They are until you cut off the plugs and attach speaker connectors. Work great and they're cheap.
I would be afraid to use silver cables with my WATT 1's. They are bright and forward, naturally, designed that way as a monitor to resolve small details. I have to cut them back with everything that I can, including Bybee, copper wire, and a sock over the tweeter. I use 14 ga wire or so for my surround speakers, who needs super hi's for special effects?
Actually, what you must come to understand that ANY test that keeps you from picking out coat-hangers from copper wire is probably too compromised to be useful.
Think about a test where you could not tell dirty water from distilled water. Would that be a good test? Same thing.
Think about a test where you could not tell dirty water from distilled water. Would that be a good test? Same thing.
The test is not invalid, the belief is. Nobody can prove you can't hear a difference. It is up to you to prove you can - and just saying so is not an option many are going to accept. Cherry picking statements from a textbook because they seem (to you) to give a plausible reason why you "could" is not science, it is hand waving. Hand waving does not equal credibility in the scientific community. If you were trying to do science instead of sell audio, you would be labeled as a crank.
Don't mean to be negative, but we haven't finished. As I've pointed out from the get go and also as Steve and Ron said, even if we agree that there are significant changes in copper because of various stress factors, we still have to establish audibility of these structural changes. But wait, there's still a large gap here, as follows. The first paper talks about some sort of "healing" effect due to a treatment of high current pulses. Unless I understand the burn-in process incorrectly, it does not involve kiloamperes, right? The question is then, can a few mere amps have the same effect?
This is not to say that I think you're a crook John. As a matter of fact I see no reason why you'd lie about your perception. And since you don't sell cables (right?), I also don't understand the accusations that your position is based on financial profits.
I'd like to add something constructive to this discussion, but I can't think of anything to add, except, GO CABLES!!! 
Ikoflexer, I have worked closely with people who made cables over the decades. I usually get a sample or two. I was once asked by Monster to work there on cables, but I politely refused, because I really don't know what makes a cable significantly different from another in a useful way.
However, I have studied the works of Hawksford, conferred with VandenHul, and I have even met Bruce Brisson, and they have at least given me their input on cables. Of course, NONE of it would be believed here. Dr. VandenHul has done formal laboratory research, just like SY, in the past, but that would not count here, as he makes a living partially from making cables, and that is verboten. I don't pursue cables for fun or profit, but I have heard differences in identical cables, one of which was broken-in and the other was not. I listened to it on a better system than the one I use at this time. I can't really say if I would hear such a difference in my own system, but then my cables are now all broken in, just because they have been in my system for years, so it isn't an issue.
I tend to defend others who make cables, because I know many of them, and they seem all right to me, and they know a lot more than the electronic techs here, that's for sure, and probably more than the PhD's in their area of experience. That should not be surprising, as they have access to as good or better test equipment as anybody here, and normally know how to use it.
What I find here is that most techs and most engineers even, have an abridged view of signal wire flow, based on limited studies that have to be fit in with more practical courses, such as computer programing, etc. This abridged view tends to fall apart under close analysis, and there are whole books written about the properties of metals and current flow through them. The F&C book is just one of many. No one book will give exact calculations about a particular wire defect, but it will show what is possible and how hard it is to make something that is almost perfect. Of course, that also gets confused with Maxwell's equations that were based initially on the aether model of reality. It is amazing that they work at all. In this case, almost everything is based on the insulator material, rather than the metal, and the metal is mostly just a waveguide.
In any case, these equations are almost completely incompatible with the electron flow in metals, exception of DC or low AC power. Connecting cables, for example, transmit virtually no power, just signal. This reduces the question of electron flow to just about nothing. Yet, we seem to be able to hear cable differences. Andre gave a perfect description of what we do to evaluate cables. If it is not good enough for anyone else, so be it.
However, I have studied the works of Hawksford, conferred with VandenHul, and I have even met Bruce Brisson, and they have at least given me their input on cables. Of course, NONE of it would be believed here. Dr. VandenHul has done formal laboratory research, just like SY, in the past, but that would not count here, as he makes a living partially from making cables, and that is verboten. I don't pursue cables for fun or profit, but I have heard differences in identical cables, one of which was broken-in and the other was not. I listened to it on a better system than the one I use at this time. I can't really say if I would hear such a difference in my own system, but then my cables are now all broken in, just because they have been in my system for years, so it isn't an issue.
I tend to defend others who make cables, because I know many of them, and they seem all right to me, and they know a lot more than the electronic techs here, that's for sure, and probably more than the PhD's in their area of experience. That should not be surprising, as they have access to as good or better test equipment as anybody here, and normally know how to use it.
What I find here is that most techs and most engineers even, have an abridged view of signal wire flow, based on limited studies that have to be fit in with more practical courses, such as computer programing, etc. This abridged view tends to fall apart under close analysis, and there are whole books written about the properties of metals and current flow through them. The F&C book is just one of many. No one book will give exact calculations about a particular wire defect, but it will show what is possible and how hard it is to make something that is almost perfect. Of course, that also gets confused with Maxwell's equations that were based initially on the aether model of reality. It is amazing that they work at all. In this case, almost everything is based on the insulator material, rather than the metal, and the metal is mostly just a waveguide.
In any case, these equations are almost completely incompatible with the electron flow in metals, exception of DC or low AC power. Connecting cables, for example, transmit virtually no power, just signal. This reduces the question of electron flow to just about nothing. Yet, we seem to be able to hear cable differences. Andre gave a perfect description of what we do to evaluate cables. If it is not good enough for anyone else, so be it.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.