# Why Oxygen-free copper cables sound no different than ETP copper



## CompressionalFlagellation

There is no scientific basis for oxygen-free copper guitar cords sounding better than “normal” copper-based...cables.

 In fact, purveyors of the oxygen-free copper-cable myth rarely tell you that “normal” copper for electrical use is already 99.90% oxygen-free. Official oxygen-free copper ( OFC ) is 99.99% oxygen-free.

 Before we get into science here, let’s use common sense or “our noggin” as dear old mom used to say. Do you really think that you can hear any difference in audio quality when two copper types differ by only .09 % in oxygen content? You are completely correct if you answered this way: “Jeez, wise sage, that really is a tiny difference between copper types. I don’t see how I could hear any difference with such a small discrepancy in oxygen content.”

 If you agree with that common-sense answer, you are one smart cookie and barking up the right tree. Let’s now explore the tests that prove there is no detectable audio differences between guitar cables made of OFC and those made of 99.90% oxygen-free copper.

 First, let’s get one thing straight: The copper type in a Death Valley guitar cable is anything but “regular old” copper. It is known as Electrolytic-Tough-Pitch (ETP) copper. It is the best copper to use for electrical applications, bar none. It is made to stringent specifications and used in everything from computers to spacecraft wiring.

 Now check this out: Electrical conductivity specifications for C11000 ETP copper (99.90% oxygen-free copper) and C10200 (99.99% oxygen-free copper) are IDENTICAL.

 Now read that last paragraph again. We didn’t say that the electrical conductivity specifications between the two coppers were “close” or “nearly the same” or “in the ballpark.” We said that the electrical conductivity was IDENTICAL. EXACTLY THE SAME CONDUCTIVITY. There is NO measurable difference in conductivity between OFC (theirs) and 99.9% copper (ours). This is according to a private firm called the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM ), who runs around testing stuff like this to unimaginable degrees of accuracy.

 If electrical conductivity between the two coppers is exactly the same, then there is no way you can possibly hear any difference between guitar cables made of the different coppers.

 Then why make oxygen-free copper if it doesn't conduct electricity better? BECAUSE IT'S NOT USED IN APPLICATIONS TO CONDUCT ELECTRICITY. There are other uses where nothing but OFC will do.

 Oxygen-free copper is valued more for its chemical purity than its electrical conductivity. OFC is used in plasma deposition (sputtering) processes, including the manufacture of semiconductors and super-conductor components. It’s also the bomb in high-vacuum devices such as particle accelerators. It’s critical to use OFC in these apps because the release of oxygen (and/or other impurities) can cause undesirable chemical reactions with other materials in the local environment, i.e. expensive machines blow up and make a big mess and hurt people.

 So lets sum up:

 1. OFC in guitar cables makes no difference in sound (because — according to the ASTM — there is no difference in conductivity between OFC and ETP coppers).

 2. OFC in particle accelerators will prevent a mushroom cloud when you turn on the particle accelerator.

DeathValleyCables

 BTW, I am just a regular paying customer of these cables and have no stake in their sales.


----------



## mark_h

I have two very simple questions for you.

 1. How many sounds can I hear?
 2. To what .0*% does my brain process these sounds differently each time? (Precise scientific equations required to illustrate your understanding of this)


----------



## CompressionalFlagellation

ah, hmm, well -- I won't pretend I wrote the article here, as you can see from the link I posted to the company who wrote it. I just think the article makes a lot more sense than, "dude, you just gotta listen -- everyone's different." 

 That logic might apply to headphones, tubes vs ss, etc, but with cables -- and as wildly as they can be priced -- I'd have to reject that as the myth that it is. 

 While I understand everyone probably hears thing differently, I believe everything in this audio game _can _be measured -- it's all physics, not magic.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CompressionalFlagellation* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ah, hmm, well -- I won't pretend I wrote the article here, as you can see from the link I posted to the company who wrote it. I just think the article makes a lot more sense than, "dude, you just gotta listen -- everyone's different." 

 That logic might apply to headphones, tubes vs ss, etc, but with cables -- and as wildly as they can be priced -- *I'd have to reject that as the myth that it is*. 

 While I understand everyone probably hears thing differently, I believe everything in this audio game can be measured -- it's all physics, not magic._

 

You were done before you even got started.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CompressionalFlagellation* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but with cables -- and as wildly as they can be priced -- I'd have to reject that as the myth that it is._

 

Cables do make a difference. If not in the type of copper then in other areas that can effect SQ. However, as has been said many times before, there comes a point were returns diminish to the extreme.


