WBF: How Much Science Talk Do You Want to See?

[esldude]

Wire is a good example. There are known technical reasons to use OCC pure copper or silver plated wires for ICs and speaker cables - military and audio engineers know them. But there is no proved known audio science in cables for the audio band.

And what gives you this idea? Sorry I am incredulous of that idea. How can you have a technical reason without knowing what lies behind it? Can you give an example?

Some military designs of wire use silver plating, but there is nothing esoteric about why. Nor does that relate to the audio band. Not too many military designs are operating at 20 khz and lower using said silver plated wire.

 

[microstrip]

And what gives you this idea? Sorry I am incredulous of that idea. How can you have a technical reason without knowing what lies behind it? Can you give an example?

Surely. It is known that signals travel on the surface of wires. However in contact with pollutants (and cable dielectrics are some of the worst) copper immediately oxidizes. Copper with impurities oxidizes even faster and in fancier ways.

Copper oxide has high resistivity, some of its species and structures have semiconductor properties - something you surely do not want to carry your audio signals. But silver oxide has very low resistivity - many orders of magnitude lower than the copper oxide. No problems with surface oxidation. BTW, do you remember that silver oxide paint was used to repair PCBs?

As simple as that. It was reported in audio books long ago.

Even Harman specifies in their technical literature that they use ultra high purity copper in the wiring of their top Revel speakers.

Some military designs of wire use silver plating, but there is nothing esoteric about why. Nor does that relate to the audio band. Not too many military designs are operating at 20 khz and lower using said silver plated wire.

I love when people talk about the "audio band" as being 20 kHz and lower. Nothing to add after such comment.

 

[esldude]

Surely. It is known that signals travel on the surface of wires. However in contact with pollutants (and cable dielectrics are some of the worst) copper immediately oxidizes. Copper with impurities oxidizes even faster and in fancier ways.

Copper oxide has high resistivity, some of its species and structures have semiconductor properties - something you surely do not want to carry your audio signals. But silver oxide has very low resistivity - many orders of magnitude lower than the copper oxide. No problems with surface oxidation. BTW, do you remember that silver oxide paint was used to repair PCBs?

As simple as that. It was reported in audio books long ago.

Even Harman specifies in their technical literature that they use ultra high purity copper in the wiring of their top Revel speakers.




I love when people talk about the "audio band" as being 20 kHz and lower. Nothing to add after such comment.

So you got nothing. Oxidation layers are typically micrometers thick. They don't effect the conduction of signal enough to have any significant effect at audio frequencies (which are to 20 khz). You speak of copper oxide having higher resistance than silver oxide which is true. What happens when you parallel a high resistance with a very low resistance? The signal goes through the low resistance route.

 

[DaveC]

So you got nothing. Oxidation layers are typically micrometers thick. They don't effect the conduction of signal enough to have any significant effect at audio frequencies (which are to 20 khz). You speak of copper oxide having higher resistance than silver oxide which is true. What happens when you parallel a high resistance with a very low resistance? The signal goes through the low resistance route.

I've found that cables that adhere to the design principles of high frequency cabling work best for audio frequencies as well. Being able to cleanly pass a HF signal translates to being able to very precisely transmit a lower frequency (audio) signal. In high frequency applications the surface of the wire is often polished silver, and in any application a wire with a tarnished conductor surface isn't going to work as well as one that has proper insulation to prevent this from happening. UPOCC copper is good but UPOCC silver is by far the best wire in existence, it'll give you way better resolution and does not add warmth like copper does. That is, IF you are looking for the most accurate cable possible, many people have other priorities. There is a big difference between audio and RF wrt silver plated wire. I do not like plated wire for audio use because the higher frequencies are going to prefer the surface while lower frequencies will use the entire wire which gives you a different sound depending on frequency and the gauge of the wire in question. It can work ok for budget applications but for high end cables I feel UPOCC silver is a far superior alternative, although much more expensive.

 

[NorthStar]

Well, cables are like equalizers, room correction system networks.

But the science in copper audio signal transfer is undeniable. Higher purity copper content should measure and sound better.
But gold and silver and platinum are more expensive than copper, and look better too under the silver lining jacket, and as jewelry to wear; rings, necklaces, bracelets, earrings, ...

Electrical cable experts (Bell), they use copper that measure well in the four most important attributes: impedance, capacitance/reactance, resistance and conductance/inductance.

