7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

Examine any hobby and you will see extremes. Some of the Pros are starting to come around. While they're not about to install the mega-buck wire, some are considering the mid-stream stuff, from a very recent TAS or Stereophile issue. My rule is, if you can't hear a positive difference, not just a difference, don't buy it. All wires act as a band-pass filter to some degree, change the impedance of the link to some degree, and many contain RFI/EMI sensitive designs to reduce noise. I have an EE background and I too scoffed, but I was sensible enough to test the claim, borrow some I/Cs from my local shop and compare. I have also had others who really don't care, listen, don't know what I am doing back there, listen and hear a difference. System resolution and noise are notable factors. Again, if you can't hear it, don't buy it.

Well, science doesn't understand everything, or claim to know everything. Those who say if I can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist are walking on thin ice. You do the best you can with the tools you have. There have been many, many instances in history where science has been proven wrong in its assessments (and those who follow and agree). My point earlier in this thread, which was then lambasted, is that I think science has yet devise a measurement to answer the question of what is the difference. So the Pros shake their heads in disbelief because there is no measurable proof of the claim. Attributes such as 6dB of more signal gain (lower noise floor), and high common mode rejection ratios for differential inputs (near elimination of common noise) have a solid mathematical base.

A number of manufacturers use Cardas, Kimber, and various other brands in their designs. I think the best question is, during the design process what cables (and equipment) were used to complete the design. To answer the $7500 question is different for every audiophile. Hence the previous comment on trusting your ears. There are some extremely good cables for a tenth to a hundredth of $7500, but if we could and we heard a difference, would we?

Now back to your pander…

Sean, Dan A's CAST system averts the issue to a large degree by converting what is mainly a voltage transmission line into a current transmission line. The thinking is running a low voltage through a cable is prone to interaction/interference while running current through a wire is much less susceptible. Mr. A. also has had several wire vendors design wire just for his systems.

A little off the mark (eh?) Wadia is another company that states in its manual (paraphrase)... "It is not necessary to buy expensive power cables... since we have designed the noise reduction circuitry into the product..." Being a Wadia owner I can say this, power cables can still help, but the unit is far less sensitive to their use. Every so often I put the AC cord that shipped with the unit back in-line and definitely when I am considering a replacement. This statement does prove true. I have heard more degradation with “fancy” cables than without on this particular unit.

IMO, the $7500 used cable is worth it if you can afford it (responsibly) and can actually hear an improvement in your system that justifies the cost to you. I personally feel cable prices are sporting price tags that seem unreasonable, but I don’t pay the bills at those companies to see if the cost is justified or if I am buying someone's next Porsche. We have a choice. There is competition. Am I going to be the 1st in line for them, no. Am I open to the concept, yes? Do I hope trickle down happens in a couple of years to a price I see as reasonable, YES!

Bomarc, how can you prove something subjective? Measurement is objective. Each person on this planet has differences in their inner/outer ear "configuration" which implies no two people hear exactly the same. What has been shown recently is the old problem with double-blind testing and audio. Typically, a number of non-audiophile people are asked to detect differences in electronics, etc. The tallied results indicated that all systems sound the same and people detect small variations in loudness and tend to pick the louder system. When the loudness parameter is held constant, the results indicate there is no difference. Audiophiles (and others) are/can be trained to detect small variations in phase, loudness, frequency, etc. Which implies that double-blind testing can be used to prove there are audible differences we can’t measure but we can hear. A prime example is solid-state electronics. These units have measurable errors well below audibility, yet to trained ears there are characteristic signatures to various components and even manufacturers.

As far as what cannot be measured but eventually proves true, Van Allen hypothesized there should be radioactive belts surrounding the earth, and he was able to prove the hypothesis once the US launched its first spacecraft into orbit due to insufficient measurement tools based on the ground at the time.

Here we have a situation where there are clearly audible differences in wire, for whatever reason, but there is no physical measurement to support what we hear. I assume as do many others there is a measurable phenomenon to account for the differences. Either scientists are attempting to measure the wrong thing or we need an outside-the-box thought to devise the measurement needed.

Sean, I have been a musician in a hobby sense for 25 years although I have played in groups, jazz band, etc. I play guitar. I have been trained to be an Electrical Engineer, but I currently design and build computer networks. Part of my training in the EE realm included sound reinforcement since I really wanted to be a full-time musician or active in the industry. I have done my own recordings on 4 track devices for some time (15 years). I became an audiophile about 20 years ago. I am currently in my early 40s.

