It Was Inevitable…

[Ron Resnick]

. . . We obviously have different perspectives on conspicuous consumption.

. . .

Actually our perspective on conspicuous consumption may be more similar than you realize. I have written several times on other threads that for some audiophiles expensive audio components might be Veblen goods, meaning that demand for them rises as price increases.

 

[Phoenix Engineering]

Here they mention :

“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 | HI-FI Audio 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

www.nordost.com

We used to call this "soldering".

 

[Phoenix Engineering]

Good luck with that!

Louis Motek, the guy that owns LessLoss cables, looked at the theory of superconductivity with its notion that under certain superconductive conditions electricity can flow without an accompanying magenetic field. He wondered if it was possible to build a cable that mimicked the effect without all the expensive apparatus. His product, named TunnelBridge, claims to offer a signal-transmission environment where electromagnetic force neutralizes itself.

Around the signal carrying wire he runs a shield that carries a signal cloned from the original audio signal. The shield and signal carrying wire never touch. With like charges on both, the charges repel - there is no electrical field (no voltage potential) between shield and conductor. The effect is that the dielectric no longer acts as a capacitor. The whole thing requires a power supply. Shunyata does something similar with their Zitron technology which is a more elegant solution that does not require a power supply.

OK, this needs a little more explaining. You could conceivably cover the signal carrying wire with a floating shield that carries the same signal. But where is the return path for the original signal? If the signal wire and the return path have the same level on them, there is zero current flowing and you don't have a signal reaching the destination. If you have the return path covering the mirrored shield signal, then you have an electric field between those two, so what have you accomplished?

 

[bonzo75]

Lack of awareness of incomparability of interpersonal utility? Oh please.

This reminded me of the using big words part from minute 4. Context from around 2.5 if you want to skip the first part

 

[Phoenix Engineering]

I can’t resist… isn’t ‘skin effect’ something often discussed in describing cables and the effects of construction methods? Wouldn’t plating something with .0001” layer alter the skin effect, pollute it, cause a disruption at the boundary? Maybe it sounds better, but how do you reconcile that with prior arguments about skin effect? (Sorry, sometimes the analytical side of my brain demands to be heard!)

All that said, for the $$ I’d at least expect an alloy containing gold — and a lot of it, so if the world collapses I could melt down my cables to buy dinner.

Skin effect is the phenomenon that causes the AC signal to concentrate at the outer extremities of the conductor as the frequency of the signal increases. Plating the conductor with gold places a putatively better conductor at the "skin" of the wire. Skin effect is usually only considered an issue at RF frequencies, i.e. tens of MHz or higher. As the effect intensifies the higher you go in frequency, it's difficult to see how such a thin coating of gold would have any substantial effect at audio frequencies and over a relatively short length of cable. Transmission line theory comes into play at ~1/10 of the wavelength of the highest signal frequency involved. 20kHz being the highest frequency of interest, 1/10 wavelength at 100kHz (5th harmonic if we want to look at more than sinewaves) is ~983 ft.

 

[morricab]

Actually our perspective on conspicuous consumption may be more similar than you realize. I have written several times on other threads that for some audiophiles expensive audio components might be Veblen goods, meaning that demand for them rises as price increases.

Yes, to advertise wealth. Honestly Ron given what you have spent already, unless you REALLY think your Mogami cables are just as good as the expensive stuff (I have some Magami stuff...it’s not even as good as moderately priced other brands) you shoukd just buy some more expensive and likely better cables. The trying to look humble or clever because you don’t “waste” money on cables kind of falls flat.

As to your economics lesson, well I already have spent what most of my friends think is nuts and I am relatively low on the spending totem pole here. People are spending large sums because they want status and praise amongst their peer group, they have been laddering for decades and are now rich enough to buy their dream system (whether they can hear if it really is or not is another story) or they are addicted to buying new shiny things and this is one of their many pursuits (they probably have numerous watches of high value as well and yes expensive cars).

I don’t say that they cannot do what they want with their money...he’ll if I am that rich someday I might do the same...or not.

