Silver v Copper wire phono cable

@dover, what I said is exactly true. I did not say which one was more or less ductile and malleable and in the context of wire the distinction is close to being meaningless. It is extremely easy to draw both metals into wire. In actuality either metal can be more or less ductile depending on the alloy. As pure metals silver is more ductile than copper but if you look at a chart of metals both are near the top. The only one better than silver is gold. I think copper is fourth on the list. Try making wire out of titanium. 

@terry9 , I think maybe dover has a prostate problem:)

Great point, Dover and I don’t forget it at all. As with many other things in this hobby, given so many variables sometimes the most one can hope is to extrapolate and connect some dots so as to, as I said before, get a better understanding of what is going on. For instance, in my system the Cardas and the Discovery sound, overall, very different in specific ways; proving your point. Most obvious is the larger and opulent soundstage of the Discovery compared to the more compact and dense Cardas. However, is it a coincidence that both the Cardas and the Discovery, both copper, share some properties in overall tonal qualities? Qualities not heard with the AN. And, that compared to the AN both exhibit some grain? Or, that I hear a similar sense of clarity and lucidity when I switched from copper speaker cables to the Siltech (pure silver) that I use? One starts to see (hear) a pattern.

Silver is, verifiably, a better conductor than copper. Wires conduct. With all the concern over other minutia of differences in many other areas of system building and insistence that those minutia make audible differences (many do, IMO), is it not to be expected that the better conductor, WHEN PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED would offer superior sound, everything else being equal?

@frogman

Silver is, verifiably, a better conductor than copper. Wires conduct. With all the concern over other minutia of differences in many other areas of system building and insistence that those minutia make audible differences (many do, IMO), is it not to be expected that the better conductor, WHEN PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED would offer superior sound, everything else being equal?

The best answer I can give you is possibly.

The second best answer I can give you is it depends ( upon your definition of "a better conductor" "properly implemented" and "superior sound").

I know of at least one manufacturer who uses copper in preference to silver on ground signals because they believe the "dirty cable" actually sinks noise & rf better than pure silver on the ground leg.

I pose a question for you to think about regarding speaker cables -

In a single ended amplifier the +ve signal is separated from the incoming mains by a transformer and the amplifiers power supply, whereas  the -ve signal is connected directly to the power pole on the street. Why would a speaker cable be constructed symmetrically when the +ve and -ve rails are performing different functions.

Merry Christmas to all!

A follow up with impressions based on a recent experience and in the context of my system:

Shortly after my previous post here one of the cartridge clips broke on the AudioNote silver wire loom that I use on the Eminent Technolgy ET2 tangential tracking air bearing tonearm and that runs in one continuous run from cartridge clips to RCA input jacks on my EAR tube preamp; all sitting on a VPI TNT6 (Super Platter, SDS). The cartridge currently installed is my most recent acquisition, a NOS Acutex M320 III STR. I mentioned previously that I have used and still own two other wire looms constructed each with Discovery and Cardas; both copper. I installed the Discovery which I have always preferred to the Cardas while I waited for time to replace the clip on the AN. I figured it would be an opportunity to revisit the Discovery and confirm, or not, why I have always felt that the AN is clearly superior to the other two. It is not necessarily a comment on the superiority of silver over copper in every situation.

To put my comments in better context I should address Dover’s very valid comment re the fact that the answer to one of the issues previously discussed “depends on one’s definition of superior sound”. For me, superior sound is sound that ON BALANCE sounds closer to the sound that ON BALANCE I hear from live music. I don’t want to get into the weeds re the common claim that there are too many variables in recorded sound to make a valid determination. I believe that it is certainly possible. There are enough sonic cues in specific sonic areas that are unique to the sound of live that make it possible; particularly in the way that these affect perceived performance values and details.

I spent about three weeks with the Discovery and reinstalled the fixed AN loom just two days ago. Installing the Discovery loom brought back memories. The overall sound is good with the Discovery, but in comparison to the sound that I have been enjoying with the AN, the sound with the Discovery has some noticeable grain through the midrange and there is a reduction in resolution. The bass is a bit wooly and I immediately missed the AN’s great pitch definition. Bass lines with the AN are tuneful; one can clearly hear the pitch of each note whereas the Discovery provided the low frequency energy, but with vague pitch and lack of air. Soundstage size is similar, but the Discovery projects larger individual images compared to the AN’s smaller and more realistic individual images; I suspect, the result of the AN’s superior definition and images that are less diffuse around the edges. In the area of natural tonal colors it is not close; the Discovery sounds a little bleached out compared to the AN’s clearly more natural rendering of tonal colors.

Frankly, in spite of the fact that I have always considered the AN to be the more refined and clearly superior tonearm wire, I was surprised at just how much better the AN is IN MY SYSTEM this time around.

A PITA to work with given how thin it is, but the AN is a killer tonearm wire.