----------



## CompressionalFlagellation

Ok, my only point in all this, is that $400 cables are not going to have a perceivable difference in sound to that of a $40 cable, assuming they're made from the same material and have the same general construction -- if you think there is, show me the data.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CompressionalFlagellation* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In fact, purveyors of the oxygen-free copper-cable myth rarely tell you that “normal” copper for electrical use is already 99.90% oxygen-free. Official oxygen-free copper ( OFC ) is 99.99% oxygen-free.

 Before we get into science here, let’s use common sense or “our noggin” as dear old mom used to say. Do you really think that you can hear any difference in audio quality when two copper types differ by only .09 % in oxygen content?_

 

You make the wrong calculation: The oxygen content differs by 900%. 


  Quote:


 _Now check this out: Electrical conductivity specifications for C11000 ETP copper (99.90% oxygen-free copper) and C10200 (99.99% oxygen-free copper) are IDENTICAL... If electrical conductivity between the two coppers is exactly the same, then there is no way you can possibly hear any difference between guitar cables made of the different coppers._ 
 

Why that? Since when is conductivity responsible for sonic differences? That's a common misconception even conveyed by cable-sound apologists. Even 5% of the conductivity of copper would be sufficient for typical interconnect applications to guarantee (so-called) accurate signal transfer. Note: Conductivity by itself is frequency-neutral. There must be other effects at work which make for the sonic differences -- just don't ask me which. I can't tell if oxygen is one of the factors and if how it influences the signal. But according to experienced people in the electronics industry it does have an effect.
.


----------



## LostOne.TR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CompressionalFlagellation* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, my only point in all this, is that $400 cables are not going to have a perceivable difference in sound to that of a $40 cable, assuming they're made from the same material and have the same general construction -- if you think there is, show me the data._

 

If the only difference in the cable is one is $400, and one is $40, sure I'd definitely give you that. Same wire, same connectors, same whatever else is put into construction, then it's the same cable to me. Don't think anyone would argue with you on that one. Would be like buying a cable new @ full retail, and then picking one up for an amazing deal used.

 Quick question about this death valley cable, are their prices the same as other guitar cable makers (who actually use the OFC cables)?


----------



## Liver

Does it really matter?


----------



## CompressionalFlagellation

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LostOne.TR* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the only difference in the cable is one is $400, and one is $40, sure I'd definitely give you that._

 

Note I said "_same general construction_", not "_exact same construction._"


----------



## Currawong

Ever noticed that people who mention science with these issues then go on to make un-scientific generalised conclusions?


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ever noticed that people who mention science with these issues then go on to make un-scientific generalised conclusions?_

 

As long as you dont use your ears to make the descision, we all know that people can hear the difference between tubes and amps and sources but if its a cable then it must be Placebo. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Dont you get sick of people who have no experience telling you what you can and cannot hear? Its sooooooo obnoxious and childish.


----------



## CompressionalFlagellation

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As long as you dont use your ears to make the descision, we all know that people can hear the difference between tubes and amps and sources but if its a cable then it must be Placebo. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Dont you get sick of people who have no experience telling you what you can and cannot hear? Its sooooooo obnoxious and childish._

 

I am not speaking of amps/DACs/etc.

 I have an expensive sound system with speakers in my living room. When I put it together, I shopped around for cables. I tried some big brand names -- all quite expensive. Then one day a friend from LA in the recording industry showed me a well made, but pratically nameless cable; it was a lot cheaper.

 Long story short, after extensive testing, the big brand name cables were returned.

 And now as I build myself a little headphone set up, I am shocked to see the same uber-expensive cable non-sense.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CompressionalFlagellation* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not speaking of amps/DACs/etc.

 I have an expensive sound system with speakers in my living room. When I put it together, I shopped around for cables. I tried some big brand names -- all quite expensive. Then one day a friend from LA in the recording industry showed me a well made, but pratically nameless cable; it was a lot cheaper.

 Long story short, after extensive testing, the big brand name cables were returned.

 And now as I build myself a little headphone set up, I am shocked to see the same uber-expensive cable non-sense._

 

Why were they returned? Give us the details.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As long as you dont use your ears to make the descision, we all know that people can hear the difference between tubes and amps and sources but if its a cable then it must be Placebo. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Dont you get sick of people who have no experience telling you what you can and cannot hear? *Its sooooooo obnoxious and childish*._

 

Same to you considering you compare differences in amps (differences in circuit, caps, soldering, pots, etc etc ) and sources (Especially when it comes to turntables and phono-stages), to differences in shielded copper/silver.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Same to you considering you compare differences in amps (differences in circuit, caps, soldering, pots, etc etc ) and sources (Especially when it comes to turntables and phono-stages), to differences in shielded copper/silver._

 

Your statement is based on what experience? The assumption that cables make no difference right? You know what they say when you make assumptions...


