Cable Costs Relative to System

JD, thanks for your post here. I also feel endebted to your kind words. Further, in watching what part of your audio journey you have been kind enough to share with us over the years, I feel that there are few people in this hobby more devoted, dedicated, and methodical in wringing increasingly better performance out of every part of one's system than you.

As you said, we agree that wire has an effect on the sonics of a system. I even say the impact is substantial. In my opinion, wire is certainly a component, and when I really break things down, from our front end to our loudspeakers, our components are basically wire (think about it!).

And, as you have said, wire is overpriced. There are myriad reasons as to how this has come about, and I don't want to make this post overly long, so I will not go into why I feel we are in the fix we are today. But, I will say that if you really look into the source material of a lot of the cabling we use, the true cost is pennies on the dollars that we pay. That is not a universal truth by any means. Certain materials are of such purity that one could envision this level of pricing, though I am pretty well convinced only a very few, if any, companies are using this type of wire. Also, for companies such as Nordost, who have had to acquire the tooling and machinery to manufacture their own cable, the cost of paying for such equipment must be factored into the price otherwise they'll soon find themselves out of business.

But, again, if you put a list of the Top 10 cables in this marketplace over the past decade together, I'm fairly confident that this cable that I listed above would be on it. It's a Stereophile Recommended Component. All I'm saying is that I have a friend who sells the SAME EXACT stuff for $99/meter. I'd be more than happy to share the names with you offline of both the well known company and my friend...

Take care always,
Joe

Hi Joe,
Damn you... the problem with respecting you despite not agreeing fully is I then give consideration to your opinions. Over the last four years some truly revolutionary thinking (and in some cases actual science) has raised the bar in cable performance (my opinion) and your point was not lost on me. What I heard you say is cables have gotten expensive, not because of time, material and overhead, but rather because of the clientele and the expectations they as a mass have. This led me to a new research phase. I spent the past few days reading about different scientific discoveries and quite a bit of DIY’s findings. (Many of which had hard science behind them too)
Jack Bybee as one scientist has approached the cable issue from a different angle than most of the “copy-cat” manufacturers are pursuing. This took me down a road of philosophies I had not seriously considered before. There are quite a few white papers coming out of University studies that are requiring some new thinking. Your personal involvement in the scientific community has given you witness to the affects of silver conductive materials and the result on different conductors. You have personal experience in the new sciences that has been adopted by “our” industry. Unfortunately, too many of us a skeptics (my self included) to the validity of the scientific claims. This is why I began my own personal research (which I intend to continue for some time) and rather than reading product claims and/or individual peoples experiences, I’m trying to understand the fact behind the stories. The Universities used to be impossible institutions to break into for personal discovery, but now with the internet, we (the lowly citizen) can access even the most cutting edge science. NASA and the Pentagon are also good links to the research by following the information trail.
As I said I have discovered a vast amount of hard science that is being applied to conductors. Often this is for purposes not related to our industry, but the science is transferable. Conductors are a significant issue as the computing capacities increase. Transfer of massive amounts of information via electrical signal has become one of the limiting factors in increased computing speeds. Now with nanotechnology, the issues are actually more complex as we demand more from less. This is opening doors and products that just plan were not possible before today. The fact that nano-fabrication is out of the Universities and into the hands of the public opens up potential science to our industry. I am not thinking we need nanotube interconnects, what I am saying is the science that got to nanotubes is viable to us.
That being said, I wanted to respond to you and let you know you have opened my mind to new theories. I intend to pursue the research and hopefully try some personal experimentation on the DIY front. I will be sure to keep the A’gon community informed as I proceed.
I wanted to personally thank you Joe for your approach with me, and my disputes with you. I think you and I have proven kind respect gets your ideas across much better than slamming and anger. You are a true gentleman and one that this community should look to as an example of how we conduct our discussions when we see things from a different perspective. This hobby, above all other things has no absolutes, and it is done for our personal enjoyment, not to be right. I think we all need to keep this perspective. And I wish to nominate Joe as our leader on this front. You sir have my 100% respect and admiration.

jd

Just to stir the pot, I have it on good authority that the "10% rule" (and indeed the "15% rule") were arbitrarily arrived at as a sales tool to coach lazy stereo store salesmen.

