# OFC vs. OCC wire



## coinmaster

I know a lot of people hate the idea that cables sound different but is there any agreement that wire purity contributes?
 For example Mogami cable witch is made of OFC copper vs other expensive OCC copper with 7n purity type 6 litz with cotton and all that other jazz.


----------



## Speedskater

It contributes less than shortening the length of a 10 foot cable to 9 feet 6 inches.


----------



## StanD

speedskater said:


> It contributes less than shortening the length of a 10 foot cable to 9 feet 6 inches.


 
 +1 Other than aesthetics and ergonomics, even lamp cord sounds good.


----------



## tangent

Only wire made with unicorn tears conveys the proper musical signal.


----------



## StanD

tangent said:


> Only wire made with unicorn tears conveys the proper musical signal.


 
 I prefer Unobtanium as it has better speed and better microdetails, much better than Silver.


----------



## coinmaster

So are you saying wire purity doesn't affect sound quality?


----------



## StanD

coinmaster said:


> So are you saying wire purity doesn't affect sound quality?


 
 Nope, it's simply a matter of the resistance and capacitance, of which either is more than low enough with most decent cable. This forms a simple RLC circuit between the Amp and the cans. If your cans are Planar Magnetic then there is no L to speak of.


----------



## coinmaster

Doesn't less purity = more resistance?


----------



## StanD

coinmaster said:


> Doesn't less purity = more resistance?


 
 The differences are far too small to make a difference.  I measured the capacitance and resistance in my stock HD600 cable and it affected radio frequencies far above audio.


----------



## tangent

stand said:


> I measured the capacitance and resistance in my stock HD600 cable and it affected radio frequencies far above audio.


 
  
 Well, there's actually an interesting point. Many circuits that run just fine with either a negligible load or a purely resistive load get downright cranky when you drop a few hundred pF on its output. Many audio cable designs are actually surprisingly high in capacitance, given that they would be considered poor capacitor designs if that's what you were trying to accomplish.
  
 Some of these crazy designs you see...I wonder how many of them have even higher capacitance than something more mainstream.


----------



## StanD

tangent said:


> Well, there's actually an interesting point. Many circuits that run just fine with either a negligible load or a purely resistive load get downright cranky when you drop a few hundred pF on its output. Many audio cable designs are actually surprisingly high in capacitance, given that they would be considered poor capacitor designs if that's what you were trying to accomplish.
> 
> Some of these crazy designs you see...I wonder how many of them have even higher capacitance than something more mainstream.


 
 If a headphone amp can't handle a headphone cable's capacitance, I'd get a different amp. The ones that are typically unstable are those using large amounts of negative feedback (have large open loop gain) and obviously are poorly designed. I would be shocked if any of these break into oscillation. Can you name some of the offending products?


----------



## Speedskater

tangent said:


> Well, there's actually an interesting point. Many circuits that run just fine with either a negligible load or a purely resistive load get downright cranky when you drop a few hundred pF on its output. Many audio cable designs are actually surprisingly high in capacitance, given that they would be considered poor capacitor designs if that's what you were trying to accomplish.
> 
> Some of these crazy designs you see...I wonder how many of them have even higher capacitance than something more mainstream.


 

 If this was about 1980 all that would be true. But amplifier design has come a long way in the past 35 years.  And the few speaker cables with way high capacitor values that we saw in the 1980's have all but disappeared.


----------



## JWolf

Sorry, but you people are wrong. Different types of cables can sound different. You may not be able to measure this, but you can hear it.


----------



## tangent

jwolf said:


> Sorry, but you people are wrong. Different types of cables can sound different. You may not be able to measure this, but you can hear it.


 
  
 Then you should be able to prove it with a reproducible test.
  
