A New Believer

Who's the shill?

Rok2id, that's easy. In our case it is the cost of the materials that makes almost all of the difference. I suspect most are like us too, in that the higher priced cables have a lower percentage mark-up over materials cost than our cheaper cables. And our percentage mark-ups are much the same as equipment manufacturers have. There are some people with crazy mark-ups for sure though - I could name a few and quote some verifiable facts to support that - but don't tar everyone with that brush.

04-13-11: Antipodes_audio
In our case it is the cost of the materials that makes almost all of the difference.

Antipodes_audio, can you explain why and how more expensive materials will tend to reduce (to a degree that is significant at audible frequencies) the "two-fold time-domain issues" that you mentioned as being key, namely "signal-smearing and phase distortions"?

Thanks. Regards,
-- Al

We apply our best thinking on time-domain issues to all of our cables, so the difference isn't always that.

With the speaker cables the cost difference is simply using twice as much silver wire, and solid, high purity wire that has good sound characteristics costs real dollars. More so when there a couple of added stages where we apply gold and platinum to the silver wire. So no time-domain issues between the speaker cables, just more grip and articulation in the bass, and a bit more ease, in systems that need high current transmission. Both use the same wire, same insulation and same geometry (kind of).

With the interconnects, the Reference achieves better resonance control (which is an important time-domain issue) through using solid gold wires together with the silver wires. There is one gauge of wire that we need to have in the mix to get a balanced result with the Komako, that if we replace with gold wires, gives us a significantly better result. Applying the gold and platinum to the silver wire is good bang for the buck, but substituting this particular silver wire with a gold one makes a huge difference. And, of course, gold is many times more expensive than silver. We have many customers that bought Komako interconnects and then tried out the Reference in our upgrade program, and everyone so far has returned the Komako, not the Reference (for a refund). Many have come back to say they were astounded that the resolution and refinement could get that much better.

I am sounding like an advertisement, sorry. I was an enthusiast like the rest of you here, posting under the moniker Redkiwi for many years, until deciding to commercialise what came out of a lot of cable experimentation, and would prefer to interact in these forums as an enthusiastic audiophile (whose hobby got out of control) rather than to promote the business. But it is necessary to disclose my interest when I do that.

My purpose was just to put forward the view that time-domain issues are critical to the way we hear, and for what we hear to sound natural. And that achieving excellent time-domain performance in a cable is not easy. (And its not cheap either).

Electrical engineers are very inclined to a reductive view of physics, dismissing many known issues as irrelevant at audio frequencies. By that they mean they are too small to be heard. Convenient when making a competent product, but how exactly do they know we can't hear them? As I say our ear/brain is incredibly sensitive to time issues, as that system is constantly separating out what we hear, its direction and its location, and that system is far more dependent on time-domain accuracy than timbral accuracy. Not only are (some) EEs reductive about physics, they also make gross and unsubstantiated assumptions about how humans hear.

To Antipodes_audio:

Thanks for the very detailed discussion. It increased my understanding of the wire question. My next question is this: A commonly held opinion on this site, states that you have to have a system that is capable (expensive enough?) of allowing a person 'hear' the effects of wire. Is that true, or can wire be heard on so-called 'Lo or mid-fi' systems? Assuming the listerner has normal hearing.
Thank You

Antipodes_audio, thank you for the comprehensive response.

Electrical engineers are very inclined to a reductive view of physics, dismissing many known issues as irrelevant at audio frequencies. By that they mean they are too small to be heard. Convenient when making a competent product, but how exactly do they know we can't hear them? As I say our ear/brain is incredibly sensitive to time issues, as that system is constantly separating out what we hear, its direction and its location, and that system is far more dependent on time-domain accuracy than timbral accuracy.

I am in agreement with this, up to a point. However, I would respectfully submit that there is a flip side to this line of reasoning. If we can’t clearly draw a line defining the boundaries of audibility, we also can’t predict when the point of overkill will be exceeded, and when the wrong parameters are being focused on.

It would seem safe to say that the chirp of a bird ten miles distant will be inaudible. Similarly, it would seem safe to say that one femtosecond of “time smear” will be inaudible, and will be swamped by other inaccuracies in the system as well. So there would seem to be finite limits to the extent to which reason, common sense, and technically informed “a priori” judgment should be deemed inapplicable to audio.

That applies to the cable designer, as well as to the consumer. How does the designer determine what design approaches to investigate, develop, and try out, when the point demarcating overkill for any given parameter is so nebulous? How does he know that he is focusing on the right parameters in the first place? How does he know that applying comparable focus and investment of time and resources to development of less expensive approaches won’t yield results that are just as good or possibly even better? Reasoned, technically informed judgment, common sense, technical knowledge, and experience all have their place.

And along the lines of a comment you made in your initial post above, it would seem safe to assume that those qualities, and just as importantly the motivations, of different designers will differ.

Regards,
--Al