Investigations Into Cable Construction?

[Bob]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has
anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are
constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be
they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated!
Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these
companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some
of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are
claimed to be?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bob wrote:

> Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
> differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has
> anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are
> constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be
> they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated!
> Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these
> companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some
> of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are
> claimed to be?

That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes
attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how
are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the
lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their
higher priced offerings.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TonyP arpierre@optonline.net wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>
>> Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
>> differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has
>> anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are
>> constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be
>> they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated!
>> Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these
>> companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some
>> of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are
>> claimed to be?
>
>That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes
>attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how
>are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the
>lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their
>higher priced offerings.

Here's mmy experience. I used a pair of Monster brand 2.2s 'networked' cables
for a listening experiment. The cables had networks that were deeply encased in
potting compound that was found beneath the metal casings. A voltmeter and LCR
meter didn't lend any interpretable results so the cable was dissected with a
dremel tool to reveal the internal parts.

This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that was?........ a single
100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals.

IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when it
burns out, would pass unnoticed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bob wrote:
> Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
> differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has
> anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are
> constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity
(be
> they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically
treated!
> Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these
> companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut
some
> of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they
are
> claimed to be?

Yes, as a matter of fact:

http/cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp

Now, this is a guy who sells MIT cables, trashing Transparent cables.
He seems to think that MIT is better because they put more parts inside
their little network boxes. (Note that one of the Transparent boxes was
actually empty!)

Of course, we're talking about parts that cost, what, maybe a few bucks
apiece? In a cable that runs $10K per 8-foot pair. And there's not a
word from this "electrical engineer" about what those parts actually do
to the signal. Probably not a whole heck of a lot.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Nousaine wrote:

> TonyP arpierre@optonline.net wrote:

>>That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes
>>attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how
>>are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the
>>lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their
>>higher priced offerings.
>
>
> Here's mmy experience. I used a pair of Monster brand 2.2s 'networked' cables
> for a listening experiment. The cables had networks that were deeply encased in
> potting compound that was found beneath the metal casings. A voltmeter and LCR
> meter didn't lend any interpretable results so the cable was dissected with a
> dremel tool to reveal the internal parts.
>
> This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that was?........ a single
> 100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals.
>
> IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when it
> burns out, would pass unnoticed.

It had no effect on the sound? I had always thought that anything added
to wire would in effect, be like a tone control.
I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and
batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say the
least. And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of.
Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red
Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla?

 

[Jim]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bob wrote:
> Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
> differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has
> anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are
> constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be
> they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated!
> Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these
> companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some
> of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are
> claimed to be?

From the I-just-made-this-up book "Zen, and the art of hi-fi" --
"Why do you question the world around you? Go, listen, if you prefer the
sound of one component over the other, it does not matter WHY."

If you want to run through double-blind tests to compare dozens of
cables with a group of hundreds of subjective listeners and conclusions
drawn from a statistical analysis of their ratings, I would love to read
the results; who gives a rip what the internal construction of a cable
is at that point?

If some guy buys audio gear just to show to his friends (and a lot of
high-end types do), why not sell him some cryogenically treated,
ultra-pure, quantum-matched cables that were hand woven by a monk who
has been living in a hut for his entire life and only makes two sets a year?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go break in the power cord on my PC.
I'll get an easy 20MHz in overclocking with the new piece!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>Cable Construction?
>From: Jim jim1128@comcast.net
>Date: 12/28/2004 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqrugc02u0m@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>Bob wrote:
>> Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
>> differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has
>> anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are
>> constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be
>> they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated!
>> Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these
>> companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some
>> of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are
>> claimed to be?
>
> From the I-just-made-this-up book "Zen, and the art of hi-fi" --
>"Why do you question the world around you? Go, listen, if you prefer the
>sound of one component over the other, it does not matter WHY."
>
>If you want to run through double-blind tests to compare dozens of
>cables with a group of hundreds of subjective listeners and conclusions
>drawn from a statistical analysis of their ratings, I would love to read
>the results; who gives a rip what the internal construction of a cable
>is at that point?
>
>If some guy buys audio gear just to show to his friends (and a lot of
>high-end types do), why not sell him some cryogenically treated,
>ultra-pure, quantum-matched cables that were hand woven by a monk who
>has been living in a hut for his entire life and only makes two sets a year?
>
>Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go break in the power cord on my PC.
> I'll get an easy 20MHz in overclocking with the new piece!
>
>
If a cable manufacturer is making cables as they say they are making them and
the difference is an honest placebo effect then we can say that the
manufacturer has duped himself. There is no law against this. OTOH if the
manufacturer is simply charging extraordinary amounts of money for cheap
product that is falsely advertised as something special and expensive to make
then that manufacturer is committing fraud.It matters a lot. Even if the cables
do sound different it matters.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TonyP wrote:
> Nousaine wrote:
> >
> > This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that
was?........ a single
> > 100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input
terminals.
> >
> > IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and
which, when it
> > burns out, would pass unnoticed.
>
> It had no effect on the sound? I had always thought that anything
added
> to wire would in effect, be like a tone control.