 Science is hard, but we've had several hundred years of practice doing it well, so we have a whole list of things required to pull off a good test of this sort:
  

Specify the products to be tested precisely, so that others can build or buy identical replacements, within a reasonable amount of measurement error. Specify those measurement bounds. Example: Cable A shall be made of 6.0 feet of such-and-such cable with a Brand X Type Y outer jacket, soldered to a thus-and-so connector with type Whatsit solder, having 0.0032 Ω of resistance and 123 pF of capacitance +/- 0.1% as measured on a calibrated 5 ½ digit HP 34401 DMM. Cable B shall be identical to Cable A except that it uses 6.0 feet of this other inner cable type, giving 0.0033 Ω of resistance and 234 pF of capacitance. Test to be done with a Brand Q Model P headphone amplifier with the Bizzabong upgrade.
An adequate sample size. "I made my aunt listen to both cables, and she liked the pink one better" is not good enough.
A double-blinded test. This means you cannot experiment on yourself!
Publish your data. "My buddies all sat around the amp smoking unspecified herbal products and decided cable A sounded better than cable B" is not "published data." How many participants did you use? How many separate tests did you subject each participant to? What music did you use? What was the volume level of the amplifier? (Which must be given in some reproducible measure, such as Vac RMS of a full-scale test signal at the test amp's volume setting.) Most importantly, what were each participant's responses? Without the raw data, we cannot know the data's _p_ value.
Select and specify a randomization method. For a psychoacoustic test such as this, I'd suggest ABX testing. If you like some other method better, specify it, and be prepared to defend your choice rationally.
Independently replicate the test multiple times. If two groups come up with different results after following the test protocol you get from following the above points precisely, the test is not reproducible, and is therefore scientifically invalid. There are many reasons this can happen, all of which mean the original test did not prove what it claims to have done.
Should you manage to get completely through that gauntlet and still have an independently reproducible test difference, vary one detail of the test, then go back to step 2. For instance, if the difference disappears when you don't use the Bizzabong headphone amplifier upgrade, that suggests some interaction between the three items under test (one amplifier upgrade, plus two cables) which is responsible for the difference, which calls into question the difference in the cable being the reason for the difference in the test results.
  
 I'm probably missing something important here which someone with expertise designing scientific test methodologies could point out. The important thing here is not to make the test pointlessly difficult, but to increase its statistical power sufficiently to overcome the psychoacoustic difficulties inherent in the test. With insufficient statistical power, we must disregard the test results.
  
 On point 3: If your only aim is to please yourself, that's perfectly fine. I am a committed DIYer, which means I cannot honorably rail against any person who decides that they need to build a $500 headphone cable in order to achieve happiness. Just don't try to make me believe, should that cable indeed induce happiness, that your "test result" is a scientifically-useful data point. Go ye forth and listen to your headphone cable. I sincerely wish you all the enjoyment you can squeeze out of it.


----------



## Brooko

jwolf said:


> Sorry, but you people are wrong. Different types of cables can sound different. You may not be able to measure this, but you can hear it.


 
  
 Actually - if you re-read what they've posted, you'll find they are correct.  Typically when a cable has produced a different sound for me, I've gone back and done measurements.  Every time I've done it, the cable has has slightly different resistance which has then raised or lowered the volume slightly.  When I volume match - the difference disappears.  It's not magic we're talking here - merely science.  If it is so easy to discern, then why is it that no-one has successfully ABXed under controlled conditions when two cables are compared?
  
 If you want to send me a couple of different sounding cables - I'll measure them for you.


----------



## Arty McGhee

jwolf said:


> Sorry, but you people are wrong. Different types of cables can sound different. You may not be able to measure this, but you can hear it.


 
  
 there' a dude name 'a james randi give you a million dollars ifn' you can prove it
  
  


coinmaster said:


> So are you saying wire purity doesn't affect sound quality?


 
 what are these impurities, do they have a chemical formula ?
 copper is a pure element copper is copper at a molecular level


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> Actually - if you re-read what they've posted, you'll find they are correct.  Typically when a cable has produced a different sound for me, I've gone back and done measurements.  Every time I've done it, the cable has has slightly different resistance which has then raised or lowered the volume slightly.  When I volume match - the difference disappears.  It's not magic we're talking here - merely science.  If it is so easy to discern, then why is it that no-one has successfully ABXed under controlled conditions when two cables are compared?
> 
> If you want to send me a couple of different sounding cables - I'll measure them for you.


