[CompressionalFlagellation]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif I contest that perhaps our measurements of sound pressure waves are inadequate and don't represent what a person actually hears.

I disagree. I think a machine's ability to detect sound (like a thousand dollar mic) far exceeds the human ear in detecting sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif A sound that might be harsh to me is soothing to another. What might be engaging and warm to me is bloated, unnatural, and dark to someone else.

Here you are analyzing how a person feels with sounds, which is irrelevant to the argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I'm saying is that since our measurements don't reflect what people are hearing, our measurements aren't telling us the entire story.

Perhaps not the subjective story.

How about this; we take two people and assume both of them score exactly the same on a professional hearing test. Aside from a very slight difference in how sound interacts with their ears on the way to the ear drum, they will perceive the exact same sound. Maybe it won't make them feel the same -- but I think this idea that a 440hz tone is going to be 254hz for one, and 723hz for another is ridiculous. They might have different opinions of what the exact tone it is -- but none the less, the tone is the same for both.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly! So how then can a measurement of sound pressure waves tell me what I hear?

This is exactly it: they cannot tell you what you have perceived to hear. If such is true, why do you discount perception/mind as a contributing source to what you have heard?

Now take note: if you claim cable X improves high frequency extension, then a measurement device should be able to show that cable x transmits the high frequencies with less roll-off. If the measurement device does not show this, then the change you heard did not come from the sound, it came from your perception of it.

 

[CompressionalFlagellation]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now take note: if you claim cable X improves high frequency extension, then a measurement device should be able to show that cable x transmits the high frequencies with less roll-off. If the measurement device does not show this, then the change you heard did not come from the sound, it came from your perception of it.

Exactly. That is the conclusion of this whole "cable debate" in my opinion -- we just need a measurement device of some sort to do this accurately.

If I had the resources, I would fund the development of such a device. It would be very simple; a series of input/outputs (for 1/4, 1/8, XLR, etc) where one could connect each side of a cable to loop a signal and test its signal transmission. As a matter of fact, I'm sure something like that already exists.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does it really matter?

Sure it matters. If you buy a normal cable you will save a lot of money and get the same sounding results as with a much more expensive one.

If you have enough money, then you can do what you want with it, but there are some people who do not have it.

Plus on the article the op added, the KEY to everything when doing tests is here:

Blind listening tests
From "blind" listening tests, we could hear no difference between test guitar cables made with oxygen-free copper (OFC) and our "normal" guitar cables. Maybe you can, but we can't.

That is what makes a difference. When the only thing you hear is music, and you do not use your sight to make differences.

 

[Chu]

I have some 99.x% OFC speaker cable that I've been using for about 6 years with "multimedia" speakers, in clear insulation. It's turning green

I've sometimes wondered how well all these cables in opaque sleeves really age. I mean, it might start out as 99.99+% OFC but how long does it stay that way?

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have some 99.x% OFC speaker cable that I've been using for about 6 years with "multimedia" speakers, in clear insulation. It's turning green I've sometimes wondered how well all these cables in opaque sleeves really age. I mean, it might start out as 99.99+% OFC but how long does it stay that way?

If its cheap who knows?

 

[Chu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif If its cheap who knows?

I think the point is, if it's expensive, who knows

People are not going to cut open their cables to find out.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the point is, if it's expensive, who knows People are not going to cut open their cables to find out.

No,,,,,,if its cheap who knows, I never mentioned price.

 

[dvw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have some 99.x% OFC speaker cable that I've been using for about 6 years with "multimedia" speakers, in clear insulation. It's turning green I've sometimes wondered how well all these cables in opaque sleeves really age. I mean, it might start out as 99.99+% OFC but how long does it stay that way?

Unfortunately, OFC copper is not going to prevent the copper from oxidation. The copper reacts with air to turn green. Copper in the opaque sleeve will also turn green unless they are completely isolated from air.

 

[LostOne.TR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif No,,,,,,if its cheap who knows, I never mentioned price.

Does that mean we're more likely to know if the cable (value, not cost to us) is expensive?

 

[shieber]

Well, no one has anything scientific to rbutt the point the OFC hasn't any audio signal transmission properties vs regualr copper. Many sellers will emphasize instead that being ox free make the copper more impervious to oxydation, which sounds like an unbeatable argument until you note that the insulation is slightly ox permeable (jsut like ballons) and the small amount of ox in copper wire is much less than what will permeate the insulation.
 
A few degrees temp change will have more effect on conductivity than will OFC.
 
OFC is a red herring; worry about the stuff that matters. Pay for the stuff that's worth it.

 

[Speedskater]

This thread is 6 years old!

 

[shieber]

Some folks have just read it. That's why it stays posted.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Well, no one has anything scientific to rbutt the point the OFC hasn't any audio signal transmission properties vs regualr copper. Many sellers will emphasize instead that being ox free make the copper more impervious to oxydation, which sounds like an unbeatable argument until you note that the insulation is slightly ox permeable (jsut like ballons) and the small amount of ox in copper wire is much less than what will permeate the insulation.

OFC copper will oxidize just as readily as any other copper when exposed to air.

People just don't understand what the purpose of oxygen free copper is.

"Regular copper," or ETP copper is an oxygenated copper. What this means is that they start out with pretty high purity copper, but during the melt, they add very small, precisely controlled amounts of oxygen (contrary to the popular notion that regular copper is processed in "open air"). The purpose of the oxygen is to bind with remaining impurities and remove them from solution, which has the result of increasing the copper's conductivity. This is why modern ETP copper has IACS conductivity of around 102%. The IACS conductivity standard was established in the early part of the 20th century, before the ETP process was developed.

The "problem" with ETP copper comes if you heat it in a reducing atmosphere like hydrogen, as you might find in a hydrogen annealing furnace. The hydrogen can react with the oxygen in the copper, causing it to become embrittled. So for such situations, oxygen free copper is used to avoid this. However because oxygen free copper can't take advantage of oxygen scavenging, it needs to be of a higher inherent purity in order to achieve the same conductivity as ETP copper, so it's a little more expensive.

A few degrees temp change will have more effect on conductivity than will OFC.

Yes. Though the conductivity of OFC and ETP is pretty much the same.

And conductivity is a pretty meaningless term in the context of an audio cable anyway. Conductivity simply manifests as resistance. And the resistance of a cable will primarily depend on the gauge of the wire used for the cable. So if one cable uses a slightly more conductive metal, you just need to use a slightly larger gauge of wire to achieve the same or lower resistance.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

This thread is 6 years old!

Damn. I forgot to get it a birthday card!

se