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As long as you dont use your ears to make the descision, we all know that people can hear the difference between tubes and amps and sources but if its a cable then it must be Placebo. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Dont you get sick of people who have no experience telling you what you can and cannot hear? Its sooooooo *obnoxious and childish*._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Same to you considering *you compare differences in amps* (differences in circuit, caps, soldering, pots, etc etc ) and sources (Especially when it comes to turntables and phono-stages), *to differences in shielded copper/silver.*_

 

Its been my experience that cables have made a similar impact on the sound of my system as changing tubes does. You? There was nothing subtle about it.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The assumption that cables make no difference right? You know what they say when you make assumptions..._

 

I know what you say, and I also know that you have not read my prior posts in this thread...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its been my experience that cables have made a similar impact on the sound of my system as changing tubes does. You? There was nothing subtle about it._

 

It has been my experience that my vision is without gaps. However, if it set up the right conditions, I can see the effects of the blind spot caused by the retina in my eye. 
 Perception plays a large role my good sir. Just because your brain says "I hear this" does not mean you should take it literally, or with out salt.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Cables do make a difference*. If not in the type of copper then in other areas that can effect SQ. However, as has been said many times before, there comes a point were returns diminish to the extreme._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Same to you considering you compare differences in amps and sources to differences in shielded copper/silver.*_

 

What am I missing? Are you saying cables make a smaller impact on sound than audio components?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What am I missing? Are you saying cables make a smaller impact on sound than audio components?_

 

I cannot attest to if you are missing something or not...

 But I can say that both of my comments are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I cannot attest to if you are missing something or not...

 But I can say that both of my comments are not mutually exclusive._

 

So your saying that your one of those obnoxious people who thinks an amp can be heard and that cables may be placebo? I would recommend you go buy some audio equipment and see if your opinions are true or not. Me? I know what I hear and dont hear. I suppose the cables I bought and did not like were placebo as well?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suppose the cables I bought and did not like were placebo as well?_

 

I would have to consult a Psychologist, Neurologist, Physicist, Chemist, Audiologist, and a Sociologist before I could accurately comment.

 However, it does not look like you read my comment about perception and the example of the blind spot.

 Btw: From your comments I can conclude that you think a different cables and different amplifiers have the same amount of variation in sound, am I right in conjecturing such an assumption? Because I reason that a amplifier using a different circuit or different technology (Tubes or Trans) has a lot more room for effecting the signal's electrons vs an interconnect cable.


----------



## boomy3555

I doubt very much if older tube amps have any OFC in them. Maybe it's time to come full circle and muddy up our electron flow a bit. after all super high impedence cans are really popular in super high end systems.
 I made an LOD from silver wire and felt it very Bright but when I made the same interconnect with regular old dirty telephone wire the warmth really came out.
 Anyone seen the inside of a Grado RA-1? It's a messy soldering nightmare.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would have to consult a Psychologist, Neurologist, Physicist, Chemist, Audiologist, and a Sociologist before I could accurately comment.

 However, it does not look like you read my comment about perception and the example of the blind spot.

 Btw: From your comments *I can conclude that you think a different cables and different amplifiers have the same amount of variation in sound*, am I right in conjecturing such an assumption? Because I reason that a amplifier using a different circuit or different technology (Tubes or Trans) has a lot more room for effecting the signal's electrons vs an interconnect cable._

 

Yes they can.

  Quote:


 reason that a amplifier using a different circuit or different technology (Tubes or Trans) has a lot more room for effecting the signal's electrons vs an interconnect cable 
 

Sometimes they dont. Think maybe your statement has a bit too much latitude?

 I'm telling you, point blank, and according to your writings, they can make a difference equal to or greater than a change in equipment. That is why this cable debate goes on forever because there is never a shortage of people who cannot understand this. Another thing that perpetuates this is everyone's unwillingness to spend 300 bucks on a cable, therefore they end up trying a bunch of different 50 dollar cables and never realize what we (cable believers) are trying to clue you in on. I understand if your system is 300 dollars all together that a 300 dollar IC may not be the best expenditure for you but that does not reduce or negate the fact that cables have a major impact on sound quality (In general terms) and that when someone says (Brand X has a really nice cable and it made my system sound warmer and gave me more bass impact and it also made the vocals more forward and clear) that he is experiencing Placebo. You understand?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm telling you, point blank, and according to your writings, they can make a difference equal to or greater than a change in equipment. That is why this cable debate goes on forever because there is never a shortage of people who cannot understand this._

 

No, I must correct you there: the debate goes on because people decrying high priced cables are of the opinion that your claim, "they can make a difference equal to or greater than a change in equipment", should not be treated as fact, but opinion, and that you should realize such things. 

