“Now, with the Odin Gold Loudspeaker, Nordost has developed an innovative termination process that eases the transition from cable
to connector over several stages. This process minimizes the conversion points of conductors, eliminating overcrowding and creating orderly and precise connection points with the connectors. By decreasing the impedance introduced in standard termination practices, this innovative technique allows perfect mass- matching to occur between the conductor and connector. The methodical and natural transition contributes to the smooth auditory experience only available with Nordost’s Odin Gold cables.
“
Nordost, manufacturer of high technology cables including speaker / video cables and analog and digital interconnects. Brand names include the Supreme Reference Odin, Reference Valhalla and Tyr and others including Norse, Flatline and Sort Systems
I missed that one. It does appear to be the one and only difference between Odin 2 and Odin Gold (besides electroplating infintesimally thin microns of gold all over everything). Is this a significant, or exaggerated, change in their terminations? I have no idea, but in the context of this press release, color me a golden shade of skeptical.
But they do state this innovation has "achieved the impossible." So, I guess we shouldn't quibble with paying an extra $13k over Odin 2.
“Now, with the Odin Gold Loudspeaker, Nordost has developed an innovative termination process that eases the transition from cable
to connector over several stages. This process minimizes the conversion points of conductors, eliminating overcrowding and creating orderly and precise connection points with the connectors. By decreasing the impedance introduced in standard termination practices, this innovative technique allows perfect mass- matching to occur between the conductor and connector. The methodical and natural transition contributes to the smooth auditory experience only available with Nordost’s Odin Gold cables.
“
Nordost, manufacturer of high technology cables including speaker / video cables and analog and digital interconnects. Brand names include the Supreme Reference Odin, Reference Valhalla and Tyr and others including Norse, Flatline and Sort Systems
So are they claiming that the weight/mass of the wires touching the connectors at the termination point is equal to the weight of the connector itself? If so, then that would assume the individual wire strands/runs would have to be quite heavy in order for a few mm of each strand/run of wire that actually touches the connector to be equal in mass to it.
Have the Odin Gold owners here noticed a significant weight difference between the previous version to these new Gold references?
I guess another way to achieve such a claim would be that they reduced the mass of the connector to match that of the weight of the wires/strands touching the connector. Would be nice to know what metallurgy the connectors are now made of on the Golds (not just the plating but the cores too). Going with a Gold, Copper or Silver core on the connector would likely result in making its mass much higher than that of the wires/strands connected to it. So the question would be, what isss it made of then?
The art of using vagueness everywhere in your new product description is on display here with the Golds. I wouldn't consider such a wire without first knowing far more details about how the new wire betters the old one. But then again, the customer of these cables could probably care less about all this : )
So are they claiming that the weight/mass of the wires touching the connectors at the termination point is equal to the weight of the connector itself? If so, then that would assume the individual wire strands/runs would have to be quite heavy in order for a few mm of each strand/run of wire that actually touches the connector to be equal in mass to it.
Have the Odin Gold owners here noticed a significant weight difference between the previous version to these new Gold references?
I guess another way to achieve such a claim would be that they reduced the mass of the connector to match that of the weight of the wires/strands touching the connector. Would be nice to know what metallurgy the connectors are now made of on the Golds (not just the plating but the cores too). Going with a Gold, Copper or Silver core on the connector would likely result in making its mass much higher than that of the wires/strands connected to it. So the question would be, what isss it made of then?
The art of using vagueness everywhere in your new product description is on display here with the Golds. I wouldn't consider such a wire without first knowing far more details about how the new wire betters the old one. But then again, the customer of these cables could probably care less about all this : )
As far as I know, this equal mass termination applies only to speaker cable. The speaker cable is terminated in two stages. First the main ribbon cable is connected to a smaller oval short cable, usually called the pig tail. The pig tail is then terminated to the spade or banana.
In the previous Odin, all strands are terminated to spade/banana in one step. The strands are fairly crowded and it is difficult to ensure all strands are connected properly. A two stage termination helps to solve this problem.
As far as I know, this equal mass termination applies only to speaker cable. The speaker cable is terminated in two stages. First the main ribbon cable is connected to a smaller oval short cable, usually called the pig tail. The pig tail is then terminated to the spade or banana.
I have always thought this method of terminating ribbon cables to be a potential point of signal degradation.
Silversmiths new Fidelium ribbon cables, for one, sport direct terminal connection to the main body of the alloy foil materiel. Which imho seems to be a more purist approach , if not a little troublesome tho where amplifiers sport binding posts close together.
