7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

Bomarc, you've just set the stage for the basis of marketing high end cables! All this twisting, filtering and pseudoscientific explanations is what marketers cling to! Power cords epitomize this. Use a little filtering, a 'unique' twisting and then power cords start sounding 'different'...

I've previously posted that power cords should not have any filtering incorporated in them--there's gear specifically for that.

Jon Risch's website sheds a lot of light on this subject. Just pure and simple copper with proper dielectrics and off you go! No need for the Voodoo...

I'd rather make my own cables and spend my saved money on a cable burner.

What is a cable burner?

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.

Thanks Mark for the post and everyone else for the civility on this topic.

Lmb: "one of the assumptions is that the free electrons available for conducting electric signals tend to be polarized in a "broken in" cable." I am not certain what you mean and I do not want to put word in your mouth.

I have heard similar explanations at more length. My problem with the argument is as follows. (Please understand that I make no claim to understand the intricacies of how an audio signal works and am, quite frankly, dumbfounded by it the closer I look.)

1)The audio signal is an ac signal, that is, the direction of the current flow changes with each half cycle.

2)This means that there is basically no net direction to the current flow. "Current" flows equally in both directions. If this is true, even if there is such a thing as "polorized electrons" how could that aid the flow of electrons if they are moving in two directions?

3)In any event it is not the "flow" of electrons that carries the audio signal but rather the electric field/voltage that transfers the energy of the signal.The field moves through the electrons a little like a wave through water (very imperfect analogy). Electrons move at the speed of light but the "drift velocity" of the electrons in a cable is very slow (a couple inches per second). It's slow because of the huge excess of electrons available. During the negative half of the signal electrons are actually pulled back into the amp and basically go back and forth in this manner. Many electrons leaving the amp may never make it to the speaker. The electric field/voltage on the other hand moves at the speed of light.

In any event, I do not understand how you polorize a particle that is by definition negatively charged and what good it would do if you could do it.

Sincerely, I remain