 Your perception of an event does not make it fact. If such an attitude was taken then UFOs have been abducting people for years and god really speaks to people.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, I must correct you there: the debate goes on because people decrying high priced cables are of the opinion that your claim, "they can make a difference equal to or greater than a change in equipment", should not be treated as fact, but opinion, and that you should realize such things. 

 Your perception of an event does not make it fact. If such an attitude was taken then UFOs have been abducting people for years and god really speaks to people._

 

Tell us more about what your ears have heard and why your opinion should be valued more than mine. Try reading the last comment in my Signature, I think that says it all.


----------



## Taikero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If such an attitude was taken then UFOs have been abducting people for years and god really speaks to people._

 

There's a country with 300 million people that's framework is based on the idea that its citizens should be able to think freely and believe things which haven't been proven by the scientific method yet.

 Scary, isn't it? Also, perhaps our perception of the scientific method and tests carried out by its principles is flawed, we just don't know it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You can carry the skepticism as far as you think you can't throw it if you really demand that level of uncertainty in your life.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tell us more about what your ears have heard and why your opinion should be valued more than mine. Try reading the last comment in my Signature, I think that says it all._

 

Once more, I claim that you put too much faith in your ears. I think our positions are quite clarified now.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a country with 300 million people that's framework is based on the idea that its citizens should be able to think freely and believe things which haven't been proven by the scientific method yet._

 

I think that framework includes my right to disagree with others as I see fit, and claim their expenditures on high prices cables are probably not wise, as well : P


----------



## Taikero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once more, I claim that you put too much faith in your ears. I think our positions are quite clarified now.

 I think that framework includes my right to disagree with others as I see fit, and claim their expenditures on high prices cables are probably not wise, as well : P_

 

I think you put too much faith in skepticism. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Also, why wouldn't you trust your ears? Isn't this hobby about *what you hear?*

 If not, I've been doing it wrong this entire time and need to go straight from frequency response graphs and equipment specs.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once more, I claim that you put too much faith in your ears. I think our positions are quite clarified now.



 I think that framework includes my right to disagree with others as I see fit, and claim their expenditures on high prices cables are probably not wise, as well : P_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you put too much faith in skepticism. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Also, why wouldn't you trust your ears? Isn't this hobby about *what you hear?*

 If not, I've been doing it wrong this entire time and need to go straight from frequency response graphs and equipment specs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

My intelligence and experience forbids me from allowing your inexperience to influence my opinion. Right on Taikero!


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, why wouldn't you trust your ears? Isn't this hobby about *what you hear?*_

 

Trusting your ears is not a problem, trusting them over highly sensitive measuring equipment when the extremes of difference in decibels is most likely below the sensitivity of the human ear, is foolish IMO.


----------



## Taikero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Trusting your ears is not a problem, trusting them over highly sensitive measuring equipment when the extremes of difference in decibels is most likely below the sensitivity of the human ear, is foolish IMO._

 

That's only if you can absolutely *guarantee* you're using all the measuring equipment necessary to judge that the difference is indeed that small once the signal enters the air, hits the ear, and gets redirected and transformed by the brain.

 If so, then yes I 100% agree with you.

 However, I highly doubt that. What I do believe is that current sound science doesn't replace the human ear.

 To this day, the best MP3 codec (as well as any good lossy codec, be it audio or video) has been programmed by virtue of *listening to files encoded with it*, not by running the results through some advanced algorithm that says "frequency response is golden, you may release now". If something doesn't sound right, a number of algorithms are given a shot until one *sounds right*, not until the numbers come out looking pretty or making sense on some technical printout.

 Science takes you far, let's not discount it. However, there's a lot that current science can't and doesn't explain, especially where human perception and interpretation is concerned.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Trusting your ears is not a problem, trusting them over highly sensitive measuring equipment when the extremes of difference in decibels is most likely below the sensitivity of the human ear, is foolish IMO._

 

And by the time you did all that crap you could have tried a few cables to see how they work for you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The key (listen up now) is to listen to your system for a few months, then add a new peice of equipment (cable, cd player, etc.) and then it will be easy to assertain what the one peice did for your system. You follow? Music is complex and people who throw a system together and swap out cables every ten minutes are always going to be lost in the sauce. It just doesnt work that way. Long periods of time between part changes is the best and only way.