 

 The resistance might have to be rather large to be significant. This works very much the same as how a potentiometer attenuates a signal. The value of the cable's resistance would have to be in series with the Amp's output impedance to form an attenuation network with the headphone's impedance. For example an Amp with a 1 Ohm output impedance would require a cable of 31 Ohms resistance to get a 6 dBV loss with a 32 Ohm headphone. Change the cable's resistance to 1 Ohm and you get a 0.528 dBV loss. Change the cable's resistance to 3 Ohms and you get a 1.02 dBV loss.
 A change from 1 to 3 Ohms, as exampled above, might be more in the range of what might happen, which would result in a difference in less than 1/2 of a dBV. I'm not so sure this would do anything noticeable. With a high impedance headphone it shouldn't move the needle.
 A Sennheiser HD558 has a wild impedance curve would combined cable resistance and Amp output impedance to deliver a large 100 Hz mid bass hump.

  
 The Attenuation Factor = *Headphone Impedance* / (Headphone Impedance + Cable Resistance + Amp Output Impedance)
 Using the Attenuation Factor one could calculate the dBV loss.
 One could imagine that the varying impedance of a headphone would affect FR by acting like a volume control that changes with frequency due to the impedance change affecting the Attenuation Factor with the change of frequency. This is a passive filter circuit.
 Edit: The cable resistance would have to be more than a couple of Ohms to play a significant part in the HD558 coloring the sound with its impedance curve.


----------



## Brooko

To illustrate - if you check my review of the MEE P1 - an IEM said to vary with cable changes - I decided to test it
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/products/mee-audio-pinnacle-p1-high-fidelity-audiophile-in-ear-headphones-with-detachable-cables/reviews/16704
  
 I graphed each of the cables, then volume matched and overlaid them.  The results speak for themselves.  The difference was volume and it was audible.  But rather than change cables - the cheaper option is simply just adjusting the volume


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> To illustrate - if you check my review of the MEE P1 - an IEM said to vary with cable changes - I decided to test it
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/products/mee-audio-pinnacle-p1-high-fidelity-audiophile-in-ear-headphones-with-detachable-cables/reviews/16704
> 
> I graphed each of the cables, then volume matched and overlaid them.  The results speak for themselves.  The difference was volume and it was audible.  But rather than change cables - the cheaper option is simply just adjusting the volume


 

 Looks like a spread of around 2.5 or 3 dB at 100  Hz. Some of it may be due to per instance acoustic coupling to the measuring rig. Did you get a chance to measure the resistance of each cable? In know that you said that you didn't get to measure the impedance of the drivers.


----------



## Brooko

stand said:


> Looks like a spread of around 2.5 or 3 dB at 100  Hz. Some of it may be due to per instance acoustic coupling to the measuring rig. Did you get a chance to measure the resistance of each cable? In know that you said that you didn't get to measure the impedance of the drivers.


 
  
 All the impedance curves matched within about 0.5 dB right across the spectrum when I volume matched the IEMs.  I haven't measured the resistance of the cables yet - will make a note to that when I've cleared my review queue a bit.


----------



## JWolf

If you were making your own cable, what wire would be best to use?


----------



## needmoretoys

brooko said:


> All the impedance curves matched within about 0.5 dB right across the spectrum when I volume matched the IEMs.  I haven't measured the resistance of the cables yet - will make a note to that when I've cleared my review queue a bit.


 

 Did you ever measure the resistance of the cables? It's hard to believe that the MEE cables would have such a high resistance as to reduce the volume by 2.5 dB. What was the output impedance of the amp that was used?


----------



## Brooko

needmoretoys said:


> Did you ever measure the resistance of the cables? It's hard to believe that the MEE cables would have such a high resistance as to reduce the volume by 2.5 dB. What was the output impedance of the amp that was used?


