Power Cords - Just Say Yes

I would like to know from a technical point of view why silver wire sounds different from copper. If not, why is silver used so often in audio applications.

11-11-12: Amarquis
I would like to know from a technical point of view why silver wire sounds different from copper. If not, why is silver used so often in audio applications.

For starters, silver is 8% more efficient conductor than copper. That means it's faster and is capable of more extended bandwidth. The extended bandwidth has at least two effects: 1) Rise time of all waves are at least 8% faster. This rise time difference has an effect on everything, especially the leading edges of notes and how quick and fully formed they are. 2) Whereas cupric oxide (oxidation of copper) functions as an insulator, silver oxide (oxidized silver) is at least as efficient a conductor as silver itself. This means that silver wire's conductivity and speed should remain intact as the metal ages and oxidizes. As copper oxidizes it gets worse.

"That's a non sequitur and a gross generalization. That some A-gon systems feature several tweaks in no way proves that "our ears can trick us." Since we're audio enthusiasts for the way things sound and the way the music makes us feel, then whatever "evidence" you have that "our ears can trick us" is irrelevant." - Johnnyb53



I don't have to prove that our ears can trick us. Some things don't need to be proven with a study, they are obvious to any clear thinking person. But I will say that ever attempt to prove that audiophiles cannot trust their ears that I've ever read about in the last 30 years has determined that audiophile cannot trust their ears.

As for being an audio enthusiast for the "feeling" as you put it, you seem to be advocating it's ok to spend money on audio products regardless of whether they work as long as it makes you feel good. That's the non sequitur and a laughable argument. It's not ok for one person to cheat another person even if the cheated person is happy and oblivious. And in the vast majority of cases people would object to being cheated if they were convinced the product was not performing.

Well, really, what's the point of listening to anything at all if we can't trust our
ears?

Should we instead simply rely on double-blind listening tests conducted and
published by people hostile to subjective evaluation, or just skip right to
Jaxwired's pronouncements and listen only through what he approves as
practical and cost-effective?

Wow, talk about an inability to think clearly. The point of listening to music is to enjoy it. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not our ears are infallable measuring devices of sound quality.

My premise is pretty simple. Listening tests as the sole indicator of sound quality improvements is unreliable. People that put full trust in their ears to detect sound quality improvements will likely end up spending money on products that actually offer zero improvements. That's it, my entire premise.

If you disagree with this premise, then you feel that your ears are infallable at detecting sound quality improvements and that you would never be fooled by a snake oil type product. Good for you. You're entitled to beleive that if you like. Many people seem to agree with you. I think that is a misguided view point and is contrary to available evidence.

And no, I do not claim to be the god like arbiter of all things worthy in hifi. I do however suggest that people use common sense, reason, and logic along with listening tests. Be aware that you can be fooled and proceed with caution to avoid being cheated. The list of ridiculous products claiming to improve sound quality is very long and every snake oil product ever sold had true believers buying it. Why? Because they "trusted their ears".