Just about anything you put in the signal path will affect the
electrical signal in some measurable way. Whether it affects it enough
to be audible is another story. The difference between two cables is
often nothing more than a relative roll-off of a few tenths of a dB in
the top octave. That's not likely to be audible.

> I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and
> batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say
the
> least.

Well, yeah, that's the whole point. The fancy appearance and the
gold-plated pricetag certainly suggest that these are very special
products. And you know what they say about the power of suggestion...

> And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of.
> Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red
> Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla?

Not I. They cannot provide audibly better frequency response than the
generic 12-gauge that I use now, so what would be the point?

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

> If a cable manufacturer is making cables as they say they are making
them and
> the difference is an honest placebo effect then we can say that the
> manufacturer has duped himself.

Not necessarily. Some manufacturers may believe their own claims of
sonic improvement; others may well know that they are relying on the
placebo effect to impress their customers. I doubt they're all dupes.

> There is no law against this.

Probably true. While I don't subscribe to the high-end cable racket, I
don't think you could make a fraud charge stick. There are enough happy
customers out there who've tried the product and really do believe it
sounds better to foil any fraud charge.

> OTOH if the
> manufacturer is simply charging extraordinary amounts of money for
cheap
> product that is falsely advertised as something special and expensive
to make
> then that manufacturer is committing fraud.

Not necessarily. Charging a lot of money for something that costs you
very little to produce is not fraud. Claiming your cables are made of
rare materials when they're just plain old copper would be, however.
I'm no lawyer, but I suspect a lot depends on how specific the
advertising claims are. Most cable ads I've seem strike me as safely
vague in their claims.

In fact, there's no reason for manufacturers to be particularly
specific in their claims. They can rely on the fact that many consumers
are ready to believe that expensive products are special.

bob

 

[Jim]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:
>>Cable Construction?
>>From: Jim jim1128@comcast.net
>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqrugc02u0m@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>>Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
>>>differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has
>>>anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are
>>>constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be
>>>they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated!
>>>Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these
>>>companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some
>>>of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are
>>>claimed to be?
>>
>>From the I-just-made-this-up book "Zen, and the art of hi-fi" --
>>"Why do you question the world around you? Go, listen, if you prefer the
>>sound of one component over the other, it does not matter WHY."
>>
>>If you want to run through double-blind tests to compare dozens of
>>cables with a group of hundreds of subjective listeners and conclusions
>>drawn from a statistical analysis of their ratings, I would love to read
>>the results; who gives a rip what the internal construction of a cable
>>is at that point?
>>
>>If some guy buys audio gear just to show to his friends (and a lot of
>>high-end types do), why not sell him some cryogenically treated,
>>ultra-pure, quantum-matched cables that were hand woven by a monk who
>>has been living in a hut for his entire life and only makes two sets a year?
>
> If a cable manufacturer is making cables as they say they are making them and
> the difference is an honest placebo effect then we can say that the
> manufacturer has duped himself. There is no law against this. OTOH if the
> manufacturer is simply charging extraordinary amounts of money for cheap
> product that is falsely advertised as something special and expensive to make
> then that manufacturer is committing fraud.It matters a lot. Even if the cables
> do sound different it matters.