 
  
 I always use the FiiO A3 (under 0.2 ohm output impedance).  That way I have complete consistency around the measurements.
  
 So I got my M-M out, and quickly ran a measurement.  the resistance of the M-M's connecting wires is 1.0 ohms.
  
 The positive connection on the spc cable (center pin) is measuring 2.3 ohms - so the actual resistance of just the cable is 1.3 ohms
  
 The negative connection on the spc cable (outer connection) is measuring 9.7 ohms - so the actual resistance of just the cable is 8.7 ohms


----------



## StanD

brooko said:


> I always use the FiiO A3 (under 0.2 ohm output impedance).  That way I have complete consistency around the measurements.
> 
> So I got my M-M out, and quickly ran a measurement.  the resistance of the M-M's connecting wires is 1.0 ohms.
> 
> ...


 

 Adding up all the wires resistances and considering the impedance of the IEMs it should have around a 2 dB loss. Headphones and IEMs can sometimes be considerably off their spec'd impedance so having a 2.5 dB loss is quite feasible.


----------



## needmoretoys

stand said:


> Adding up all the wires resistances and considering the impedance of the IEMs it should have around a 2 dB loss. Headphones and IEMs can sometimes be considerably off their spec'd impedance so having a 2.5 dB loss is quite feasible.


 

 True if those resistance measurements are for the MEE cables and the other cables had near zero resistance.


----------



## Speedskater

It's hard to imagine any reasonable conductor having such high resistances.
 100 feet of 30AWG wire has a resistance of 10 Ohms.


----------



## tangent

speedskater said:


> It's hard to imagine any reasonable conductor having such high resistances.
> 100 feet of 30AWG wire has a resistance of 10 Ohms.


 
  
 He's clearly doing the test with a 2-wire meter, which makes such low-resistance measurements nearly matters of opinion. 
  
 This needs to be done with a 4-wire meter, or something sufficiently close, like the 2x4 feature on Tek's DMM4020.


----------



## Speedskater

tangent said:


> He's clearly doing the test with a 2-wire meter, which makes such low-resistance measurements nearly matters of opinion.
> 
> This needs to be done with a 4-wire meter, or something sufficiently close, like the 2x4 feature on Tek's DMM4020.


 

 I'm sure that's true. Some low budget Ohm meters get into trouble at under 10 Ohms. While others can read in tenth's of an Ohm.
 Short the two probes together, the reading with a good budget meter will be a fraction of an Ohm. Then you can measure the cable and subtract that probe value.
  
 A skilled technician can make a DIY 4 terminal meter.


----------



## iankim

jwolf said:


> Sorry, but you people are wrong. Different types of cables can sound different. You may not be able to measure this, but you can hear it.


 
 Agree. I have heared the difference. And that is probably also the reason why others also pay that much to buy those good expensive cables, otherwise a decent looking, robust, ergonomic cheaper one should be fine already.


----------



## StanD

IMO belief takes over when you don't accurately compare SQ. Some things that affect perception:

Echoic Memory
Equal Loudness Contour -- Fletcher Munson
Expectation Bias


----------



## Arty McGhee

stand said:


> IMO belief takes over when you don't accurately compare SQ. Some things that affect perception:
> 
> Echoic Memory
> Equal Loudness Contour -- Fletcher Munson
> Expectation Bias


 
 logical fallacy : circular (_circulus in demonstrando_) or begging the question (_petitio principii_)
  
ie. it must sound better or people wouldn't spend so much money on it
  
there is no direct correlation between cost and sound quality
  
special pleading or argument from ignorance : sound is measurable as a wave form we use measurements of the sounds heaphones make but not with cables why?
  
what your hear may be a difference in gain combined with an exepectation bias, but saying it can't be measured but you can hear is ignorance
  
logic and science don't allow for these kind of claims


----------



## castleofargh

iankim said:


> jwolf said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but you people are wrong. Different types of cables can sound different. You may not be able to measure this, but you can hear it.
> ...