I have not doubted a single word you said. I attempted to clarify a staement about CAST and threw in a Wadia comment supporting your statement. There are many realities in music. The guy in the studio has one set of circumstances. The sound reinforcement guy has another set. The music aficionado has another goal.

I do agree the upfront (prerecording) process is very different from what one might assume. Sound reinforcement can assume numerous “faces” from quality to quantity. The audiophile’s goal (or mine anyway) is to accurately reproduce what ends up of the media no matter what happened during the process. The ultimate reference is unamplified music or natural sounds. Personally, I have never thought a mic (Shure SM-57 or whatever) sitting 12” in front of a single Greenback sounded like the real thing on recordings. Especially if the sound pressure was such that it deformed the mic’s membrane.

Acoustics are everything. Change the room, and the system’s reproduction characteristics will change period. This is measurable. Move the system in the room and the acoustics change. I do have my speaker’s anechoic measurements (Dunlavy); unfortunately I don’t listen to music in such an environment, so for my acoustic environment they are essentially invalid. I do believe DSP correction devices can help as long as the correction is in the digital domain.

Again, if you don’t hear it, don’t buy it, but most of all enjoy it regardless of the pieces.

I don’t think we are communicating, but at least we can discuss this rationally and agreeing we disagree is certainly a valid outcome – nice change. I was trained to be a scientist. I do believe in repeatable, documentable processes. What I was trying to say in the last post is that previous double-blind testing did not involve people adept at detecting small differences in phase response, amplitude variances at a particular frequency, etc. I believe subjective audio analysis cannot be done by a layman lacking in the skills to perform the task. The listener must be trained to recognize and practice recognizing minute differences in audio phenomenon. Something that is not instinctual. My understanding is human ears seem to be designed to aid our survival (e.g. direction, distance) not our pursuit of accurate sound reproduction.

In a very recent test with audio reviewers, a small sample set which can imply invalid sample size, in a double-blind scenario gave consistent, repeatable scores well above random guessing, (80% and higher if memory serves me). The scientists then hypothesized with further testing, this may invalidate the layman testing done previously. I agree with the premise. I agree more testing needs to be done, but at least there is some reasonable assertion that we’re not all convincing ourselves of manifestations of our minds. I think this holds true in many disciplines. Article appeared in TAS or Stereophile and no I don’t believe everything I read.

I am with you man. I understand the issues on your side-of-the-fence, which most of the time is my side-of-the-fence. However, my perceptions tell me otherwise and on this one, and I have jumped ship. I am simply saying consider it. Whack, the ball’s in your court.

Can we trust Northwestern U? Link to recent auditory testing:

http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1183

Thanks Bishopwill for a little support. I have been an AudioGon member for some time. I too have been frustrated by the apparent attitude that some threads have. I finally stopped coming to these formus for probably more than a year because discussions are interesting and informative until they become personal.

I did qualify the link by saying more testing. Is it not a standard practice in scientific research to form a hypothesis during the testing phase to try and validate the question? Since there are two independent groups testing, this should help eliminate bias. Differences in solid-state electronics do occur from improper shielding and design which manifests itself as noise or non-linear operation within a specified range. CD players differ in sound at a minimum due to poor design (jitter). Is it being stated that a ladder DAC and a single-bit DAC produce the same output for the same input?

I would like to pose a few questions.

Do the folks making a living in recording, mastering, or reinforcement areas, claim we have all the measurements necessary to full characterize all aspects of wire performance?

Does anyone from group above understand the basic concepts of electromagnetic field theory. Why does Kimber braid his cable? What is the difference between CAT 3 and CAT 5 wire for networking (digital communication)?

Does the mathematics for line transmission theory applied to audio cable (i.e. a transmission line can be characterized as a LRC type of circuit) which implies a “Z” impendence or phase shift?

What is skin effect? What is a boundary condition is (signal reflection)? Why pieces of cable act as antennas? What is noise and do we care?

Why some manufacturers, use shielding, twisting, and passive filters on their wire? Would this not imply that different cables sound different simply by design? Pushing it a little, I know.

What are the measurable differences between silver, copper, and hybrids? Why wouldn’t these differences possibly be audible?