  Quote:


 I spent the last year farting with cables and the last six months tube rolling and one thing I learned is quick A-B testing does nothing but add confusion and force a quick decision. When buying a new input tube (Makes the most difference in the sound signature) I would install the new tube and listen and then replace the old tube back into the amp. This did nothing but confuse me as I could hear a difference but I could not tell exactly what that difference was. Spending more time with each tube afforded me a much better understanding of what each different tube sounds like and what it has to offer as far as the sound signature. When I bought my Dac I could tell the difference between non-upsampling and 24/192 but I was unable to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 until I had the Dac for about a month and listening to my favorite tracks.

 Here is a Monet painting I chose because it is complex.






 If I made some subtle changes, nothing big mind you, would hanging this painting on the wall in the living room for a month or two increase your chances of discovering the changes as apposed to doing an A-B comparison where I flashed pictures at you and asked you to pick out the altered picture? I submit to all the Blind testing people that they are right, blind A-B testing usually confuses people and makes it very hard to make an educated choice. Stereo equipment however, is something we live with and spend many many hours with and I think giving a piece of equipment a fair shot at pleasing you in the long run is so much more productive than dismissing said equipment based on quick decisions. I think this is why so many people do so much equipment swapping, "I bought the AKG 701's for the third time" is a common thing to read in the forums. Anyone can fool people by forcing a rash decision, there is no Science there. 

 I offer these opinions in the hope that some of the nay-sayers might take the time to consider good cables as they had and continue to have a great impact on my listening experience. Thats all I can offer the people in this thread.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To this day, the best MP3 codec (as well as any good lossy codec, be it audio or video) has been programmed by virtue of *listening to files encoded with it*, not by running the results through some advanced algorithm that says "frequency response is golden, you may release now". If something doesn't sound right, a number of algorithms are given a shot until one *sounds right*, not until the numbers come out looking pretty or making sense on some technical printout._

 

Could you cite a source for your knowledge about the MP3 codec? I highly disagree with what you have said.

 Though it does not matter as MP3 was designed to delete information that the ear is unable to record or the person cannot perceive: all they would have to do is agree that it sounded the same as lossless and it would do it's job. That does not mean it is of the same fidelity as lossless however.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You follow?_

 

Yes, I understand your argument quite well. However I disagree with your reasoning. That is why this debate is going on in the first place: perfect reasoning in your mind does not equate to people believing you.


----------



## Taikero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Could you cite a source for your knowledge about the MP3 codec? I highly disagree with what you have said.

 Though it does not matter as MP3 was designed to delete information that the ear is unable to record or the person cannot perceive: all they would have to do is agree that it sounded the same as lossless and it would do it's job. That does not mean it is of the same fidelity as lossless however._

 

Here's information on one part of the LAME project, which is "rigorously tested through listening tests." Heck, if you want proof that listening tests are considered important (and algorithms don't tell you everything about how something sounds), just go frequent the Hydrogen Audio forums for a while.

LAME MP3 Encoder :: GPSYCHO - A LGPL'd Psycho-Acoustic Model


 Additionally, cables aren't "lossless", and the longer the cable becomes the more signal gets lost (apparently a very small loss as far as measuring equipment is concerned). People hear this difference all the time. Are they all wrong because the measuring equipment says they shouldn't be able to hear the difference, or is the measuring equipment not measuring for the right thing?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's information on one part of the LAME project, which is "rigorously tested through listening tests." Heck, if you want proof that listening tests are considered important (and algorithms don't tell you everything about how something sounds), just go frequent the Hydrogen Audio forums for a while._

 

Ah, my mistake. I took what you said as "They designed MP3 with using their ears".

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Additionally, cables aren't "lossless", and the longer the cable becomes the more signal gets lost (apparently a very small loss as far as measuring equipment is concerned). People hear this difference all the time. Are they all wrong because the measuring equipment says they shouldn't be able to hear the difference, or is the measuring equipment not measuring for the right thing?_

 

That is correct, they are not lossless. What I claim is that the ear is unable to record the difference. And yes they would be wrong if the right equipment "said so". Just like we are wrong if we think there is an area of our vision that does not "see light".

 As for measuring the right thing... I am pretty sure if an experiment was carried out by professionals they would know what to measure for.


----------



## Taikero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, my mistake. I took what you said as "They designed MP3 with using their ears"._

 

The MP3 standard is simply an evolution of algorithms developed by trial and error through listening to the output of those algorithms.