 

  if you look at the scientific theory, empty claims and vague hypothesis aren't even close to drawing a conclusion.
 you observed a difference in sound using different cables and what I assume to be an uncontrolled sighted test, that's step 1. now you're supposed to guess something, the more precise and clear the guess, the more precise and clear the experiment and the better the conclusion.
 if the hypothesis is something useless like "can different cables sound different", I can develop a test where I use a cable, and then I use another cable with a plug where ground and left are soldered together. bingo! I've proved that 2 cables could sound different. it was easy, but the conclusion is really of no value to anybody. we've learned nothing and proved close to nothing.
  
 that's why a more specific guess needs to form the hypothesis. if I interpret your post I would formulate something like:
 people heard a difference that's why they buy expensive cables. 
 I've heard differences in sound caused by cables, but I buy cheap cables. I just disproved the hypothesis, so we need to come up with a new one that factors my situation. people heard a difference and that's why some of them will pay a lot of money for expensive cables. still way too vague but we're going somewhere with proper reasoning method as we now factor my purchasing habits. that's pretty much how it goes, we make a guess, test for it and try to disprove the guess, if we can the guess is wrong and we need to adapt and make a new guess. and we go on and on until the real world seems to agree with our model and we know what we wished to know.
 right now even the second hypothesis is flawed, here is why:
 - did people hear a difference or did they believe they heard a difference? we haven't demonstrated that yet, and neither you or JWolf cared to talk about how you made your observation of hearing a difference. so the axiom people heard a difference in cables, well it's not an axiom at all. it needs to be properly tested first.
 - does a lot of money translate in more change in sound? or in better sound? I don't think that has been demonstrated and if it has been, I'd like to see the work done to reach the conclusion. the idea of throwing money at cable sellers without a clue as to why we do it, it doesn't feel like a very rational behaviour. maybe there is something to gain from some expensive cables, but don't you wish to know why before spending money?
  
  
 instead, asking more specific questions, experimenting with better controls, those are the ways to find out if something is false or not. here is an hypothesis based on Brooko's anecdote:
 if a cable has higher impedance, it might lead to an audible difference. 
 loudness is directly proportional to the voltage amplitude of the signal. and voltage will change if the impedance in the circuit changes. it's a consensus based on ohm's law so we don't really have to bother proving that part.
 therefore change in the cable's impedance will alter the loudness of the music. this is a fact.  so what's left to determine is to find out if the variations in impedance usually found in cables can make a loudness change big enough to be above the threshold of audibility.
 here are some stuff I tried with 2 IEMs where such influence would be great(again it's something I could anticipate because I have ohm's law and I had previously measured the impedance curve of those IEMs(low and chaotic):

  
 and another IEM

 ok so because I'm not really able to get 2000 people to blind test my cables, I take a roundabout way to try and demonstrate something. here I show that in some cases with some IEMs, an increase in impedance from the cable or anything between the amp and the IEM can result in those massive variations of frequency response.
 now this in itself brings up 2 questions:
 -can a human notice 94.9-86.7= 8.2db variation at 100hz? that one should be a consensus, right? I'd expect anybody to be able to notice that in a blind test.
 -can 2 cables have as much as 8ohm difference? of course they can, an er4s has one 75ohm resistor on each channel on purpose. it's enough to demonstrate that such cables exist.
 so I believe I can have confidence in the fact that cables of different impedance can under proper conditions, result in audible difference.
 here I have made a complete reasoning. I can now use that information to make a new hypothesis and test new things to reach new conclusions and know more about cables, but I started with an observation, I made a guess, tested that guess not very well but IMO well enough to answer my question using an objective test where only 1 variable was changing. and then I reached a conclusion. I didn't just feel something, and decided to comes claims random stuff on the web without a shred of evidence. and that's all the difference. conclusions come at the end of a reasoning after we have obtained enough evidence for a good level of confidence. a random dude thinking he's right and claiming he is, that's not a reasoning and it means nothing.
  