Thanks.

In its simplest terms, it is used to "break-in" a cable by running a range of frequencies, which may extend several orders of magintude beyond the audio band, through the cable for 24 to 72 hours. I think one of the assumptions is that the free electrons available for conducting electric signals tend to be polarized in a “broken-in” cable. The idea is if a cable sits idle too long, is new, or just doesn't sound like it use to, this device will rapidly condition the cable for use. Conditioning is supposed to make the cable less harsh in the upper octaves and more defined in the lower octaves. This conditioning process is applies to ICs, speaker, etc, depending on the connections on the unit.

This question should cause uproar like the original post. I do not have an opinion here as I have not participated in the process. I would like to do it double-blind.

First of all, I agree that cables should not have filters, unless we want a cable to alter the sound.

The field of science of electromagnet fields tells us through mathematics that whenever an electrical signal passes though a conductor, it generates a magnetic field around the conductor and a force on the electrons in the wire. This is termed EMI. Braiding provides these benefits. Since half of the braid is positive and the other half is negative, the signal currents are in opposing directions. The EM fields created will cancel each other. This configuration radiates very little EMI and is less susceptible to interference.

Secondly, braided wire is used across a broad range of industries. For example, aviation, instrumentation, pro audio, audio, and networking all rely on braiding for improved performance. To answer one question I posed. The difference between CAT3-phone & CAT5-data is the number of twists per foot. Braining reduces conducted, inducted, and capacitive interference.

I have completely refrained from such voodoo dances in my entire discussion. Look at all of my comments in this thread. Then search for information on the Internet (or library) from scientific organizations. Check it out you will be surprised.

The dielectric industry is a big business because the use of dielectrics is very complex. Changes in temperature, interaction with metals, conductivity, and capacitance are some of the variables. The bottom line is all you can do is minimize the interaction. Someone who I have a great deal of respect for, Harvey Rosenberg also had an article appear in Listener in which his cable design was two pieces of wire separated by a couple of wood spacers using Radio Shack termination (i.e. no dielectric).

I assume the cable burner is a sarcastic snub.

Mistake, the Dunlavy ULC 1 meter IC goes for $500 to $600 for the record. The new owner of Dunlavy, an electric lighting company, has changed the website and apparently omitted the cables. John says this gives him more time to design and leaves the business angle to the new owner.

I finally have time to respond to the last comment made to my post on 2-28-02. Clueless asked me a couple of questions. Rereading my post where I stated …polarization of electrons… I had posted this on my lunch half-hour and I concatenated a couple of different thoughts. One being the dielectric does polarize when a signal is present, and electrons can be polarized by magnet fields creating, a no force, magnetic moment usually when the electron is spinning. Atoms most certainly become polarized when they lose a valance electron to the conduction band, but not your point.

The audio signal is a complex signal that can have a negative swing assuming no bias, but there is little guarantee of symmetrical relationship between the plus and minus halves. Electrons have mass and they do collide/push other electrons, so I think a single electron moving back and forth seems too simplistic. I could find little if any information on the small signal analysis of audio signals or signal analysis of amplifier outputs to support or deny your analogy. Please feel free to point me somewhere on the ‘net. All I see is semi-conductor signal analysis or DC theory applied to conductors.

The electron is the reference point for the electric/magnetic field generated by electrons “flowing” creating a current from a potential difference. I completely support your statement that the EM field transfers the signal (information) near the speed of light as per my questions. The electrons guide these waves albeit at a speed far slower than the speed of light. One cannot happen without the other. Since power is a square function, it is always positive, unaffected by swings. The 1st order equations guarantee this too.

The more interesting question to me is as far as I can tell unanswered, is that science knows from empirical data and scientific calculation the relationship between I and EM, but science does not seem to under why this relationship exists. Why is an EM field created when a current flows through a conductor? I am open to comments on that item. Why do we care about polarization? I guess I think capacitance and resistance to movement.

I still haven’t seen much of a response to any of my questions which definitely point to the design issues of cable designers. I have taken the liberty of trying to find Internet based information from reputable sources. Ironically (to the pro guys I’m sure), I trust John Dunlavy. I voted with my wallet. I think that he is a reference for scientifically correct design based on solid physics. However, I disagree with the notion that science has determined and can measure every single aspect of cable performance. History has taught us time and time again this is not true.