 So yes, that's actually kind of accurate. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


 As for measuring the right thing... I am pretty sure if an experiment was carried out by professionals they would know what to measure for. 
 

Color me skeptical now, but where and when has a professional proved there is an audible difference or not with respect to a replica model of a set of human ears that's guaranteed to interpret the incoming data the same way the human brain does?

 As has been said before, frequency response is only a small part of the entire equation, a snapshot in time, if you will. What matters is how the frequency response of many sound waves hits our ears with specific timing and how our brain interprets that sound over time, something that is particularly difficult to model with current technology. If what you are getting at were possible, I am of the extremely strong opinion there would be fewer audio companies in business today.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Color me skeptical now, but where and when has a professional proved there is an audible difference or not with respect to a replica model of a set of human ears that's guaranteed to interpret the incoming data the same way the human brain does?_

 

Here is the flaw in your reasoning: nothing here matters but the sound pressure waves. Those are the cause for all effects we feel from audio. If those are different, then our experience is different. We can measure sound pressure waves.


----------



## Taikero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is the flaw in your reasoning: nothing here matters but the sound pressure waves. Those are the cause for all effects we feel from audio. If those are different, then our experience is different. We can measure sound pressure waves._

 

I contest that perhaps our measurements of sound pressure waves are inadequate and don't represent what a person actually hears.

 In my experience, nobody hears what I hear, and I don't hear what another person hears. A sound that might be harsh to me is soothing to another. What might be engaging and warm to me is bloated, unnatural, and dark to someone else.

 What I'm saying is that since our measurements don't reflect what people are hearing, our measurements aren't telling us the entire story.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I contest that perhaps our measurements of sound pressure waves are inadequate and don't represent what a person actually hears.

 In my experience, nobody hears what I hear, and I don't hear what another person hears. A sound that might be harsh to me is soothing to another. What might be engaging and warm to me is bloated, unnatural, and dark to someone else.

 What I'm saying is that since our measurements don't reflect what people are hearing, our measurements aren't telling us the entire story._

 

You are missing the point of the debate: do higher priced cables make a difference in sound quality detectable by the human ear vs. a budget cable? We can measure how much sound pressure it takes to move the ear drum enough to fire the neurons to let the brain know that this sound has good "bass extension". If said waves do not effect the ear enough for it to record a measurement, then the cable cannot be said to cause a difference in one's hearing. 

 Perception and interpretation of sound have nothing to do with how the ear physically measures sound pressure waves.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are missing the point of the debate: do higher priced cables make a difference in sound quality detectable by the human ear vs. a budget cable? We can measure how much sound pressure it takes to move the ear drum enough to fire the neurons to let the brain know that this sound has good "bass extension". If said waves do not effect the ear enough for it to record a measurement, then the cable cannot be said to cause a difference in one's hearing. 

 Perception and interpretation of sound have nothing to do with how the ear physically measures sound pressure waves._

 

And your technical mumbo jumbo has nothing to do with evaluating audio equipment properly.


----------



## MadMan007

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's information on one part of the LAME project, which is "rigorously tested through listening tests." Heck, if you want proof that listening tests are considered important (and algorithms don't tell you everything about how something sounds), just go frequent the Hydrogen Audio forums for a while.

LAME MP3 Encoder :: GPSYCHO - A LGPL'd Psycho-Acoustic Model


 Additionally, cables aren't "lossless", and the longer the cable becomes the more signal gets lost (apparently a very small loss as far as measuring equipment is concerned). People hear this difference all the time. Are they all wrong because the measuring equipment says they shouldn't be able to hear the difference, or is the measuring equipment not measuring for the right thing?_

 

One thing about Hydrogen Audio is it generally promotes ABX testing which is a scientific way to test non-scientific things, such as when people poopoo measurements as not measuring the right thing or how they 'really hear.'


----------



## Taikero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perception and interpretation of sound have nothing to do with how the ear physically measures sound pressure waves._

 

Exactly! So how then can a measurement of sound pressure waves tell me what I hear?

 EDIT: My eyes are telling me it's late, so I'm sleeping now and continuing this in the morning or evening...whenever.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MadMan007* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One thing about Hydrogen Audio is it generally promotes ABX testing which is a scientific way to test non-scientific things, such as when people poopoo measurements as not measuring the right thing or how they 'really hear.'_

 

ABX testing is like nipples on a male hog. Its an exercize in confusion.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/wh...ml#post5403024


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly! So how then can a measurement of sound pressure waves tell me what I hear?_

 

Id like to get an answer on this one too?