 

[thedudeabides]

As to your economics lesson, well I already have spent what most of my friends think is nuts and I am relatively low on the spending totem pole here. People are spending large sums because they want status and praise amongst their peer group, they have been laddering for decades and are now rich enough to buy their dream system (whether they can hear if it really is or not is another story) or they are addicted to buying new shiny things and this is one of their many pursuits (they probably have numerous watches of high value as well and yes expensive cars).

Thank you. Another person who seems to understand my perspective. And thank you Ked for the video.

 

[morricab]

Skin effect is the phenomenon that causes the AC signal to concentrate at the outer extremities of the conductor as the frequency of the signal increases. Plating the conductor with gold places a putatively better conductor at the "skin" of the wire. Skin effect is usually only considered an issue at RF frequencies, i.e. tens of MHz or higher. As the effect intensifies the higher you go in frequency, it's difficult to see how such a thin coating of gold would have any substantial effect at audio frequencies and over a relatively short length of cable. Transmission line theory comes into play at ~1/10 of the wavelength of the highest signal frequency involved. 20kHz being the highest frequency of interest, 1/10 wavelength at 100kHz (5th harmonic if we want to look at more than sinewaves) is ~983 ft.

Gold is a pretty poor electrical conductor. It eliminates the need to worry about corrosion though. It will change the properties of high frequency transmission as those signals tend to run on the outside (not really through...the water pipe analogy only goes so far) of the wire.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .Honestly Ron given what you have spent already, unless you REALLY think your Mogami cables are just as good as the expensive stuff (I have some Magami stuff...it’s not even as good as moderately priced other brands) you shoukd just buy some more expensive and likely better cables. The trying to look humble or clever because you don’t “waste” money on cables kind of falls flat.

. . .

Yes, I have spent a lot on components. My ears or prior experience tell me that each of the expensive components I have bought sounds better to me than competing less expensive components. I like to think that each decision has been at least somewhat rationally and within the realm of my personal cost/benefit analysis. Each decision has been based on comparative auditions or prior ownership or educated triangulation.

For example, I paid up for the three box Io Eclipse because I loved the two box basic model Io for about 18 years. The amps are an upgraded and much more stable descendant of the amps I had for about 16 years.

The line stage is new, but designed for compatibility with the amps and uniquely able to drive long interconnects. I have heard the line stage in a system I am familiar with.

The turntable is new but designed under excellent provenance and universally revered among our members who have it.

Cables, however, are an unknown to me. I do not think the Mogami or Belden cables are as good as the expensive stuff. I also do not think the expensive cables are as good as the Mogami or Belden cables. I truly do not know. I have no basis for an opinion. I simply do not know that the expensive stuff is better. I am not going to assume that the expensive stuff is better. I am not a Veblen good adherent.

Therefore, it seems logical to me to start with the inexpensive stuff first (as opposed to selecting relatively arbitrarily one of the expensive brands first).

If I discover the expensive stuff sounds better to me, then I happily will pay up for improved sound quality I can perceive.

 

[thedudeabides]

One of my favorite phrases is this;

"I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you".

Tom

How arrogant, presumptuous and insulting. Good post Mr. Super Moderator.

 

[PeterA]

An explanation which cannot convey understanding has limited value.

 

[tima]

OK, this needs a little more explaining. You could conceivably cover the signal carrying wire with a floating shield that carries the same signal. But where is the return path for the original signal? If the signal wire and the return path have the same level on them, there is zero current flowing and you don't have a signal reaching the destination. If you have the return path covering the mirrored shield signal, then you have an electric field between those two, so what have you accomplished?

My understanding of the Lessloss Tunnelbridge product has it constructed with a second insulated shield serving as the ground connection (a la a normal coaxial cable) and wrapping around the shield carrying the cloned signal. The goal being that the like charges on the cloned-signal shield and signal wire repel which means the signal wire's insulation no longer acts as a capacitor, and that eliminates or reduces dielectric absorbtion and relaxation. Purportedly the accomplishment is that a signal from the past no longer smears the present signal.

If I correctly understand the implication of your question, does the E-field between ground and cloned-signal shield enable an E-field between the latter and the signal wire such that the charges on the inner shield and signal wire do not repel? That might not be the most elegant way to ask that question. Or put differently, the product cannot work as described?