* Lol, three votes in option #1.
Option #2 fares better but not by much.

_____

? What about fiber optic cables? ...And measurements of wireless? ...Transmitters and receptors...through radio frequencies high enough as to not be affected. ...Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, gigahertz.

Yes, we can hear sound quality, and we can see picture quality, with all the deficiencies, from experience.
It's like comparing Netflix streaming (picture & sound) with Blu-ray...2k...and 4K (UHD).
But the scrupulous analysis of both picture and sound side-by-side is also a revealing factor, with in-depth pixel's measurement and sound stems.

Are analog VHS tapes looking better than digital DVDs?
Are analog 8-track tapes sounding inferior to analog LPs?
Can we measure what we hear with great correlation? ...For an accurate reading/interpretation.

Or, is it all about preference? ...And our deepest love.

 

[stehno]

Well if anyone knows about bad science it should be Rupert Sheldrake.

And if per chance there is not much behind what you claim? Then the rest of the claim becomes rather without meaning or value.

Perhaps another Tesla quote is fitting right about here:

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

I've no idea of Sheldrake's reputation. Feel free to enlighten. Even if he's a hack, even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

My claim is valid.

I'm well aware of Tesla's quote here and have used it frequently including on my website. However, don't you think he could have eliminated frequency and energy and just said vibration, since energy and frequency appear to be forms or outward expressions of vibration?

 

[stehno]

How do you use terms like "noise" and specific percentages while avoiding discussion of science??? Those are engineering and scientific notions, no?

This again is the discussion of science, specifically material science. How is science avoided when it is part of the argument?

I see no issues with audiophiles believing all manner of tweaks like this. Every possible type of cable for example is built and has devotees. If people are closed minded, how is this happening?

I don't think that statement is your friend. He says nothing about presumption of value of certain properties but rather proof through experimentation. Saying this and that wire treatment has value is a claim, not an experiment or verification of said property.

Amir, don't get me wrong as I certainly do have an appreciation for science but of course not all sciences nor all scientists nor all findings. When I read a definition of science like this one:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

I have no problem with this definition. In fact, by this definition and based on my own discoveries about certain energies, their behaviors, similarities, differences, etc. I start getting goosebumps thinking I may be a scientist.

But in all seriousness, when science-related subject matter is tossed about in audio forums it almost seems that science is put on some pedestal that trumps all other input, including our ears, and that scientists or engineers are some kind of little gods and their endeavors and supposed knowledge of a given subject matter or they themselves are above reproach. To the contrary, some of the most closed-minded people I’ve met, especially in this industry, are scientists. That stigma leads to blind faith and I don’t consider that as necessarily beneficial or healthy. But then again, I'm skeptical of most all people and their claims. For example, if my government tells me the sky is blue, I'm going to assume it's red until I can verify it for myself.

It seems odd that even though we're all too familiar with hacks and bush-leaguers in other industries, e.g. lawyers, doctors, mechanics, etc, I rarely if ever see anybody in audio forums consider an audio designer, engineer, or scientist as a potential hack.

How do I use terms like "noise" or specific percentage while avoiding discussions of science? Good question. Frankly, I don't put any weight whatsoever in any specifications of product I purchase. Come to think of it, for over 15 years now, every last purchase I made was without giving any consideration whatsoever to a product's specs, except perhaps an amps' WPC at 8ohm, 4ohm, etc and maybe its current draw. Moreover, I think every purchase I've ever made was sight unseen and unheard, whether new or used. When I research a product, it's usually by others' feedback and/or reading some reviews. But since I'm quite skeptical of most reviewers listening abilities, I usually spend far more time trying to read between the lines of what the reviewer says and I'll also focus on internal construction as that's important to me.

I guess that goes to show how much weight I put into specs. But then again, why should I?

When an engineer is measuring product for noise or anything else for that matter, how do I know if they really know what they're doing? Does s/he ever mention what measuring standards they're adhering to? Is there even an industry-wide measuring standard? And if there was, how do I know that they are following it? Should I believe them when they say they are? Should I believe that all scientists are competent and ethical? Have you ever googled “Climategate”?