 now about the topic, OFC vs OCC, has anybody tested the same cable (same length, insulation, diameter...) with only that variable being different? has anything been measured to be of significance for audibility? or was a blind test organized with those cables? those are the kind of questions one would need to answer before making "courageous" empty claims on the subject.
 I have 30meters of very basic dead cheap cable that still measures a little under 1ohm, so even if the same thing in OCC resulted in the impedance going down to 0.1ohm(and it wouldn't of course), it would still be a very small variation for typical headphone cable length, and most of the time with most IEMs the specific stuff I tested about impedance would not be audible.
 so we'd need to actually do a blind test with the 2 kinds of cable, or change our hypothesis to explore other possible causes of audible change, to try and narrow down the possibilities and causes.
 doing things right isn't easy, and it's not very fun either, but we avoid all the typical nonsense and empty claims from people who don't know anything and still want to pretend like they do.
  
 PS: some may notice that for one of the IEMs, higher impedance cable actually makes the IEM brighter. for that IEM using a silver cable so stupidly famous for giving lower impedance, more "hair" and not rolling off the trebles as much as copper, would in this specific case make the IEM measurably warmer than basic copper of the same gauge. it's another case of people drawing false conclusion after some anecdotal observation without reasoning or testing. and each time, there is one variable that we cannot dismiss, the human. I don't beleive I need to prove that a human can be fooled and can fool himself, so why do people dismiss that possibility and rush to make empty claims all year long? IMO it's fine to simply say "I don't know" from time to time.


----------



## JWolf

The question is, if OFC & OCC cost exactly the same and you had to choose one to make your cable, which would you go with?


----------



## Speedskater

OFC & OCC would be so far down the list of cable properties that we would never get to it.
  
 The first property would be end-to-end resistance the rest would be about mechanical construction.


----------



## StanD

arty mcghee said:


> logical fallacy : circular (_circulus in demonstrando_) or begging the question (_petitio principii_)
> 
> ie. it must sound better or people wouldn't spend so much money on it
> 
> ...


 
 David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) said that his neighbor's dog told him to do it. He finally came clean and said that he made it all up, I was so disappointed to find out he was talking smack about the dog. What's next he's going to sell to sell premium cables to unsuspecting audiophiles and tell them that the dog recommended them?


----------



## castleofargh

jwolf said:


> The question is, if OFC & OCC cost exactly the same and you had to choose one to make your cable, which would you go with?


 

 I'm with Speedskater on this. at this point I haven't seen measurable difference or a proper audibility test, so I don't have any reason to suspect it's something that matters for the overall RLC properties of the wire. of course if I see evidence that it is a significant variable, then I will revise my opinion and start to care. but lets just say I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## StanD

castleofargh said:


> I'm with Speedskater on this. at this point I haven't seen measurable difference or a proper audibility test, so I don't have any reason to suspect it's something that matters for the overall RLC properties of the wire. of course if I see evidence that it is a significant variable, then I will revise my opinion and start to care. but lets just say I'm not holding my breath.


 
 Perhaps we should consult with the dog.


----------



## Arty McGhee

stand said:


> David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) said that his neighbor's dog told him to do it. He finally came clean and said that he made it all up, I was so disappointed to find out he was talking smack about the dog. What's next he's going to sell to sell premium cables to unsuspecting audiophiles and tell them that the dog recommended them?


 
 i had a pot-bellied pig for 17 years
 he used to talk all kinds of smack
 i just didn't listen.....


----------



## StanD

arty mcghee said:


> i had a pot-bellied pig for 17 years
> he used to talk all kinds of smack
> i just didn't listen.....


 

 I would've told him to shut up or he'll find out where bacon comes from. Since you didn't listen, we'll never know his opinion regarding OFC vs. OCC wire.


----------



## coinmaster

Lol I'm surprised this thread is still going. I've moved deep into electronic design so wire purity is the least of my concerns nowadays. I will say that I have personally heard a difference between the stock hd800 cable and one that I made but the results weren't conclusive and other factors could have been at play.
Wire resistance and capacitance could cause issues but I doubt they would ever be large enough to hear, however it's foolish to definitely claim either side is correct given the amount of testimony.
In either case it must be nice to have the luxury of worrying about wire purity. I'll probably build two identical amplifiers with different wire make ups somewhere down the line and do a blind test to see what's up.