The synergy factor is not so easily contained within such narrow, and remarkably round-numbered parameters.

This work is being done at frequencies many orders of magnitude higher than audio where certain effects become important. It is irrelevent at audio frequencies - just like the skin effect.

Well, JD, I must tip my hat to you for turning this thread from one of trivial bickering to actual discussion. That's a RARE thing indeed in both Audiogon and Audio Asylum. As I alluded to above, you are a special audiophile, and we are graced by your renewed presence on this site.

Unfortunately, I have left the "scientific community" for what I feel are greener pastures from a family perspective. Though, I must say that things would have been interesting had I continued on down that path.

You brining up nanotechnology is something that really piqued memories in me. In 2000, before I completely made the leap into the field of software engineering, a group of scientists from the University of New Mexico brought me out to Albuquerque to discuss bringing me aboard a new company they had just launched. Their angle was a revolutionary process producing conductive nanomaterials such as silver, gold, platinum, palladium, etc. To be quite frank, the improvement over existing materials was on the level of orders of magnitude. I must say the prospects were fascinating.

What we soon found out was that though there was far more than tremendous interest in the products they could offer, they were seriously deficient in getting value for their hard work and creativity. The money was actually in the products produced in the next step, which is where a fair amount of my knowledge lay, and what they soon realized was a way to get them there. Over the course of the four days I was there, both sides quickly saw the potential for a most synergistic relationship.

In the end, I demurred, as I felt the risk/reward balance was not to my liking - American manufacturing being what it is today. But, I harbor serious regret today all the same - the ability to obtain a PHD in chemistry/material science and to apply what I had available to me towards audio in the long run.

In truth, of the folks I met along the way in the field, only a VERY small number were audiophiles, and my feeling is that by being in the field, and uniting folks of the type of passion and dedication such as you, JD, a lot of progress could have been made in the past five years.

Briefly, from what I have seen, I possess quite a radical view of the way things work. My two theories are amazingly simplistic, but it takes me a while to convey them to folks, no matter how small or large their scientific background is. First, material interactions are nothing more than playing with puzzles - locks and keys. Some keys fit some locks, and some don't. Not much more to know than that. Time and experience builds the understanding in a person to know what keys go with what locks. Secondly, surface area/particle size is THE most important factor once the key/lock relationship has been made. The more surface area (smaller particle size - ie. nanotechnology), the more of what I call "soldiers" (who do the work) are available.

I don't want to go too much further here, but what most people see in nanotechnology is the ability of having more "soldiers" available to them. And while THAT opens up things that we have always dreamed about, the real power, which most fail to see, is the key/lock applications. By being able to "dope" a material's properties in ways never before possible in this world, we can achieve the creation of a geometrically larger number of materials. The beauty being that we can do this with breathtaking savings.

As an example, a ratio of 55% Palladium/45% Silver makes the best conductors/resistors you can obtain, from a temperature coefficient of resistance point of view. The resistance varies almost not at all over a temperature curve. Further, these happen to be uniquely environmentally resistant as well. For the most part, the audio world has not been exposed to palldium, but in the limited instances it has, subjectiver results have been extraordinarily positive. The BIG downside is cost - Pd being over $1000/ounce, and silver being $9/ounce.

But, what if I could obtain the same or similar properties by using incredibly small amounts of Pd? With nanotechnology, the opportunity to make small amounts look like large amounts opens up possibilities that are breathtaking.

In the end, like any craft, it is the ART, not the science that is where the power lies. The science is always there, but it is the heart of the person who steers the ship to achievement via using what is before him, and solving problems.

Unfortunately, what some perceive as anger or bitterness coming from me stems from the proponderance of snake oil salesmen in audio. Folks who offer NOTHING which takes the craft forward in any direction, yet merely rebadge products manufactured by a third party with multithousand percent profit margins. Truly, I see this as borderline criminal. What is really at the root of my feelings is the potential for the scientific and engineering communities to produce REAL understanding, and ultimately improvement, in the products offered to audiophiles, and do so at what I consider fair costs to the end user. Unfortunately, we seem to be lacking a connection between the two fields to produce such a thing.