What about their sensitive measuring instruments? Are there not some measuring instruments not worth owning because they fall below industry standards? Are they using superior (and preferably cryo'ed) cabling or even fuses on their measuring instruments like some do for their sensitive playback components? If AC coming in from the street greatly affects the performance of my (and everybody else's) sensitive components, what if the engineer / scientist isn't using superior line conditioning on their sensitive instruments? (Which I’ve yet to see even one use ANY kind of line conditioning or AC filtering.) If not, do you know how compromised might his sensitive measuring instrument and subsequent findings might be? If a universal distortion (noise) audibly affects the output of a $40k CDP, is there any reason I should not think that same noisy AC coming in from the street could equally affect the precision and accuracy of a $30k atomic force microscope or a $5k sensitive measuring instrument?

What about mechanical settling in? Does that engineer / scientist have even a hint at how dramatically impacted a sensitive instrument's performance is when it's mobile vs stationary for months / years at a time? What about the product being measured? Same thing.

As I recall, John Atkinson used to place speakers on top of his kitchen table assuming he has little idea how the kitchen table could actually skew his measurements or even one part of the kitchen table skewing the results more than another part of the table. And wheel or carry in his measuring instruments obviously not having a clue about any of these potential variables that can affect the output for his waterfalls graphs. And nobody ever seems to ask him. Some months ago, I asked him a few questions and though he didn't answer most, he did share the make and model of his 2 sensitive measuring instruments and one of them the mtg'er stopped making years ago and the other he mentioned was long overdue for recalibration. I found that interesting. Yet, how many drool over his measurements each and every month. In my opinion, that's pretty willy nilly.

Several years ago, I and others engaged in dialogue with Mark Levinson and John Curl, 2 fairly respectable gents in the industry. Eventually Levinson admitted that his professionally-calibrated SOTA-level measuring instruments routinely failed to discern audible differences that he and his colleagues could easily discern with their ears. Curl admitted the same. Both agreed that these were measuring instrument failures and admitted the failures were more routine than not. Few would consider either gent a hack.

How many decades was it that scientists proved bumble bees couldn't fly? Better yet, what about burn-in? There are many audiophile who would bet the farm that electronic “burn-in” is very real while regrettably others are convinced it’s nothing more than a placebo effect. Yet I’m unaware of any measurement or instrument available that proves electrical burn-in changes anything. Even more regrettable is that some will use that lack of measuring as proof that there is no such thing as burn in. I was a big proponent of electrical burn-in but of late I deduce there is no such thing as that process is actually a form of mechanical settling in and under the right conditions I’m confident I can also demonstrate that to at least an extent. But I digress.

With the potential for hacks, sub-standard, and improperly calibrated measuring instruments not given the same respect they give a $60k or even a $2k CDP, like any other industry, I just don't see going down the science rabbit holes as a good use of my time. And frankly, for those that do enjoy the science angles, I think takes great leaps of faith of which I'm not willing to provide. IMO, science (and measurements) is a starting point, not the end game that some audio enthusiasts want to make them.

I'm aware of some severe distortions that few if any pay little or no attention to. Hence, I suspect that any engineer or scientists’ findings of traditional noise or specific percentages in the audio industry are skewed often times in a very big way. So much so, that I speculate they’re not always fully aware of what they are measuring nor are they always aware of a distortion’s true origins.

Lastly, I don’t see how going down the science rabbit holes is necessary for me or anybody else to appreciate reproduced music. If I had a real passion for drums, I don’t see how my learning the science of drum design, materials, etc, are necessary for me to fully appreciate hearing various drums in live music venues. If I learned the science behind drum design, does that mean my appreciation for drums is greater or superior to another who equally loves drums but knows nothing about the science behind it? No. A different appreciation perhaps but not better. In fact, unless I intend to design my own drums one day, studying and understanding the science behind drum design is really of little value except perhaps create a useless hobby for myself or maybe if I engage in a drum design forum desiring to ask questions or maybe fluff my feathers in a few threads.

I think Tesla’s quote is right on the money when interpreted for high-end audio. Simply because most in audio forums are not building structures or products themselves, but they sure seem dogmatic enough to defend their own or somebody else's mathematics and equations ’til the day they die and usually without experimentation because the "science" was good enough for them. Or so it seems.

 

[microstrip]

So you got nothing. Oxidation layers are typically micrometers thick. They don't effect the conduction of signal enough to have any significant effect at audio frequencies (which are to 20 khz). You speak of copper oxide having higher resistance than silver oxide which is true. What happens when you parallel a high resistance with a very low resistance? The signal goes through the low resistance route.