The only relevant thing I have against the hobby driven by the "cost no object" mantra is that I can't afford these current top "cost no object" systems. I have listened to one of them and can assure you it was more realistic and believable than anything I have listened until now.
BTW the system included the WAMM's with subs, top d'Agostinos, top Transparent Audio cabling and DCS Vivaldi in a large room.
The only relevant thing I have against the hobby driven by the "cost no object" mantra is that I can't afford these current top "cost no object" systems.
I think the question is why does anyone want to? And this applies to any material possessions. We all know that it can be a journey that never ends if one is so disposed but is that really important and personally satisfying given the many challenges / rewards of life. Being able to "afford" something doesn't necessarily make it worthwhile in the end. I posted this before and I will repeat now. When is enough enough?
You are applying your personal marginal dollar value to somebody else's personal marginal dollar value and finding that his/hers doesn't make any objective sense to you.
If the item being purchased is more valuable to the purchaser than the currency used to purchase the item then it obviously is worthwhile to this person. What is the point of second guessing someone else's personal value judgment?
You are applying your personal marginal dollar value to somebody else's personal marginal dollar value and finding that his/hers doesn't make any objective sense to you.
If the item being purchased is more valuable to the purchaser than the currency used to purchase the item then it obviously is worthwhile to this person. What is the point of second guessing someone else's personal value judgment?
Respectfully, I feel that you might be showing the same lack of awareness of the incomparability of interpersonal utility (at least for simple things such as spending what you think is too much money on audio components, or trying to prove that you like chocolate ice cream more than I like vanilla ice cream, and not social theory choice on complex social or economic issues) as thedudeabides.
Where is the dividing line in your personal, subjective application of marginal dollar value to somebody else's checking account and spending decisions? Is somebody with three Ferraris of sound mind, but somebody with a collection of 25 Ferraris is clinically insane, in your opinion?
Don't you see that this is nothing more than imposing your personal, subjective, normative judgment on somebody else, untethered from any objective metric?
Putting the same point another way you and thedudeabides are arguing, effectively, about the law of diminishing marginal returns. How can any person decide for somebody else the latter's utility from additional allocations to the subject in question?
In other words, why do you believe that you can decide for somebody else the optimum level of money that that other person should spend on audio components for himself/herself? What is the analytically principled and objective basis for you making such a decision for someone else?
To me, the question that arises from this thread is: What do some of the high end cable manufacturers think of their audiophile consumer? Do they view their market as populated by foolish men with too much money and too little simple analytical ability?
I don't know whether the $34K Odin Gold cable discussed here is great, good or otherwise. But what seems abundantly clear, as evidenced by this cables' press release, is that they view their potential customer as someone who can be swayed to part with a large sum of money by empty ad-speak and pretty pictures.
If I were part of the high-end audio industry I would be embarrassed by this. But, I suppose some of these companies know, from experience, how to reach that pot o' gold!
Respectfully, I feel that you might be showing the same lack of awareness of the incomparability of interpersonal utility (at least for simple things such as spending what you think is too much money on audio components, or trying to prove that you like chocolate ice cream more than I like vanilla ice cream, and not social theory choice on complex social or economic issues) as thedudeabides.
Tima gets it. I'm glad you said "respectfully" to Tima. It seems that I can't express my opinion on a public forum without a lecture from you regarding my personal beliefs and don't deserve / qualify for your "respect". Excuse me.
Sorry you can't, as a minimum, understand this perspective. Sad.
Lack of awareness of incomparability of interpersonal utility? Oh please.
I am not sure what you think I don't "get." I'll be wiring my fancy system with very non-fancy $50 Mogami or Belden cables.
In my recent posts here I am simply illuminating and arguing the other side, and encouraging you to examine the basis of your views.
Saying "I would not spend my money on this stuff," is very different, I think, than saying "anyone who spends this much money on this stuff is mentally unsound."
I don't know whether the $34K Odin Gold cable discussed here is great, good or otherwise. But what seems abundantly clear, as evidenced by this cables' press release, is that they view their potential customer as someone who can be swayed to part with a large sum of money by empty ad-speak and pretty pictures.
If I were part of the high-end audio industry I would be embarrassed by this. But, I suppose some of these companies know, from experience, how to reach that pot o' gold!
You are just too smart and educated for me. Excuse me but I never took Economics 101. I'm simply not that interested in being wealthy and having lots of money like you. More important things to do in life. Any other personal insults you want to throw my way Mr. Resnick?
I would also encourage you to examine the basis of your views. We obviously have different perspectives on conspicuous consumption. And given the components of the rest of your system (my guess $300K +/- retail), your comment about using $50 cables is hilarious.
