I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[fdegrove]

Hi,

No, I'm going to go looking for some other blind Shaolin priest who can actually provide some illumination instead of wasting people's time running them around in circles.

Yeah, get yourself a real good one too...

Remember "Sneakers" license plate 180-IQ?

Guess not,

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa,

Originally posted by ThomasLMcLean
Kuei:

So then the problem is the connector and not the conductor? (We
might be splitting hairs here).

Gold also has an oxide. The good part about gold and silver is that their oxide conducts about as well as the metal. And as you know, copper oxide can make a diode and aluminum oxide an insulator.

Well, the problem IS the conductor. Let's assume 99.97% pure Silver or Copper. You will have a hard time finding anyone to assay a much higher purity that that anyway - claims by cable makers of "six nines" (I always somehow read that sixitynine - I guess I have a dirty mind).

Now within our conductor we will have many very long, drawn out (from the processing of the wire) crystals. So the 99.97% of our wire that copper or silver form crystals. So, where are the 0.03% "other stuff"? Yup, at the crystal boundaries, where they will have to be traversed by the conduction process, especially as such layers are often too thick to be "jumped" by the EM Field traveling around the conductor anc actually carying the signal.

As you are somewhat versed in Physics and Chemistry I think I can save myself writing any more. And we ever so much do want to avoid to enlighten such people as Eddy San's, whose ignorance again and agauin proves a source of great merriment to me....

Originally posted by ThomasLMcLean
My question is: what do those of you that have perfected your systems to the point that the difference between copper and silver are discernable; listen to as a program source?

Anything that comes my way. I do have my stereo primarily to enjoy music and sound in films.

Much of my recordings are late 1950's to late 1960's analogue stuff, before multitracking, solid state crap and the like FUBAR'd the recording process and SNAFU'd the capacbilities of previously excellent recording engineers, a process much accelerated and made worse with the Digital "revolution" about 20 Years ago and now finally completed with 56kbps MP3 and ATRAC-CD.

Sayonara

[fdegrove]

Hi,

And we ever so much do want to avoid to enlighten such people as Eddy San's, whose ignorance again and agauin proves a source of great merriment to me....

And a burden to others, so I thank you for taking the baton, T.L.

Cheers,


P.S. No Shaolin priest has come forward yet since none of the candidates were neither blind nor deaf...my bad luck.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Well, the problem IS the conductor. Let's assume 99.97% pure Silver or Copper. You will have a hard time finding anyone to assay a much higher purity that that anyway - claims by cable makers of "six nines" (I always somehow read that sixitynine - I guess I have a dirty mind).

You don't have to have it assayed unless you want to know the compoision of the impurities. Residual resistivity tests can tell you the amount of impurity down to very small amounts.

Now within our conductor we will have many very long, drawn out (from the processing of the wire) crystals. So the 99.97% of our wire that copper or silver form crystals. So, where are the 0.03% "other stuff"?

Well, in ETP copper, they're typically bound up with oxygen atoms.

Yup, at the crystal boundaries, where they will have to be traversed by the conduction process...

Rather, they end up as small inclusions within the crystals, which are easily seen under a metallurgical microscope.

<center>
<img src="http://microstructure.copper.org/images/D1_017m.JPG">
</center>

...especially as such layers are often too thick to be &quot;jumped&quot; by the EM Field traveling around the conductor anc actually carying the signal.

If that were the case, then copper wire would simply be unusable and wouldn't counduct anything to speak of.

Where do you get this stuff? Audio cable marketing literature?

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by fdegrove
And a burden to others, so I thank you for taking the baton, T.L.

Yes, I do tend to be a burden to those who can only parrot marketing literature from audio cable companies who often just make stuff up either out of thin air or uninformed intuitive notions.

se

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Get real.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by fdegrove
Get real.

That's precisely what I'm trying to do. I'm sorry if that gets in the way of the fantasy and mythology you seem to prefer.

se

[fdegrove]

Hi,

That's precisely what I'm trying to do. I'm sorry if that gets in the way of fantasy and mythology.

Rest assured, there's no fantasy involved, no mytholgy either...just us poor engineers/listeners trying to establish that, yes, It does make a difference.

Try, experiment, do whatever you like instead of leaching.


Follow your blind Shaolin priest for a change...

P.S. Be a true DIY-er and do some experiments instead of arguing, Steve?

After that, we may still disagree but at least you'd tried iso depending on others doing the dirty work for you?

Oh, and in case you need hard facts e-mail Phelps-Dodge, after all they make all I wish for and have an army of engineers to answer all your Qs.

In case you need an introduction I might consider providing one...

Cheers,

[ThomasLMcLean]

Gentleman:

A very enjoyable exchange. May be again next Sunday?

Kuei:

I have heard the story of the copper crystals. I have even peered through a microscope and carefully made drawings of copper crystals with bark inclusions and the layered borders. I have also measured current a couple hundred electrons at a time and signals in the micro volts. The nature of copper was never one of the problems.

I guess I agree with electronic Zen Master Pass: Better to spend your money on matched pairs then magic metal wires. (This is, of course, is a paraphrase). The next best thing to buy is a good oscilloscope. Magic comes in Blue leds, polished wood, turned aluminum panels (like old Ferraris), and other world heat sinks

A foot note:

I missed a couple of exchanges while I was typing this including Steves photomicrograph. I went to college a long time ago and we were poor so they made us go it by hand. Or maybe they knew that we would never forget what we saw.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by fdegrove
Rest assured, there's no fantasy involved, no mytholgy either...just us poor engineers/listeners trying to establish that, yes, It does make a difference.

But literally ANYTHING can "make a difference" when it comes to subjective perceptions. However I'm not talking about anything that "makes a difference" with regard to subjective perceptions. The issue is physics and objectively observed behavior as that is the context in which the claims were made. If you've no interest in such things, then don't try and mix the two and just stick to what sounds good to you.

Try, experiment, do whatever you like instead of leaching.

I've tried and experimented with many things over the years. However my resultant subjective perceptions do not establish any sort of objective physical reality. Which is why unlike yourself and others, I don't make claims of physical realities based on such subjective experiences.

If one is going to make claims regarding objective physical realites, then objective physical evience is what's required to substantiate them. Not this pseudo-science "I listened to this and it sounded much better, ergo I have proved that wire behaves like a diode" crap. That's the same sort of nonsense that the so-called "creation science" crowd tries to pass off on their idiot followers.

P.S. Be a true DIY-er and do some experiments instead of arguing, Steve?

After that, we may still disagree but at least you'd tried iso depending on others doing the dirty work for you?

I'm not depending on anyone to do my dirty work for me. I'm simply asking those who have made objective physical claims to substantiate them. That has absolutely nothing to do with listening or having anyone do my dirty work for me.

It's pretty simple, Frank. If you want to talk physics, talk physics and forget about listening experiences. If you want to talk listening experience, talk listening experience and forget about physics.

Don't make claims regarding physics and then when you're asked to substantiate those claims tell someone to go and listen for themself. Stick to one or the other.

Oh, and in case you need hard facts e-mail Phelps-Dodge, after all they make all I wish for and have an army of engineers to answer all your Qs.

The engineers at Phelps-Dodge weren't the ones who made the claims here, Frank. That was you. Or are you trying to get the engineers at Phelps-Dodge to do YOUR dirty work for you?

se