I expected your attitude as you insist as if audio was a 20 kHz business - you should include it in your signature, people would understand your points better. Do you also consider that signals less than 90 dB are not audible?

And no, the signal (all spectrum) does not go through the low resistance route, it splits non linearly through the two routes.

Try listening to a rusty cable - preferably when it looks greenish. Monster cable from the 80's vintage is a good example, I have tried it. Or cheap ICs when their surface looks black. The Soundlabs are a very sensitive listening tool for this type of distortions.

I provided our readers with a known physics effect that can cause significant electrical differences in sound cables. I accept that weather its magnitude is audible is unproved and subject to discussion. I do not hope to persuade people who belong to the school that thinks that every competently designed audio gear sounds the same.

 

[DonH50]

Amir, don't get me wrong as I certainly do have an appreciation for science but of course not all sciences nor all scientists nor all findings. <elided>

This sort of post represents a lack of knowledge and presents the point of view that the poster knows more about the science than the scientists. I disagree with so much of it that I see no point in engaging to try to clear things up, but instead will highlight a key (to me) point:

I don’t see how going down the science rabbit holes is necessary for me or anybody else to appreciate reproduced music.

Appreciating music and reproducing it are, or can be, two very different things. I like science and yet am also a musician. For some of us, science is interesting and leads to a better understanding and ultimately better reproduction systems. It can also help our personal quest, for example an understanding of basic acoustics allows us to improve our listening rooms, understanding how certain speakers and amplifiers interact can guide our purchase decisions, and so forth.

To use a somewhat loose analogy, some music comes from just improvising, but much has come from composers who actually understand chord structures and the "science" behind the music.

IME, with some exceptions (natch), musicians listen to the music and audiophiles listen to the gear.

I do not and never have agreed with the "all or nothing" stance (on either side) I see all too often.

My 0.000001 cent (microcent) - Don

 

[DaveC]

Well, cables are like equalizers, room correction system networks.

But the science in copper audio signal transfer is undeniable. Higher purity copper content should measure and sound better.
But gold and silver and platinum are more expensive than copper, and look better too under the silver lining jacket, and as jewelry to wear; rings, necklaces, bracelets, earrings, ...

Electrical cable experts (Bell), they use copper that measure well in the four most important attributes: impedance, capacitance/reactance, resistance and conductance/inductance.

Good cables are the exact opposite of equalizers. While it's true some may "voice" them to have an effect, it's always at the expense of accuracy and resolution. And you can replace "cables" with any other audio component in the last two sentences and it'll hold true.

Silver has better conductivity vs copper but because of the impurities it's a tradeoff on detail-smearing warmth vs a slight harshness. UPOCC copper is far less warm and more resolving but UPOCC silver is far more neutral and resolving vs any other conductor material. If you have never tried a UPOCC silver IC cable I can guarantee it's a very large difference for the better vs any copper cable. The truth is copper will only get you so far with IC cables, even UPOCC copper will smooth out detail and harm resolution and soundstage.

Also, copper by its self does not have any of the measurements you attribute except resistance. Capacitance and inductance are part of the total impedance and are properties of a complete cable and don't have much if anything to do with the conductor material used.

 

[amirm]

Amir, don't get me wrong as I certainly do have an appreciation for science but of course not all sciences nor all scientists nor all findings.

OK, that is a relief, giving how you voted .

When I read a definition of science like this one:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

And this is exactly what audio science is about. More below.

But in all seriousness, when science-related subject matter is tossed about in audio forums it almost seems that science is put on some pedestal that trumps all other input, including our ears, and that scientists or engineers are some kind of little gods and their endeavors and supposed knowledge of a given subject matter or they themselves are above reproach.

I can see your point of view. But I also wonder how much we are suspending reality. Is your doctor arrogant when he doesn't consider your opinion valid of what you think is wrong with you, versus his years of training and formal education? Should he just take your word for it that taking mega dose of this vitamin is supposed to cure this and that disease? Or should he be dismissive at the risk of looking arrogant?

