Wire differences explained common sense


I need to share what many other audiophiles may have missed. About me Im a 52 year old critical listener to the point I have to make myself just listen to the music and enjoy. What prompted me to write is a very long article in Audioholics and one thing stuck out was there is no difference between copper and silver.

Ok well there is. Im not a PhD or scientist but a very observant listener. One day I replaced my Silver Kimber KGAC with Tara labs copper interconnects. I listened noticing the sound become a little richer and full. I then put BTO "Hey You" on vinyl and something happened. I did not startle as the song starts. I always play it loud and I always jump just a little. I restarted and turned up volume as much as I dare and still no body reaction. I switched cables and bam, the dynamics returned and I was startled when song starts even though its about to begin.

It is scientifically known silver is a faster conducter. Hence maybe why it can be harsh on some setups. I have only 2 full sets of interconnects like above for the last 10 years. I have changed them out many many times and have noticed small differences each time. I have a cable burner also. My advantage is by not having many different sets of interconnects to confuse I can zero in on the 2 I know.

Just my observations here.
blueranger
Schubert, as rare as unicorns! I like that. You will very seldom, if ever, hear a scientist say something just makes common sense.

However, I do trust my ears. Using an alloy like mu metal, the High Fidelity cables have higher resistance and encourage conductivity with magnets. The sonic character of these cables is unique and to me exceptional.

I used to be a poor graduate student and made Dyna and Heath kits but then as an associate professor, I heard the Infinity ServoStatics and ARC electronic. I heard what I heard and had to buy both. I still do hypothesis testing in audio. This is otherwise known as A/B comparisons. Audio is not the world of common sense, nor is it of science. We just do not know enough to assess what would sound best. Trial and error are the real name of the game.
Human psychology is a curious little maze of twists and turns, corkscrews and loops. Hand someone a warm beverage in a warm cup, and they'll have a completely different take on the next person they meet, without having any idea that the beverage in their hand is having a huge influence on their impression. Wine decanted from a clear bottle will, across the board, get poorer grades than the same wine decanted from a dark green bottle, and so on. Eyewitness testimony given by good, honest people on matters that would seem to be relatively clear--5'7" or 6', blue car or brown?--on matters of life and death is notoriously unreliable.

I love my tube amps. Am I positive that my perception of their "warmth" and their sounding "open" and "alive" isn't as much as anything else a matter of my seeing their warm orange--and sometimes blue--glow inside a glass bottle (like a soul inside a body), and that my perception of the deadness of solid state isn't just a matter of my not seeing any glow, not seeing any space between filaments and glass, but on the contrary, seeing plain old "solid" transistors, with no space, no air--you know, like a corpse?

Like the original poster, I think copper sounds richer too. But of course copper is a richer color than silver, which is bright, and in some lights, even harsh.
Stewie, you stand above the crowd in admitting that some of your listening choices could have a bias based on other factors. That is a seriously self-aware and mature viewpoint, the admission of which would have most folk on a forum like this feel emasculated. My guess is that knowing the potential bias makes you a better, more neutral listener than most.