"Sound different" doesn't mean "sound better."
Buying cables for that kind of money without auditioning them, and
hopefully many others, is a foolish decision. It's still my money, and I
will part with it (or not) in a way that trades for what I percieve to
be par value.

For example, I borrowed a Synergistic Research Reference AC Master
Coupler from the local high-end shop. I took it home, hooked it up, and
found that the soundstage was somewhat more forward than without. In my
system, that was a good thing. Next I took the cable back to the shop
because for $500, the tweak didn't buy me an improvement that matched
the cost.

Bottom line with me is, just because some entity says "this is truth" I
still do my own research before plunking down the cash. The test
criteria is "does this sound better than that" and I wouldn't have it
any other way.

(I've been known to spend money on questionable stuff, like bi-wiring my
main speakers. I think that cost me an extra $50 over "normal" wires.
For my money I got a maybe/maybe-not improvement in sound, and some cool
looking thick cables that go to the speakers. Pure vanity.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TonyP arpierre@optonline.net wrote:

>Nousaine wrote:
>
>> TonyP arpierre@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>>That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes
>>>attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how
>>>are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the
>>>lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their
>>>higher priced offerings.
>>
>>
>> Here's mmy experience. I used a pair of Monster brand 2.2s 'networked'
>cables
>> for a listening experiment. The cables had networks that were deeply
>encased in
>> potting compound that was found beneath the metal casings. A voltmeter and
>LCR
>> meter didn't lend any interpretable results so the cable was dissected with
>a
>> dremel tool to reveal the internal parts.
>>
>> This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that was?........ a
>single
>> 100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals.
>>
>> IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when
>it
>> burns out, would pass unnoticed.
>
>It had no effect on the sound?

This was a 100-ohm resistor placed in parallel with the speaker terminals. At
the very most it slightly lowers the resistive component of the speaker load.
It had no effect on the sound because not one of 10 hardened enthusiasts was
able to differentiate these cables from 16-guage autosound zip cord.

Try the experiment yourself. Wire a 100-hm resistor across the speaker
terminals of your system and see if it changes the sound.

I had always thought that anything added
>to wire would in effect, be like a tone control.
>I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and
>batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say the
>least. And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of.

Then why do you care? At least they don't make the sound worse!

>Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red
>Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla?

Nope; and I don't intend to do so either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Nousaine wrote:
> TonyP arpierre@optonline.net wrote:

>>Nousaine wrote:
>>>TonyP arpierre@optonline.net wrote:
>>>>That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes
>>>>attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how
>>>>are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the
>>>>lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their
>>>>higher priced offerings.

>>>Here's mmy experience. I used a pair of Monster brand 2.2s 'networked'cables
>>>for a listening experiment. The cables had networks that were deeply encased in
>>>potting compound that was found beneath the metal casings. A voltmeter and LCR
>>>meter didn't lend any interpretable results so the cable was dissected with a
>>>dremel tool to reveal the internal parts.
>>>This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that
was?........ a single
>>>100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals.
>>>IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when it
>>>burns out, would pass unnoticed. It had no effect on the sound?

> This was a 100-ohm resistor placed in parallel with the speaker terminals. At
> the very most it slightly lowers the resistive component of the speaker load.
> It had no effect on the sound because not one of 10 hardened enthusiasts was
> able to differentiate these cables from 16-guage autosound zip cord.
>
> Try the experiment yourself. Wire a 100-hm resistor across the speaker
> terminals of your system and see if it changes the sound.

I have and heard nothing different.

>>I had always thought that anything added
>>to wire would in effect, be like a tone control.
>>I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and
>>batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say the
>>least. And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of.

> Then why do you care? At least they don't make the sound worse!

Why do I care? Because I was curious. Can I be that? As for the
reference to the 100 ohm resistor, reading about (and this is what I
originally asked about) MIT's, they use more than 100 ohm resistors in
their "network" boxes.

>>Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red
>>Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla?

> Nope; and I don't intend to do so either.

Thanks for the reply. Now... has anyone had a chance to listen to these
super expensive cables? I would be interested in your thoughts.