I have told this story before but it bears repeating. My doctor gave me a new medication and I started to feel some side effects. I go and see him and tell him the problem. He tells me that would be quite unusual and that the medication is not known to do that. I go home and the side effect persists. So I go and google for the side effects of the medication and the first hit is the results of the human trials published by the company itself. Right there, in plain sight, it shows X% of the people getting that side effect. Emboldened, I go and see him again and tell him that I read that my side effects are caused by that medication. He asked me where I had read that and I sheepishly say, "the Internet." Before he could say anything, I went on to justify my position by saying that I had read it in the company's own drug trials. In a calm voice, he explained to me that when they do these trials, they are obligated to document any and all symptoms the patients report. Naturally, many patients get headaches, upset stomachs, etc. during that period that may have had nothing to do with the new drug they are taking. He said the real data is the experience the doctors have in prescribing the medication to hundreds of patients if not more, that tells them what the probability is that the side effect is caused by the medication. And that in my case, it was highly unlikely that it was related to that medicine. Well, he was proven right as later on I discovered the problem and had nothing to do with the new drug.

The lesson here is to not dismiss the experience and knowledge of people who do this work professionally, when their actual livelihood and professional reputation relies on being right. Of course, they can be wrong and there are plenty of debates in the scientific community. But in general, we need to give them the respect that is due based on their qualifications as we do with doctors and other professionals in our real life. It can't be that us who just go and play doctor and read stuff on the Internet are all of a sudden smarter than all of these people. I certainly thought I was when I used by google search abilities to find the data that I found above. But in reality, I was an embarrassed fool when it was all said and done.

Back to the substance of what you wrote, the foundation of audio science *is* 1000% based on the ear. I don't know why you say it is not. Countless experiments have been run to characterize how we hear both for medical reasons and for audio science. Those listening tests are what inform of us on how the world turns. It is rarely if ever, based on some theory searching for experiments to prove it. At least that is the case with the domains that I specialize in which is psychoacoustics. Or the science of what we perceive (rather than what we hear). We then take that and create systems like MP3 where we throw away 92% of the music and average listener things nothing has been taken out! The reason they think that is that the full frequency response and dynamic range of the system as far as perception is concerned, is maintained. Now, it is not a perfect system but if the science was not sound or based on listening tests, it would never work.

Take this article that I wrote on true dynamic range of our listening spaces which relates to the noise comment you made: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomDynamicRange.html

In there, we go back to mother of all research into how we hear, the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves:

These date back to the listening tests that were performed back in 1940s at Bell Labs by the two dudes that the graph is named after them. Yes it has been revised with more extensive listening tests and better equipment. But the overall data remains and is foundation block of psychoacoustics. And it matches evolutionary traits of humans which is to hear other human's. And the fact that understanding human voice requires preservation of mid-frequencies. I can take away the bass below 100 Hz or above 5000 Hz and all is well. Hence the reason telephone has worked for a century or whatever.

In the article then I tie to this to measurements showing how you can't turn on an SPL meter and trust the 55 db SPL that it shows as the noise level of your room. The SPL meter is stupid and spectrum blind. It measures all frequencies instead of following the response curve of the ear. It matters not if there is freeway noise at 15 Hz that is coming to your home from five miles away if it is below the Fletcher Munson curve of minimum audible level. We can measure the recording spaces with proper knowledge of audio science to map their noise over our listening threshold and get this:

So those rooms are essentially dead quiet (although to get there, Air Conditioning and such had to be turned off). But how about our listening rooms? Again, proper science involves investigation and survey was done of that:

Here, we see that our average room does have audible noise but the best rooms do not. Since threshold of hearing drops down to below 0 db SPL, and we can aspire to have 120 dB SPL of dynamic range to record the best the live stage can do (again, this was measured in the study), we then need 20 bits of dynamic range in digital domain. Not what the detractors say which take the noise floor at 45 dB, subtract that from 120 and arrive at just 75 dB, which means 13 bits is enough.

Research uncovers more fascinating things. Like how equipment noise can be heard over room noise because it is directional, i.e. comes from the speaker rather than all around. Again, this is likely an evolutionary trait, allowing us to hear a predator approaching us even though there is wind and environmental noise. For this reason, we need even better system performance than the above analysis shows. Thankfully we can do that by simply going beyond 20 bits (for the channel that is).

This is how audio science really works. Unfortunately the bit that is exposed online is exaggerated and sometimes wrong so the science gets a bad name. Your concern should be directed at the people trying to wear the science hat on forums, not the scientific minds themselves. Unless you have read all the research and can provide your own that counters it, you can't take the position that these guys don't know what they are doing.