----------



## CompressionalFlagellation

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I contest that perhaps our measurements of sound pressure waves are inadequate and don't represent what a person actually hears.
_

 

I disagree. I think a machine's ability to detect sound (like a thousand dollar mic) _far _exceeds the human ear in detecting sound.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ A sound that might be harsh to me is soothing to another. What might be engaging and warm to me is bloated, unnatural, and dark to someone else.
_

 

Here you are analyzing how a person feels with sounds, which is irrelevant to the argument.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 What I'm saying is that since our measurements don't reflect what people are hearing, our measurements aren't telling us the entire story._

 

Perhaps not the subjective story. 

 How about this; we take two people and assume both of them score exactly the same on a professional hearing test. Aside from a _very_ slight difference in how sound interacts with their ears on the way to the ear drum, they will perceive the exact same sound. Maybe it won't make them feel the same -- but I think this idea that a 440hz tone is going to be 254hz for one, and 723hz for another is ridiculous. They might have different opinions of what the exact tone it is -- but none the less, the tone is the same for both.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Taikero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly! So how then can a measurement of sound pressure waves tell me what I hear?_

 

This is exactly it: they cannot tell you what you have perceived to hear. If such is true, why do you discount perception/mind as a contributing source to what you have heard? 

 Now take note: if you claim cable X improves high frequency extension, then a measurement device should be able to show that cable x transmits the high frequencies with less roll-off. If the measurement device does not show this, then the change you heard did not come from the sound, it came from your perception of it.


----------



## CompressionalFlagellation

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now take note: if you claim cable X improves high frequency extension, then a measurement device should be able to show that cable x transmits the high frequencies with less roll-off. If the measurement device does not show this, then the change you heard did not come from the sound, it came from your perception of it._

 

Exactly. That is the conclusion of this whole "cable debate" in my opinion -- we just need a measurement device of some sort to do this accurately.

 If I had the resources, I would fund the development of such a device. It would be very simple; a series of input/outputs (for 1/4, 1/8, XLR, etc) where one could connect each side of a cable to loop a signal and test its signal transmission. As a matter of fact, I'm sure something like that already exists.


----------



## Bullseye

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Liver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does it really matter?_

 

Sure it matters. If you buy a normal cable you will save a lot of money and get the same sounding results as with a much more expensive one.

 If you have enough money, then you can do what you want with it, but there are some people who do not have it.

 Plus on the article the op added, the KEY to everything when doing tests is here:

 Blind listening tests
 From "blind" listening tests, we could hear no difference between test guitar cables made with oxygen-free copper (OFC) and our "normal" guitar cables. Maybe you can, but we can't. 

 That is what makes a difference. When the only thing you hear is music, and you do not use your sight to make differences.


----------



## Chu

I have some 99.x% OFC speaker cable that I've been using for about 6 years with "multimedia" speakers, in clear insulation. It's turning green 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I've sometimes wondered how well all these cables in opaque sleeves really age. I mean, it might start out as 99.99+% OFC but how long does it stay that way?


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have some 99.x% OFC speaker cable that I've been using for about 6 years with "multimedia" speakers, in clear insulation. It's turning green 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've sometimes wondered how well all these cables in opaque sleeves really age. I mean, it might start out as 99.99+% OFC but how long does it stay that way?_

 

If its cheap who knows?


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If its cheap who knows?_

 

I think the point is, if it's expensive, who knows 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People are not going to cut open their cables to find out.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the point is, if it's expensive, who knows 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People are not going to cut open their cables to find out._

 

No,,,,,,if its cheap who knows, I never mentioned price.


----------



## dvw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have some 99.x% OFC speaker cable that I've been using for about 6 years with "multimedia" speakers, in clear insulation. It's turning green 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've sometimes wondered how well all these cables in opaque sleeves really age. I mean, it might start out as 99.99+% OFC but how long does it stay that way?_

 

Unfortunately, OFC copper is not going to prevent the copper from oxidation. The copper reacts with air to turn green. Copper in the opaque sleeve will also turn green unless they are completely isolated from air.


----------



## LostOne.TR

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No,,,,,,if its cheap who knows, I never mentioned price._

 

Does that mean we're more likely to know if the cable (value, not cost to us) is expensive?


----------



## shieber

Well, no one has anything scientific to rbutt the point the OFC hasn't any audio signal transmission properties vs regualr copper. Many sellers will emphasize instead that being ox free make the copper more impervious to oxydation, which sounds like an unbeatable argument until you note that the insulation is slightly ox permeable (jsut like ballons) and the small amount of ox in copper wire is much less than what will permeate the insulation.
  
