Anybody want a cable swap at the 'fest?

I am interested in hosting a cable swap at this years Carverfest. What I would like to know before I start to organize one, is anybody interested in hearing first hand what a cable can do for a rig?

This will not be an hour long gig. It will most likely take a half a day or more, depending on how many participants there are.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

List of attendees for the cable swap...

Toymaker [James]
Don
Kingman [Wayne]
OO [Bill]
Angelo
BrianT
Eddie
Ray
Zoothorn [George]
Matt
Chauss

Great idea Tom. I would be very interested in "hearing the differences"! Not to dredge up an age old debate, but would it be blind comparision? Know there will be attendees on both sides of this issue. Should prove very enlightning.

I don't know much about it all, but I will get the debate rolling again with this comment from an audiophile/physicist.
OO




November 22, 2010
Boy they saw you coming.

Nobody makes better elemental copper than anyone else. All copper is identical. So unless you are using either gold or superconductors you're just fooling yourself. The fact that you have to know what you have installed in order to hear a difference shows that. If you can't pick out the high end wires in double blind testing at significantly above chance, then they make no difference. And I note you don't advocate that test.

I've read all the argument and they're all bogus (this is the point of view of a physicist, by the way). The impedance is determined by the gauge, length, and composition. Keep those the same and the impedance is the same.

Since none of these manufacturers smelts their own copper, impurities are irrelevant.

Shielding may have some minor benefit, but since the only major emitter in the audio frequency spectrum is your house wiring at 60 Hz, and since that is already minimized due to the fact that every household wire is a dipole with a 1/r^3 radiation field, that isn't relevant either.

Double blind tests have, in fact, been conducted. The results are that audiophiles such as yourself are unable to tell the difference between $500 cables and lamp cord from Home Depot, or even straightened coat hangers.

We really don't need to say any more about it than that. Except that some people appear to have more money than sense.

Sure; but can we try it on something better than your crappy stuff?











*Dons flame-proof suit*

I don't know much about it all, but I will get the debate rolling again with this comment from an audiophile/physicist.
OO




November 22, 2010
Boy they saw you coming.

Nobody makes better elemental copper than anyone else. All copper is identical. So unless you are using either gold or superconductors you're just fooling yourself. The fact that you have to know what you have installed in order to hear a difference shows that. If you can't pick out the high end wires in double blind testing at significantly above chance, then they make no difference. And I note you don't advocate that test.

I've read all the argument and they're all bogus (this is the point of view of a physicist, by the way). The impedance is determined by the gauge, length, and composition. Keep those the same and the impedance is the same.

Since none of these manufacturers smelts their own copper, impurities are irrelevant.

Shielding may have some minor benefit, but since the only major emitter in the audio frequency spectrum is your house wiring at 60 Hz, and since that is already minimized due to the fact that every household wire is a dipole with a 1/r^3 radiation field, that isn't relevant either.

Double blind tests have, in fact, been conducted. The results are that audiophiles such as yourself are unable to tell the difference between $500 cables and lamp cord from Home Depot, or even straightened coat hangers.

We really don't need to say any more about it than that. Except that some people appear to have more money than sense.

OO,

Like to stir the pot, don't you?

Sure; but can we try it on something better than your crappy stuff?





*Dons flame-proof suit*

Good one! Silly Rabbit, you were referring to his cables or equipment? Just kidding Tom!

This will not be a debate as to what they can or can not do, this will be a first hand class as to what they can do. I have the cables and I already know what each one does to the sound with different rigs. Folks can debate all they want but the debate will not be welcomed at this work shop. Only observations.

That said, if they would actually like to listen to the differences for themselves then they have the perfect opportunity to do just that. I am prepared to offer such a difference that even someone who is deaf can tell them apart. How? Well, they can quite simply feel the difference.

If someone would like to do a double blind test, I could care less. It is my belief that it is a flawed test to begin with. Therefore, I feel it would be a waste of my time but I will still offer that option. The blind test or DB test will not be offered the same day as the cable swap. That much I can tell you.

I wouldn't mind a try...put my name on the list.....

some people appear to have more money than sense.[/i]

That's a good one OO!

It might sound crazy to some, but I swear I've heard differences in some subwoofer cables. I've never had the chance to really try anything else, should be interesting.

I don't know much about it all, but I will get the debate rolling again with this comment from an audiophile/physicist.
OO




November 22, 2010
Boy they saw you coming.

Nobody makes better elemental copper than anyone else. All copper is identical. So unless you are using either gold or superconductors you're just fooling yourself. The fact that you have to know what you have installed in order to hear a difference shows that. If you can't pick out the high end wires in double blind testing at significantly above chance, then they make no difference. And I note you don't advocate that test.

I've read all the argument and they're all bogus (this is the point of view of a physicist, by the way). The impedance is determined by the gauge, length, and composition. Keep those the same and the impedance is the same.