Back to the original point then, it is easily seen as I just gave one of many such examples, that the ear is used in audio science and extensively so. The difference is that accepted audio science requires controlled testing. You must demonstrate that you have only changed one variable if you are going to claim the audible effect is due to that. We on the other hand, use our intuition to dismiss the other factors. We change two amplifiers with all of our senses evaluating both the sound and how the equipment looks, but we attribute the difference only to the sound. Scientists have been burned by that and after decades of allowing such data, they no longer consider it valid analysis. So that is where we differ. Both use ears and listening tests. It is the how that is the issue at hand.

Having been burned myself multiple times , I have learned not to stick my hand into a hot oven anymore.

 

[DaveC]

Appreciating music and reproducing it are, or can be, two very different things. I like science and yet am also a musician. For some of us, science is interesting and leads to a better understanding and ultimately better reproduction systems. It can also help our personal quest, for example an understanding of basic acoustics allows us to improve our listening rooms, understanding how certain speakers and amplifiers interact can guide our purchase decisions, and so forth.

To use a somewhat loose analogy, some music comes from just improvising, but much has come from composers who actually understand chord structures and the "science" behind the music.

IME, with some exceptions (natch), musicians listen to the music and audiophiles listen to the gear.

I do not and never have agreed with the "all or nothing" stance (on either side) I see all too often.

My 0.000001 cent (microcent) - Don

I mostly agree but musicians tend to focus on their part in the music and how it relates to the whole, oftentimes I think they lose perspective on how the whole piece sounds because of this, especially when dealing with their own performances. Their focus on the part they play, or would be playing, is much different from a general non-audiophile, non-musician music enthusiast. Audiophiles AND musicians tend to get off track in many cases because of a focus on gear or specific aspects of performance, imo of course

 

[microstrip]

This sort of post represents a lack of knowledge and presents the point of view that the poster knows more about the science than the scientists. I disagree with so much of it that I see no point in engaging to try to clear things up, but instead will highlight a key (to me) point:



Appreciating music and reproducing it are, or can be, two very different things. I like science and yet am also a musician. For some of us, science is interesting and leads to a better understanding and ultimately better reproduction systems. It can also help our personal quest, for example an understanding of basic acoustics allows us to improve our listening rooms, understanding how certain speakers and amplifiers interact can guide our purchase decisions, and so forth.

To use a somewhat loose analogy, some music comes from just improvising, but much has come from composers who actually understand chord structures and the "science" behind the music.

IME, with some exceptions (natch), musicians listen to the music and audiophiles listen to the gear.

I do not and never have agreed with the "all or nothing" stance (on either side) I see all too often.

My 0.000001 cent (microcent) - Don

Don,

IMHO the poster knows what he is addressing, but expresses it wrongly. He uses the word "calibration" in an unusual way - he seems to be asking for a "calibration" against subjective audio standards (something non existent). He just wants to stress that actual measuring standards do not depict the complete view of the perception and sometimes can be misleading.

Asking for more does not invalidate the existing the positive aspects of current audio science. But we can not deny that sometimes science tries to hide problems or even solve problems that are not solvable using the existing science.

I can only agree with your statement "I do not and never have agreed with the "all or nothing" stance (on either side) I see all too often. "

My .000000001 cent (nanocent)

 

[DaveC]

Explain to me why ,in terms of electrical parameters why silver would 'detail -smear' or why copper would be less 'warm'?
Keith.

I think we'd need to look at how electrons move on a molecular level. Electrical parameters have more to do with the behavior of the cable as a whole. And it's copper that smooths over detail, not silver.

Without going into too much detail, UPOCC metals have very low impurities combined with a continuous crystal structure, or to put it another way, an absence of grain boundaries. It's only the EM wave that propagates near the speed of light, while the electrons actually move through the conductor very slowly. I believe the advantages of UPOCC metals closely relate to how electrons move slowly through the conductor, in UPOCC conductors there are far fewer boundaries and impurities that the electrons have to tunnel, or jump through. From what I can tell it's this tunneling behavior that introduces audible artifacts. In any case, I have found very large audible differences between UPOCC copper and silver wire vs conventionally manufactured wire.

