cable dielectric cause of artificial sound

I like Koegz response. After spending all this money on electronics, we expect wire to be the final touch. Wire is like horsepower, to get more horsepower costs money, to get a lot more horsepower costs huge amounts of money. You have to have great resolution in a system to even hear the subtle differences in wire. But, rather than argue on the forums, maybe we should all go listen to more music??? This is like politics, we will never change each other's minds about wire!

A couple of points:

Annealed cables are often annealed in an oxygen free atmosphere (dry nitrogen) specifically to prevent surface oxidation. Many oxidants are semiconductors and may even exhibit diode like effects(remember selenium plate rectifiers?), I think metal oxides in cables are just plain bad news.

Gauge and metalurgy make a difference to my ears, but dielectric absorbtion seems to be the largest contributor to hard or edgy sounds from cables. I've made my own using foamed Teflon as a core (more air, less plastic) they sound very clean but not as warm as the better (read expensive) commercial cables.

The differences in sound are subtle and the more revealing the system the easier they become to hear. I have not had the experience of being able to hear differences between interconnects on any mass market equipment. i.e. at least some nay sayers will not in fact hear any interconnect differences on their systems because the cables are not the weakest link.

I think almost any system will display speaker wire sonic differences between copper and steel alloy wire (cheap commercial wire, the steel prevents stretch) and a pure copper wire. These differences do not appear to be subtle.

After watching this thread with great interest, the impression I get after it rising and now cooling off is that we STILL know very little about high end audio cabling.

I've seen folks of all manner of approaches and background have theories, but no real knowledge. By this, I don't mean to offend, just that my definition of knowledge is something on a higher plane that what I am reading. So far, only "I've seen this", "I hear this", or "I tested that". Yet, day after day I read how this cable sounds too dull in system A, while another member disagrees, saying it drove his ears to bleed.

Does surface oxidation exhibit a detrimental effect on a wire or not? Doesn't seem as if we're sure - some say yes and some no, both being just as emphatic as the other.

Are those who feel cable geometry trumps all other factors (material, insulation, etc.) the ones who have the real answer???

And, as far as the point of the thread, what do we really know about the effect of a dielectric on things? Is teflon necessarily better than PVC, polyethylene, polyester, kapton, or polypropylene? For at least a decade now, we have been voting yes with our wallets because that is the conventional wisdom, not because we "know" it's true. What about PVDF (Kynar), which has probably the highest dielectric constant of any stable polymer I can think of. How do cotton and silk rate in absolute terms? Why not think about acrylic or wool?

If air is truly superior, while oxidation is to be avoided (for the sake of argument, again, I have no true idea how critical it is), the cost of filling a tube with a gas such as nitrogen (the main component of air apart from oxygen), argon, helium, or whatever to protect the copper from oxidizing is not very expensive whatsoever. After all, they used a ton of nitrogen (or, possibly, 5% hydrogen in 95% nitrogen - forming gas, which is used in a reduction furnace) to anneal the wire, correct?

And, I have yet to touch on copper, silver, gold, alloys of all manner of metals (for example, 55% palladium/45% silver - the most stable conductor in terms of temperature coefficient of resistance, environmental degradation, and the like), aluminum, carbon...

Hopefully, JD's (Jadem6) thread will spur additional research into the subject. His has been the most valuable thread I have seen here in any audio discussion forum in years. It's certainly got me thinking of cable in a very big way.

In my view, we should have come to definitive answers long ago. Not to seem as if I am on a high horse as I've also done just about nothing to advance the craft. Wish I was still a chemist/material scientist in many regards because I know I would devote a substantial part of my time researching all manner of variables.

Wire remains more or less black magic. Not because it is, but due to our fundamental lack of understanding of the subject. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of research since the late 1990s. There's certainly no impetus for it, as we're mostly served by ultra niche companies run by folks without the knowledge, training, or money to conduct it, who are making big profit doing things as they are doing them. Why change? WE certainly aren't demanding it.

As much of a subjectivist as I am, there is a downside to such thinking being so pervasive in this hobby. We are, more or less, simply at the mercy of swapping products in and out of our systems, not knowing how they will sound.

We probably should be at the point where we say this cable will tame brightness, and this one will give you a bit more bass impact and on and on. And, because we truly do not understand why one cable sounds better than another we are apt to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars for products that can often be bought for pennies and dollars. The end result being far more consuming of time and money than it probably should be.

IMO, there will never be a perfect analog cable. Cable construction variables and system interfaces will always result in some sort of coloration. With digital HDMI interfaces progressing, we no longer need worry about analog cables. In that case, any cheap cable will suffice. As an audiophile junky I will dismiss what I just wrote.

Trelja,

I don't think we can underestimate the confusion sewn by the cable industry itself. When some cable designers claim that cable "x" in their lineup is more detailed than cable "z" because of some proprietary treatment or improved dielectric, when if fact they've also changed the geometry of cable "x" (but don't mention it), they just add to the confusion of listeners who are lead to think the sonic change is caused by factors that may have very little sonic impact compared to geometry.
JMO.