Since none of these manufacturers smelts their own copper, impurities are irrelevant.

Shielding may have some minor benefit, but since the only major emitter in the audio frequency spectrum is your house wiring at 60 Hz, and since that is already minimized due to the fact that every household wire is a dipole with a 1/r^3 radiation field, that isn't relevant either.

Double blind tests have, in fact, been conducted. The results are that audiophiles such as yourself are unable to tell the difference between $500 cables and lamp cord from Home Depot, or even straightened coat hangers.

We really don't need to say any more about it than that. Except that some people appear to have more money than sense.

I do really hate it when people make some statement and their only proof that it's true is that they have a degree in something-or-other. Jesus, this guy could be a physicist and know nothing about electronics. And he did indeed miss a lot in his statement. An interconnect (let's assume one that's terminated with RCA plugs) has a relatively long conductor made of some metal that conducts electricity (assume oxygen free copper or, perhaps, silver), surrounded by an insulator. This wire connects to the center pin of the RCAs on each end. There is usually a second conductor (or shield) that (usually) connects to the surrounding connector (or ground) on the RCA connector (some manufacturers leave it off on one end to create directional connectors). What you have here is a complex passive component between two fairly active components. This passive component is a resistor (of very low value, hopefully), a capacitor (think conductor - dielectric - conductor = center wire - insulator - shield) and, if there is any twist in the wire(s), and inductor. Now, depending on the nature of the active components on either end, this passive component could have absolutely no effect or a huge effect. My ICs could sound like shit in your system and vice versa. My ICs might not be optimal for my system, but, if I've never tried any others, how would I know?

BTW, the "physicists" logic came into question immediately when he mentioned gold as a conductor, which is worse than both copper and silver.

Double blind tests have, in fact, been conducted. The results are that audiophiles such as yourself are unable to tell the difference between $500 cables and lamp cord from Home Depot, or even straightened coat hangers.

What an idiot.

He also says that all copper is equal. Being a physicist, he should know better. It is a known fact in the world of physics that copper can change its properties. Think Cryogenics. As far as his "shielding may have some minor benefit" comment? He obviously does not listen. Good lord, it's funny how some educated people can be so stupid.

it's funny how some educated people can be so stupid.

Good rebuttal!

.....here's a little bit more for the rebuttal. This guy says all copper is equal, right? Here are some well known tidbits about the properties of copper that change with cryogenic treatments and real world changes as it comes to the end result as to what hits your ears.....and he says it's equal.....Pffft!

The benefits of cryogenically treated audio components can be heard while playing or listening to all kinds of music. For instance:

* Cryogenically treated cords and cables provide an extended dynamic range. In particular, high frequency range notes are much clearer and display less distortion at these highs. Measurements of cryo treated wires show that electrical and signal resistance is reduced after cryogenic treatment.

* Cryo treated amplifiers improve auditory saturation and lower the rate of distortion. Treated amplifiers offer improvements in harmonics as well as a much richer overdrive. Lastly, longevity should be increased as well.

* Single coil pickups that undergo cryogenic treatment yield an increase in output, and the tone will become smoother. The level of sustain also increases after cryogenic treatment. The change in overtones allows for a well rounded dynamic sound. Cryogenically treated pickups produce faster response time and feel.

* Cryogenic treatment of audio tubes facilitates a variety of gains in sonic performance. Users of cryogenically treated vacuum audio tubes report the following improvements:
o Expanded dynamic range
o A more refined and smoother high frequency range
o Increased bass articulation
o A deeper and more focused three dimensional soundstage
o Lowered dynamic noise floor
o Reduced micro phonics
o Less distortion in vocals
o Lower operating temperatures and an extended lifetime

The bottom line is that cryogenically treated components produce better sound than stock components.

That said, here's what changes to the physical properties...

Crystal structure (sometimes called grain structure) becomes consistent or homogenous through the conversion of austenite (one type of crystal) to the desired martensitic crystal (a different shaped crystal). The carbon structure of metals are modified through a mechanism that is technically described as "the precipitation of eta-carbides".

All metals - not just steel, but also aluminum, copper, cast alloys, etc. - benefit from the residual stress relief that deep cryogenic treatment promotes. There are theories to why this changes the sound and though it hasn't been proven, one theory is that it removes barriers to electron exchange in cryogenically treated coppers. Regardless of your stance on this, it's obvious that all copper is not alike.

Unlike what the "physicist" spews.

All metals - not just steel, but also aluminum, copper, cast alloys, etc. - benefit from the residual stress relief that deep cryogenic treatment promotes.

from what I have read about this is true......

All metals - not just steel, but also aluminum, copper, cast alloys, etc. - benefit from the residual stress relief that deep cryogenic treatment promotes.

Yes, that's true.

..........one theory is that it removes barriers to electron exchange in cryogenically treated coppers.

That's what may not be true. It's just a theory.