 

[Groucho]

I believe the advantages of UPOCC metals closely relate to how electrons move slowly through the conductor, in UPOCC conductors there are far fewer boundaries and impurities that the electrons have to tunnel, or jump through. From what I can tell it's this tunneling behavior that introduces audible artifacts. In any case, I have found very large audible differences between UPOCC copper and silver wire vs conventionally manufactured wire.

Very interesting. Can you cite any scientific literature or experimental data for further reading?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I mostly agree but musicians tend to focus on their part in the music and how it relates to the whole, oftentimes I think they lose perspective on how the whole piece sounds because of this, especially when dealing with their own performances. Their focus on the part they play, or would be playing, is much different from a general non-audiophile, non-musician music enthusiast. Audiophiles AND musicians tend to get off track in many cases because of a focus on gear or specific aspects of performance, imo of course

Right on! I've had this discussion with musicians when listening to the same album and presenting our thoughts to each other. The musician focuses in on certain levels that he is familiar with. As a non-musician I don't have that handicap (?)...I listen to the entire composition.

 

[DaveC]

Very interesting. Can you cite any scientific literature or experimental data for further reading?

Unfortunately, Prof. Ohno's publications are not free but you can read some of it here:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03257948#page-1

The conductivity of OCC wire is measurably better than conventional wire, the link below has theoretical vs measured data on this, although not specifically for OCC it is mentioned.

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/upfile/soft/200991/yw2003-05-11.pdf

Otherwise, there is a lot of propaganda. Considering this is a phenomenon that has more to do with quantum mechanics vs conventional electrical theory I am not surprised we don't have a better grasp on the subject. This is one area you may just have to use your ears...

 

[DonH50]

I mostly agree but musicians tend to focus on their part in the music and how it relates to the whole, oftentimes I think they lose perspective on how the whole piece sounds because of this, especially when dealing with their own performances. Their focus on the part they play, or would be playing, is much different from a general non-audiophile, non-musician music enthusiast. Audiophiles AND musicians tend to get off track in many cases because of a focus on gear or specific aspects of performance, imo of course

Hmmm... Guess I'll have to concede but not totally. We (musicians) listen to our parts, and sure I focus on the trumpets a little more than the strings , but in a group (symphony or jazz band) we have to be very aware of how we fit into the whole. Blending, intonation, timing are critical. When I listen to a recording I am playing on I focus how how badly I messed up (although my wife, a pianist, rarely notices what to me are glaring errors). When I listen to the same tune by another group, I may pay a little more attention to the principal trumpet, but I am listening to the overall performance. Sometimes I just get lost in the music...

If you ask a musician how a system sounds, they (I, anyway) are more likely to focus on their instrument since they know it's sound best, then the overall sound. However, that is IMO a special case and perhaps how many (I, again) listen "alone" when I just feel like hearing a tune.

Of course, when something like "Fanfare for the Common Man" or a Maynard Ferguson tune plays, it's all about the trumpets!

 

[NorthStar]

Good cables are the exact opposite of equalizers. While it's true some may "voice" them to have an effect, it's always at the expense of accuracy and resolution. And you can replace "cables" with any other audio component in the last two sentences and it'll hold true.

Silver has better conductivity vs copper but because of the impurities it's a tradeoff on detail-smearing warmth vs a slight harshness. UPOCC copper is far less warm and more resolving but UPOCC silver is far more neutral and resolving vs any other conductor material. If you have never tried a UPOCC silver IC cable I can guarantee it's a very large difference for the better vs any copper cable. The truth is copper will only get you so far with IC cables, even UPOCC copper will smooth out detail and harm resolution and soundstage.

Also, copper by its self does not have any of the measurements you attribute except resistance. Capacitance and inductance are part of the total impedance and are properties of a complete cable and don't have much if anything to do with the conductor material used.

Then why 99.99% of all audio ICs sold are made of copper? ...If silver is a better audio conductor, why more manufacturers aren't getting on it?
And how do we know that good silver (pure) is a better conductor; by listening, or by measuring (scientific numbers),...both?

 

[FrantzM]

Then why 99.99% of all audio ICs sold are made of copper? ...If silver is a better audio conductor, why more manufacturers aren't getting on it?
And how do we know that good silver (pure) is a better conductor; by listening, or by measuring (scientific numbers),...both?

Northstar... You are getting dangerously close to be labelled "objectivist"