To quote from my 2012 review (where there is more detailed product description):

"I was not in a position to assess if the Tunnelbridge cables worked electrically as described, but what I heard from a variety of components was entirely consistent with the LessLoss goal of reducing distortion caused by electromagnetic forces and current flow."

The Audio Beat - LessLoss Audio - Tunnelbridge Interconnect System and Anchorwave Speaker Cables

read audio reviews, ratings, and user opinions on audio equipment before you buy an audio system

www.theaudiobeat.com

 

[tima]

I feel that you might be showing the same lack of awareness of the incomparability of interpersonal utility ... as thedudeabides.

Lack of awareness of incomparability of interpersonal utility? Oh please.

I am sorry if my effort to explain a little bit of basic Economics 101 was unpalatable to you.

Dear Ron,
I do not find your use of the phrase "the incomparability of interpersonal utility" as explanatory. Yes it is an accepted phrase for some and easily bandied about by those who know it. I don't know if the theory behind the incomparability of interpersonal utility is at the Econ 101 level. For me personally I don't think I could deduce its meaning from its words alone, and thus gauge the utility of the phrase on its own to the uninitiated as marginal at best. I think if you had actually explained what is meant rather than using what is by and large an academic phrase, your case would be stronger and it would be more palatable if you had not claimed that others lacked awareness of it. Teach in a soft way.

My understanding of the somewhat beclouded (intentionally obscure guild speak?) phrase "the incomparability of interpersonal utility" is that it is a handle for the theory that: one person's values cannot be quantitatively compared to or mapped onto another person's values. Iow, my values are not his values - "too much money" is relative. There is no objective equity of value - teehee.

That such a theory exists does not preclude the tendency to have personal opinions, themselves based on personal values. Personal opinion may not respect theory and vice versa, but one cannot be used to deny the existence of the other. Perhaps we go up a level to the "the incomparability of interpersonal utility with interpersonal opinion". Or is that redundant?

 

[spiritofmusic]

I thought the Incomparabity Of Interpersonal Utility was the great lost Yes triple album, made straight after Tales From Topographic Oceans.

 

[tima]

I thought the Incomparabity Of Interpersonal Utility was the great lost Yes triple album, made straight after Tales From Topographic Oceans.

No, that was Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Or maybe a sequel to The Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind.

 

[Phoenix Engineering]

If I correctly understand the implication of your question, does the E-field between ground and cloned-signal shield enable an E-field between the latter and the signal wire such that the charges on the inner shield and signal wire do not repel? That might not be the most elegant way to ask that question. Or put differently, the product cannot work as described?

That is essentially the conundrum that I see. If there is a return (ground) shield around the cloned signal shield, it should cause the same high frequency roll off in the cloned signal and therefore the the cloned and original would no longer be the same, although there would be less difference than the original signal and ground. Maybe that is how they are getting the reported benefit?

 

[thedudeabides]

Dear Ron,
I do not find your use of the phrase "the incomparability of interpersonal utility" as explanatory. Yes it is an accepted phrase for some and easily bandied about by those who know it. I don't know if the theory behind the incomparability of interpersonal utility is at the Econ 101 level. For me personally I don't think I could deduce its meaning from its words alone, and thus gauge the utility of the phrase on its own to the uninitiated as marginal at best. I think if you had actually explained what is meant rather than using what is by and large an academic phrase, your case would be stronger and it would be more palatable if you had not claimed that others lacked awareness of it. Teach in a soft way.

My understanding of the somewhat beclouded (intentionally obscure guild speak?) phrase "the incomparability of interpersonal utility" is that it is a handle for the theory that: one person's values cannot be quantitatively compared to or mapped onto another person's values. Iow, my values are not his values - "too much money" is relative. There is no objective equity of value - teehee.

That such a theory exists does not preclude the tendency to have personal opinions, themselves based on personal values. Personal opinion may not respect theory and vice versa, but one cannot be used to deny the existence of the other. Perhaps we go up a level to the "the incomparability of interpersonal utility with interpersonal opinion". Or is that redundant?

Thank you Tima and Peter. Hope "they" get it and act in a more responsible, respectful manner in the future .

 

[Argonaut]

@thedudeabides

Where do you think you are going with this ?
In my experience tilting at windmills rarely works out for the knight-errant.

 

[thedudeabides]

I'm done.