----------



## StanD

coinmaster said:


> Lol I'm surprised this thread is still going. I've moved deep into electronic design so wire purity is the least of my concerns nowadays. I will say that I have personally heard a difference between the stock hd800 cable and one that I made but the results weren't conclusive and other factors could have been at play.
> Wire resistance and capacitance could cause issues but I doubt they would ever be large enough to hear, however it's foolish to definitely claim either side is correct given the amount of testimony.
> In either case it must be nice to have the luxury of worrying about wire purity. I'll probably build two identical amplifiers with different wire make ups somewhere down the line and do a blind test to see what's up.


 

 Capacitance is not about the wire, it's about the dielectric which in this case is the insulation. I have yet to see anyone define what differences of resistance in practical audio cables, headphone cables, etc. that can affect SQ. Let's leave 100 foot headphone cables or defective wires out of this.


----------



## Arty McGhee

lets go back to the original question
  
 as i understand this process, you bring copper wire down to a very low temperature
  
 and it changes the properties of copper to produce a single crystal the length of this wire
  
 does this result in a better sound quality and if it cost the same as ofc copper
  
 would it be worth using?
  
 (putting aside dielectrics and talking pigs)


----------



## StanD

arty mcghee said:


> lets go back to the original question
> 
> as i understand this process, you bring copper wire down to a very low temperature
> 
> ...


 

 No it doesn't do anything for SQ. Decent wire has a very low resistance, so low that any small difference has no audible effect. There is no other electrical property other than magic that can affect SQ.


----------



## coinmaster

Not sure why this conversation is still going, only a fool speaks in absolutes but there is nothing known and measured that can affect the SQ of a cable.
That doesn't mean there is no change in SQ it just means a long internet discussion about it is pointless. If you are enjoying your silver cables then more power to you.


----------



## Speedskater

A super conductor expert reports that cryo doesn't do much for copper wire and the small changes disappear after you flex the wire a few times.


----------



## StanD

The only change in SQ requires a wire cutter.


----------



## JWolf

So, if you were making you own cable, what wire would you use?


----------



## coinmaster

3 individual strands of 22 gauge 99.9% purity silver, gold, and copper twisted together with a layer of graphene coating on the outside


----------



## Arty McGhee

mogami 2799
  
 4 conductors 26 awg stranded ofc copper
  
 strip the outer and the shielding
  
 use the guts, sleeved in paracord
  
 about 20 cents a foot


----------



## coinmaster

Nah, mine is better.


----------



## Speedskater

jwolf said:


> So, if you were making you own cable, what wire would you use?


 
 I would not make my own bulk cable. Period.
 It requires big expensive machines that only the major bulk cable manufactures have to make excellent interconnect cables.


----------



## StanD

Lamp cord, it's low resistance and can carry gobs of power, even enough for a Hifiman HE-6.


----------



## castleofargh

this little guy measures amazing. it's better than my headphone or IEM cables(really is!), but somehow I decided not to use this for my IEMs or my hd650. I guess I just don't like music, making those weak decisions about comfort and practical use all the time.


----------



## Speedskater

Most quality conductors (not just hi-fi cables, but all types of wire) is made with 'ETP' grade copper that's 3 nines purity.  The difference in resistance between 3 nines and 6 nines copper is about 1.5 %.  It's highly unlikely that two wires of different purity, will have the same cross section area with 1.5 %.


----------



## StanD

This ought to do it.


----------



## Lord Raven

tangent said:


> Only wire made with unicorn tears conveys the proper musical signal.



You made me burst into tears  You got your cable, mate.


----------



## tangent

Lord Raven said:


> You made me burst into tears  You got your cable, mate.



You're...a unicorn?


