cable dielectric cause of artificial sound

Hi folks, I would like to know what your opinion is about the following issue. About 90% of high-end cable manufacturers use PTFE as dielectric. Many of their cables sound much alike and they have a few of these characteristics in common: clean, relaxed and laid back sound but at the same time very dynamic (though a bit artificially), very quiet ("black background"), very good (also artificially) left/right separation. But I think albeit these traits, they tend to sound "technicolored", "sterile" and unengaging (lacking PRaT also). Some cable manufacturers are using bleached cotton as dielectric. These cables sound different: they have more natural dynamics, a mellower sound, more intimate soundstage, more tonal colors and so on. Are these differences mainly due to the dielectric material used? Why is for so many manufacturers PTFE still the ultimate dielectric for the use in audio cables?

I can't help but laugh at all the measurement techno-jumbo talk and electrical training with facts to back it up talk going on in an audiophile forum, this hobby is the farest thing from best measurement equal best product. Why do we even talk about spending hundreds of dollars on an audio cable when a $10 interconnect from Wal-Mart measure much better. The capacitance, resistant, inductance numbers of the most respected audiophile cable brands out there such as Kimber, Cardas, XLO, etc. consistently measured worse than some .25ยข coaxial found at the local hardware store. How can an audiophile spend hundred of dollars on a wire and corrosion is not even important? hope someone here agrees with me...
Why do so many love tube amps when a solid state has much less measured distortion? it's never been about the technical side people.
Cardas and Kimber cable measurements are in the same ballpark, why do they sound so different?

Audiophiles are the ones who hear the difference and believe, engineers are the ones who believe the numbers and never hears.


It seems our point of view is different, you're looking at it from the technical side, mine is from an audiophile talking about audiophile cable.

I don't know what that means, "an audiophile talking about audiophile cable."

You have made a number of objective claims of fact, none of which have been substantiated with any sort of objective evidence or proof.

Some of you sound like many of the electrical types I've talked to where everything has to be proven with numbers and measurements.

Well, when one makes objective claims of fact, the substantiation of those claims must also be objective. If you have no objective substantiation for your objective claims, then you're doing little more than trying to pass off opinion as fact.

Is that what it means to be an "audiophile talking about audiophile cable"? To pass opinion off as fact?

These people will never believe two audio cable can sound different because it can't be measured.

It has nothing to do with whether it can be measured. It has to do with first establishing that there is in fact an actual audible difference between them.

Audio cable is NOT and never an exact science, I repeat NOT. While skin affect does occur at frequencies above 20khz, differences can still be heard.

And here is yet another objective claim of fact. When exactly was this established as fact?

High End cable designers don't come up with a design so that their cable will only sound as they intend after oxidation has occured, they do their best to limit oxidation with the use of Teflon & PE, this is why we don't see many exposed copper in high end cable design.

How do you know this is necessarily the case? How do you know they don't do it simply because many people have been prejudiced against it by people trying to pass off opinion as fact?

My point of all this rambling is, oxidation has to be taken seriously in a high end cable because the signature sound that the designer intended will be no longer be after corrosion occurs. I don't think audiophiles want to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on a corroded cable anyway.

Now here you are spouting off while demonstrating you don't even know what you're talking about.

First, oxidation and corrosion are not one and the same. Corrosion is a two part process that requires both oxidation and reduction, where material is actually lost.

Copper actually RESISTS corrosion. This is what gives it such high value in applications such as roofing material and water pipes.

As I said in a previous post, the microscopically thin film of oxidation that quickly forms on the surface when it's exposed to air actually acts as a protective barrier against both further oxidation and corrosion.

So please, before you go trying to scare people about "corroded cable," get your facts straight.


Tell me how am I suppose to prove an oxidized conductor sound different from a new conductor in words? Do I need to invite you over so we can compare the two for audible differences.
As I stated in previous post that audible differences in analog interconnects cannot be measured, only can be heard, so if you need technical data, and graphs, I don't have them, so this discussion comes to a close.

You ask me to establish that there is in fact an actual audible difference. In order to established that two interconnect can sound different as a fact, you just need to compare two interconnect of different geometry such as a litz design and a single conductor design with small guage and hear for yourself. Same goes for digital interconnect, two can sound different eventhough it's just passing 0's and 1's from one component to another.
You can call my claims as just opinion, but to me they are facts based on the years I've spent DIYing different cable geometry and experiences with different conductors and dielectrics. If there wasn't a difference we would not get all these people on forums asking for opinions on cables.

Corrosion of a conductor can take place due to oxidation, thermal shifts and / or a chemical reaction. Due to the fact that many conductors are directly in contact with a chemically formulated material ( dielectric ) that is exposed to electro-mechanically induced voltages, vibrations and thermal shifts, it is quite possible for the conductor to become corroded within the cable jacket itself. This is due to the chemical make up of the the dielectric breaking down ( due to any of the aforementioned reasons ) and leaching onto the conductors. This is part of what i was discussing above i.e. cables changing sonics / electrical characteristics over time due to internal decay.

Scar: You are wasting your time trying to have a meaningful conversation with this individual. Been there, done that, won't go there anymore. Learned my lesson, as have many others in several different forums. That could be why this party has finally migrated over here i.e. he's running out of other people's sandboxes to dump in. Sean
in the latest absolute sound krell founder Dan D'Rgostino talks about how he determines that something will sound good. "I like to see waveforms come out the way they look at the imput". why is cable any different? i have a relativly expensive system with a lot of the krell equipment along an extensive vinyl setup. i have listen to some very expensive wire in my system and am hard pressed to hear any real difference. i thought cables were the final thing to make everything sound better to bing it all together, but infact, they seem to be the least important part of my system. to many get cought up in the hype instead of simple common sence.