 A few degrees temp change will have more effect on conductivity than will OFC.
  
 OFC is a red herring; worry about the stuff that matters. Pay for the stuff that's worth it.


----------



## Speedskater

This thread is 6 years old!


----------



## shieber

Some folks have just read it. That's why it stays posted.


----------



## Steve Eddy

shieber said:


> Well, no one has anything scientific to rbutt the point the OFC hasn't any audio signal transmission properties vs regualr copper. Many sellers will emphasize instead that being ox free make the copper more impervious to oxydation, which sounds like an unbeatable argument until you note that the insulation is slightly ox permeable (jsut like ballons) and the small amount of ox in copper wire is much less than what will permeate the insulation.




OFC copper will oxidize just as readily as any other copper when exposed to air.

People just don't understand what the purpose of oxygen free copper is.

"Regular copper," or ETP copper is an oxygenated copper. What this means is that they start out with pretty high purity copper, but during the melt, they add very small, precisely controlled amounts of oxygen (contrary to the popular notion that regular copper is processed in "open air"). The purpose of the oxygen is to bind with remaining impurities and remove them from solution, which has the result of increasing the copper's conductivity. This is why modern ETP copper has IACS conductivity of around 102%. The IACS conductivity standard was established in the early part of the 20th century, before the ETP process was developed.

The "problem" with ETP copper comes if you heat it in a reducing atmosphere like hydrogen, as you might find in a hydrogen annealing furnace. The hydrogen can react with the oxygen in the copper, causing it to become embrittled. So for such situations, oxygen free copper is used to avoid this. However because oxygen free copper can't take advantage of oxygen scavenging, it needs to be of a higher inherent purity in order to achieve the same conductivity as ETP copper, so it's a little more expensive.




> A few degrees temp change will have more effect on conductivity than will OFC.




Yes. Though the conductivity of OFC and ETP is pretty much the same.

And conductivity is a pretty meaningless term in the context of an audio cable anyway. Conductivity simply manifests as resistance. And the resistance of a cable will primarily depend on the gauge of the wire used for the cable. So if one cable uses a slightly more conductive metal, you just need to use a slightly larger gauge of wire to achieve the same or lower resistance.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

speedskater said:


> This thread is 6 years old!




Damn. I forgot to get it a birthday card! 

se


----------



## shieber

Someone's been reading wiki.


----------



## Steve Eddy

shieber said:


> Someone's been reading wiki.




No, CDA and material properties texts.

se


----------



## SimonPac

Audiophile Hat: Cables sound different. Different dielectrics, different conductors leave a sonic signature which can be fairly pronounced. 
  
 Engineer Hat: No honest physicist or engineer has any measured evidence as to why. Show me it if I am wrong. For speaker/headphone cables this assumes equivalent resistance between compared cables. This is because speaker cables can easily have significant resistance compared to the speaker and this will affect the transfer function and therefore the sound in several ways as signal level is modulated by frequency dependent speaker/headphone impedance and amplifier damping factor is reduced by different amounts. But if the resistance of the two cables compared is the same then one would expect no differences. It also assumes an amplifier stable into small capacitive loads; i.e any competent design. For signal interconnects used as normal with low source impedance of tens or hundreds of Ohms and load impedance of a few KOhms, there is no reason whatsoever to believe there would be a meaningful measured difference in transfer function until way beyond audio frequencies.
  
 Phase distortion has been suggested. It will be tiny in any interconnect driven by a low-ish source impedance; anything reasonably well designed. _Total_ delay in a 1 metre cable will be about 5nS overall, with very very much smaller frequency dependent variations. This can be compared to the 50uS period of a 20KHz sine wave, highest a young person can hear. Any claim that there is differential time delay necessary to produce phase distortion would need to be examined in the light of that fact. Total travel time of a 1 metre cable is about one ten thousandth of the period of a 20Khz wave. Alternatively one might invoke hf rolloff due to finite source impedance combined with cable capacitance, and the later does vary quite a lot between cables. A source device with a 100 ohm source impedance used with a cable having 500pF capacitance will roll off to -3dB at about 3MHz. It will therefore give a phase distortion of a tiny fraction of 1 degree at 20KHz. With speaker cables it will be even smaller. 
  
 As to claims there is a dielectric memory beyond that associated with normal electrical reactance; has anybody seen it on an instrument?
  
 I am not against cable experiments and subjectivity. I have done some myself. I am against dishonest claims about the mechanism. It produces misguided statements by the technically non-educated.


----------



## Speedskater

The burden of proof is on the person making the extra-ordinary claim.


----------