----------



## ljnew (May 21, 2018)

tangent said:


> Then you should be able to prove it with a reproducible test.
> 
> Science is hard, but we've had several hundred years of practice doing it well, so we have a whole list of things required to pull off a good test of this sort:
> 
> ...


Oh gosh!!  I just love when people try to use stats or any scientific method when they're trying to tell someone they hear everything just like everyone else.  I really love when people actually take the time to use statistical terms; terms that actually contradict everything they're saying!!!!

So you ask @JWolf to provide data to support his claim?  I can use data but common sense is more than adequate in this case. 

First, there are billions of people on the planet.  Ears are like fingerprints, they're unique to every person.  So you have billions of samples for this analysis. 

Show me just 1 test conducted on human ears with a statistically significant sample size.......  In conclusion, none of your points are valid.

Also, it's extremely arrogant and ridiculous to believe we know everything about every person's ear to tell them when they can or cannot hear a difference with 100% certainty;...  especially when we know everyone's ear is unique.


----------



## ThinkerMakerDIYer

saw a report years ago, tester use hime iron (not even cooper) wires todo a/b blind test vs. best loudspeaker wires, the result is even. 6n, 7n, occ... are pure Ads to me. 

to me, especially when diy inears, soft, braided, 5n ofc, with > 16 strings are key factors.


----------



## viivo

Since the early days of newsgroups and even before, the conversation has followed the same path:

Person 1: Cables don't make a difference.
Person 2: Cables do make a difference.
Person 1: Positive claims require proof.
Person 3: Don't worry Person 2, I'm sure all cables sound the same to "them." We who have spent ludicrous amounts of money on cables hear the truth.
Repeat.

It's always entertaining, though.


----------



## dhruvmeena96

The thing which makes difference are given below

Price tag
Psychoacoustics

Crosstalk(reasonable one)
Microphonics(reasonable one)


Biggest effect is price tag
And then, how smexy the cable look(I mean thicc)

For the expensive cable buyers for iem

Get a ISN S16 iem cable and be happy for life(cheap, looks expensive and doesnt have microphonics.


I buy my cables to take pressure, last long and have low resistance overall.


----------



## Thx1326 (Jul 17, 2020)

Brooko said:


> Actually - if you re-read what they've posted, you'll find they are correct.  Typically when a cable has produced a different sound for me, I've gone back and done measurements.  Every time I've done it, the cable has has slightly different resistance which has then raised or lowered the volume slightly.  When I volume match - the difference disappears.  It's not magic we're talking here - merely science.  If it is so easy to discern, then why is it that no-one has successfully ABXed under controlled conditions when two cables are compared?
> 
> If you want to send me a couple of different sounding cables - I'll measure them for you.


So... How do you know which cable is correct?  Did you overlay it with the actual performance of your ears?  And you know your ears will adjust to compensate to a point as to what they are hearing.  Just because a cable measures well doesn't mean your ears can hear hit OR your brain can recognize it.  Now don't get me wrong, any of the litz type cables that combine copper, silver and other materials will have a slightly better performance than two strands of 12gauge electrical wire.  The number of strands in the cable and the gauge of the strands will probably be more audible than the actual difference in metals.  Lower frequencies travel more down the center of the cable where as high frequencies tend to migrate to the outer surface (skin effect).  Ideally, a large core solid conductor wrapped in lots of smaller strands would be the ideal setup.  And silver normally sounds a bit brighter than gold or copper.  To hear a difference in cables, there really has to be huge differential in a lot of factors.  If we were talking about cables that were thousands of mile long - more factors will show more differences.  But in a 1 - 2 meter IEM cable?  Really? And even the cable is perfect with absolutely no effect on the signal, are your ears perfect?  Was the recording perfect?  Is the DAC perfect?  Is the amp perfect?  Are the IEM's perfect?  Sheesh... give me a break - the point of no return is about to smack you in the face.  Forget the specs, find an IEM you like and listen to your favorite song... make some slight adjustments to the EQ if you have one to make it sound even better and then sit back, pop the top on your favorite beverage and......

Enjoy the Music (not the specs)


----------

