, wich results in phase shifts and frequency loss but the rest of the energy dissapated as heat. teflon can stand alot of heat and insures that the material won't get hot!

If you add the best crystal structure, the best isolation materials and the best plugs, you'll end up with darn good IC or power cable.
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 12:14 PM Post #208 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesb /img/forum/go_quote.gif
i really appreciate your efforts to explain this stuff cheesebert.
having spent several years (before quiting
wink.gif
) as a physics undergrad i am aware of the mess coaxial cable can make of a signal, having done experiments with oscilloscopes etc. of course this was with signals in the 1 MHz range and quite long cables (30m+) (see you've made me go and read my old lab notebook - shame on you
tongue.gif
)

anyone got any typical figures for those variables so we could do the calculations and see what order of magnitude the differences between cables are ?

i think we need to remember that the debate is not that there is no difference between cables - most cables have slightly different properties i would have thought- the issue is if those differences lead to differences in sound that could be detected by the human ear.
(not talking about power cables, which is a different argument imho)

to be honest i am undecided about the issue, and i dont have the money to investigate and try out cables, which is why i do find it a bit frustrating when people say 'just listen - you will hear the difference', especially since some people who have listened to cables were unable to hear a difference.



True, but if you investigate further, then almost always it turnes out they tried all cables in a certain pricerange! I would expect not a really big difference in a certain pricerange, as with sources, amps and even speakers.

But if you compare a normal cable with a high end cable it would be quite different! And i have been through whole the line (cheap to high end!)

Because in a certain pricerange there isn't much of a difference it doesn't exclude the possability that going to the top end of the line does make a huge difference as it would with sources, amps and speakers.

This is still true for the top of the line cables. They are simply better then the low and mid cables. As is a top high end source, a top high end speaker and a top high end amp! They sound soo much better then mid range equipment!

Some say that cheap cables squeeze the frequency out of the set, with a top cable it can match the quality of the rest of the system and it let the frequency flow as it should be, top and bottom, where the top end cables have more extension!

My former cable(wich wasn't cheap) was limiting my set, now i have a high end cable, i have 50% more of everything. And that is not trivial!

This said, a site measured commercial speaker cables and IC's and were sceptic first but turned around quite quickly once they saw the results of what they measured! The difference in cables are a magnitude compared to the differences in amps! For cables it is max. 800% and in amps at the most 110% So, looking at these numbers, it is starnge that everybody does hear quite easally a difference when using different amps BUT not when changing cables!

As for not hearing differences, well, some people run harder, some have more braincells, some are more beautiful and some hear simply better. Humans are a product of nature and we all differ, also in hearing! This also might explain why one would describe a cable as cold, the other as warm, another as detailed and last but not least not so detailed.
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM Post #209 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am not kidding. Due to patricks research and my own, i know thicker silverplating results in more body in the sound. The valkyrja has thinner silverplating, is more detailed but has less body. The valhalla has thicker silverplating and has even more body! Since the used cores are the same and only the silverplating is different, yes, i can conclude that the thicker the silverplating, the more body you get but you also loose some details.

I also have other cables with silverplating wich is much thinner then Nordost is using and they sound considderably thinner!



With my power cords and interconnects I compared 78 microns silver plating against 60 microns with a wire of the same thickness. The detail was about the same, but the one with the thinner silver plating sounded flatter with less dynamics.

60 microns sounded more neutral but the detail wasn't in my face, everything sounded the same and I had to focus on the music more.

With 78 microns the detail was emphasized and everything sounded more distinct. The background appears blacker than it should be, it seems to remove some detail which makes the background appear blacker, but it emphasizes the detail which boosts it up to the same level as with 60 microns, it sounds both blacker and whiter which gives the illusion of greater dynamics. The edginess makes each sound sound more distinct. It's a great match for mp3 because it compensates for the smearing. It's also best for trance albums because it gives faster transients with more blackness in between each transient!


Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For powercables, the thicker the core, the more body you get, the thinner, the better the focus is but less body and warmth.


When I modified my power cords thinner it sounded thinner and brighter (brightness was masking the detail). At first I thought it was worse but later after I had tweaked my system more it sounded too dark and heavy, so I tried the modification again and it worked, I got loads of detail! Thinner cable is more revealing. The body was reduced but ERS Paper boosted the body back up. ERS Paper removed most of the brightness which revealed low-level transients I never heard before.
 
Mar 10, 2007 at 12:16 PM Post #210 of 229
Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesb /img/forum/go_quote.gif
i really appreciate your efforts to explain this stuff cheesebert.
having spent several years (before quiting
wink.gif
) as a physics undergrad i am aware of the mess coaxial cable can make of a signal, having done experiments with oscilloscopes etc. of course this was with signals in the 1 MHz range and quite long cables (30m+) (see you've made me go and read my old lab notebook - shame on you
tongue.gif
)

anyone got any typical figures for those variables so we could do the calculations and see what order of magnitude the differences between cables are ?

i think we need to remember that the debate is not that there is no difference between cables - most cables have slightly different properties i would have thought- the issue is if those differences lead to differences in sound that could be detected by the human ear.
(not talking about power cables, which is a different argument imho)

to be honest i am undecided about the issue, and i dont have the money to investigate and try out cables, which is why i do find it a bit frustrating when people say 'just listen - you will hear the difference', especially since some people who have listened to cables were unable to hear a difference.



yes, posted them in another thread wich got closed, the differences are 600% and 800% in cables.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top