********** The good stuff **********

First I think it is time clarify the statement of pro audio members which boils down to, “…all cables sound the same...” To clarify, ALL cables measure differently, the real question is whether or not the differences are audible. To me a worthwhile distinction, because poorly designed cables are audibly inferior sounding and potentially harmful to the system. Not all high-end cable companies produce “snake oil and buzzard salve” products, but there are some, the same as with any other industry. Most of the claims put forth are valid design points, but may not be of audible significance until system interaction is thrown into the mix.

Dunlavy post to support above
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/duncable.htm

As Mr. Dunlavy points out, cables need to follow the good design principles to produce documentably accurate cables, but the interaction with the system must be considered as well. A 1 meter pair of balanced Dunlavy ULC cables cost around $300. We are to assume no frills, properly designed, etc. While the $7500 cables are a stretch, there are many others to choose from at considerably less. I don’t know how much it costs to essentially suspend multiple cable strands in air. Whether or not it produces measurable or audible differences is the question.

Almost all of the design parameters cable makers play with are covered in the link below. One of the best layman based discussions with the supporting mathematics I have seen to date. I think all will find it well worth the read. A couple of links were visible at a file level, but not on the HTML page so they are listed separately.

Start with Analog & Audio on the Main page
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm

http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html

http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html

Thanks for reading.

Thanks for the reply. I did spend a lot of time on physics web sites to try and remember what I had learned. I really would like to see an explanation of how electrons behave in small signal (source to preamp) and large signal (amp to speakers) scenarios to understand the electron movement better. I couldn’t anything on the Internet.

The most interesting thing for me was John Dunlavy essentially straddling both sides of the fence. I interpreted his comments to mean it is no simple feat to build a competently designed cable, and then to see his pricing. Unfortunately since the sale of DAL, Dunlavy only offers speakers. Some interesting changes have been made to the speaker line up. The SC-IVA and up see to remain unchanged, but the SC-III has some big changes which look promising.

The St. Andrews’ site is great since the author defines the problem, explains the assumptions, states the simplifications that can be made and why, and shows the math for both methods for the solution. He doesn't criticize, offer opinions, just a neutral presentation of the analysis used today. I gather he is somewhat interested in audio, by analyzing claims, and making non-judgmental statements, very cool.

If anyone out there can help me with links to sites on the Internet dealing with electron behavior in the field of audio applications, I would be most grateful.

Take care “Clueless.”

Sir, I have read through all of your posts in this thread. You consistently state most cables sound indistinguishable in a blind test. Are you not implying cables do sound the same? Please clarify.

I have read many of the Dunlavy letters where he states zip cord sounds the same IF there is some engineering applied to it. I don’t think he says to just pull it off of the spool and put it to work. Twists, shielding, single core, stranded core, and proper dielectric are certainly considerations for good engineering, but not mandatory. My interpretation of his words are, there is enough of an understanding of the potential problems to make cables that don’t introduce distortion of any significant magnitude. It seems through testing, some manufactures do more damage than good and make good money on top of it. That is a problem, but again not unique to audio.

Clearly, some care must be taken. Clearly, most of the claims the high-end manufacturers make about the engineering of their cables to combat problems with parallel wires, noise, EM fields, and so on are valid, and measurable; but perhaps not audible. Unless I have missed something in the last 20 years this, is how marketing tries to differentiate a product. Take a look at Microsoft or any other company in a highly competitive industry. Certain individuals are extremely wealthy selling goods that do not work as advertised., sorry for the digression.

Is this behavior right? In my opinion no it is not. Do I think just because a high-end manufacturer offers an expensive cable, it is worth the money, absolutely not. Check out a “Recommended Components” list, Stereophile lists Radio Shack 18-guage solid core wire as a “recommended component.” This is an industry magazine that should be used for ideas and maybe as a guide, but it certainly is not a "bible," nor is any other magazine like it.

My problem with this whole debate is each side chooses not to disclose the whole story. I have provided links from scientifically based sources that question both sides of the table. Ultimately in my mind, the measurements would have to be done with the cables in place between the source and destination. Component interaction should be a part of the analysis. Speakers (and rooms) introduce distortions many orders of magnitude larger than the wire (and most components) to be included in the measurement. This would imply objective and subjective testing is needed to be complete. This is my opinion.