A New Believer

If you can't answer the question, dazzle them with bs.

I am not used to the level of rudeness and anger I am encountering here, and since anger comes from fear, it makes me wonder what it is that you guys are afraid of. Or maybe you are just angry people and this is a safe place for you to vent some of it without getting a bloody nose. It seems an odd way to enjoy a hobby and the company of others.

To Audiofeil, sorry the point wasn't obvious enough for you. I can see why politics wouldn't be a career choice for you.

To Bryoncunningham. We can only experiment using listening tests, as there is no easy way to know whether measured differences will be musically meaningful or not. It may surprise some here that we do use blind tests at certain stages during the development process, but that is a long topic in itself and lengthy posts are clearly not welcomed. The main design characteristics we focus on to reduce time-domain errors are the conductor purity, dielectric, resonance control and geometry.

We make our wire ourselves and believe that certain characteristics of the finished wire are important. After making the silver wire we have a method by which we apply gold and platinum to the wire to break up the resonance of silver. The wire is coated in a natural oil and dried. We use four different gauges in a semi-litz arrangement. We use natural unbleached cotton insulation, no plastics. And our geometries are very different - particularly, we avoid twisting, braiding and screening as each of those have phase impacts we have little problem hearing.

To Rok2id, you appear to have lost it some time ago on this thread. Are you sure this is doing you any good? Anything I or anyone else says that doesn't fit with your model of cable performance is just labelled bs, so what are you achieving? If all that disagree with you leave this thread, have you won?

The main design characteristics we focus on to reduce time-domain errors are the conductor purity, dielectric, resonance control and geometry.

Antipodes - Thank you for addressing my question. FWIW, I am not one of the angry ones. I am just curious to learn more about cable design. I have always found the process of selecting cables a bit frustrating, because unlike other components in the audio chain, I have very little understanding of the ways in which cable design affects the resulting sound. Hence the question in my previous post.

If you are willing to elaborate further, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how each of the design parameters you mentioned can affect the audible characteristics of a cable. For example...

It sounds like you are saying that time domain errors can be created by impure conductors, plastic dielectrics, and braided geometries. I gather that these observations are based on listening tests, which personally I have no problem with. My question is:

Do you have any hypotheses about why impure conductors, plastic dielectrics, or braided geometries would result in the time domain problems you mentioned, naming smearing and phase distortion?

It also sounds like you are saying that mixing two materials, e.g. gold and silver, helps reduce the resonance of each material, resulting in fewer time domain problems. Again, do you have any hypothesis about why that is the case?

Thanks,
Bryon

To Antipodes_audio

I think you need to reread my posts. I used the word BS once, and that was not directed at you. I am not here to do myself 'any good'. I am not trying to win anything. As far as I know there is nothing to win. I am certainly not angry. Angry at who and for what? ALL my comments are actually directed at the young guys just starting out. Economic times are tough and money is tight. Families are involved. This is No time to be WASTING money on NONSENSE, such as wire and power cords. And EVERYONE on this site knows it's nonsense. It's sad the more well known and respected guys won't speak out. BTW your little fear/anger psycho-babble is wrong!

I have an extensive background of study and experience in signal transmission, but recently spent some years studying human hearing and managed to make some connections between those. I have been working with some professors from two different universities on getting funding for some real research, but the funding hasn't materialised yet. The guys most interested are the physical chemistry professors. We have some hypotheses, for sure, and have written those up.

The purity one is not clear to me. My personal view is that it is the softness of the material, not its purity, that is most important (though they are related) and that the effect is more down to resonance than electron flows and eddy currents (as proposed by others). But the honest answer is that we are still divided on that one.

Dielectrics store and release the signal with some smearing of the signal over time. This is an area where conventional thinking accepts there is an issue but dismisses the relevance at audio frequencies. Our ears tell us otherwise, which leaves little room for much more than the typical "Tis, tisn't" debate.

Mechanical resonance seems to create an electrical resonance, though we only have theories on why this might be so. This is the particular area where my academic collaborators are most interested (though they find the idea of burn in fascinating too). The theory we have developed here would be a very long post.

Geometry affects resonance, but also there is mutual interference between conductors that needs to be kept low and constant along the wire. Most designs are poor at the former and average at the latter. Reducing this interference creates other problems and I find no easy solution other than striking a compromise.

I fear many will find that too waffly. Each of those a big areas and not simple. In most cases we have evidence of an effect, but are at the theory stage with inadequate funding to take it much further than that. I suspect all high end audio cable firms are in the same boat on that one. We can observe, develop theories, apply them in practise and observe again to hear if we like the change. Going much further is hard/expensive given the measurement difficulties. I am well aware that the alternative view is that the measurement difficulties aren't difficulties at all - just proof that we are deluded. The debate becomes entirely belief-based, which never goes anywhere. Hopefully I will get one of these research studies funded some day.