7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

I finally have time to respond to the last comment made to my post on 2-28-02. Clueless asked me a couple of questions. Rereading my post where I stated …polarization of electrons… I had posted this on my lunch half-hour and I concatenated a couple of different thoughts. One being the dielectric does polarize when a signal is present, and electrons can be polarized by magnet fields creating, a no force, magnetic moment usually when the electron is spinning. Atoms most certainly become polarized when they lose a valance electron to the conduction band, but not your point.

The audio signal is a complex signal that can have a negative swing assuming no bias, but there is little guarantee of symmetrical relationship between the plus and minus halves. Electrons have mass and they do collide/push other electrons, so I think a single electron moving back and forth seems too simplistic. I could find little if any information on the small signal analysis of audio signals or signal analysis of amplifier outputs to support or deny your analogy. Please feel free to point me somewhere on the ‘net. All I see is semi-conductor signal analysis or DC theory applied to conductors.

The electron is the reference point for the electric/magnetic field generated by electrons “flowing” creating a current from a potential difference. I completely support your statement that the EM field transfers the signal (information) near the speed of light as per my questions. The electrons guide these waves albeit at a speed far slower than the speed of light. One cannot happen without the other. Since power is a square function, it is always positive, unaffected by swings. The 1st order equations guarantee this too.

The more interesting question to me is as far as I can tell unanswered, is that science knows from empirical data and scientific calculation the relationship between I and EM, but science does not seem to under why this relationship exists. Why is an EM field created when a current flows through a conductor? I am open to comments on that item. Why do we care about polarization? I guess I think capacitance and resistance to movement.

I still haven’t seen much of a response to any of my questions which definitely point to the design issues of cable designers. I have taken the liberty of trying to find Internet based information from reputable sources. Ironically (to the pro guys I’m sure), I trust John Dunlavy. I voted with my wallet. I think that he is a reference for scientifically correct design based on solid physics. However, I disagree with the notion that science has determined and can measure every single aspect of cable performance. History has taught us time and time again this is not true.

********** The good stuff **********

First I think it is time clarify the statement of pro audio members which boils down to, “…all cables sound the same...” To clarify, ALL cables measure differently, the real question is whether or not the differences are audible. To me a worthwhile distinction, because poorly designed cables are audibly inferior sounding and potentially harmful to the system. Not all high-end cable companies produce “snake oil and buzzard salve” products, but there are some, the same as with any other industry. Most of the claims put forth are valid design points, but may not be of audible significance until system interaction is thrown into the mix.

Dunlavy post to support above
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/duncable.htm

As Mr. Dunlavy points out, cables need to follow the good design principles to produce documentably accurate cables, but the interaction with the system must be considered as well. A 1 meter pair of balanced Dunlavy ULC cables cost around $300. We are to assume no frills, properly designed, etc. While the $7500 cables are a stretch, there are many others to choose from at considerably less. I don’t know how much it costs to essentially suspend multiple cable strands in air. Whether or not it produces measurable or audible differences is the question.

Almost all of the design parameters cable makers play with are covered in the link below. One of the best layman based discussions with the supporting mathematics I have seen to date. I think all will find it well worth the read. A couple of links were visible at a file level, but not on the HTML page so they are listed separately.

Start with Analog & Audio on the Main page
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm

http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html

http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html

Thanks for reading.

Lmb. Thanks for the St. Andrews site. Lots of nice stuff there. As I said in my post I did not want to put words or an argument in your mouth and reading all of your posts I tend to agree with a lot of your approach. I'm a relative simple sh** when it comes to this stuff. I am never going to be at the cutting edge of understanding this stuff, most of us aren't. My basic position comes from dinking around with tube amps/speakers and trying to think of the audio system in terms of a circuit(s). If you just take the top off of the "boxes" it is virtually impossible to place such emphasis on the wire connecting the components. If your going to upgrade your going to take a balanced approach. Surely, your not going to try to fix obvious design problems in your amp with ridiculously costly wire coming out the end. I've met very few people who understand basic circuit design who would tweak/upgrade as cable companies promote. I think ultimately this destroys audio. It's ironic that one end of the industry is telling people to buy a half dozen speakers for 2k strung out all over the place while the other is telling them to spend that much on 18" of wire. Oh well. Common point???-- it sells stuff.

Thanks again for the St Andrews site. I only took the half hour tour but it looks very interesting.

I remain,

Thanks for the reply. I did spend a lot of time on physics web sites to try and remember what I had learned. I really would like to see an explanation of how electrons behave in small signal (source to preamp) and large signal (amp to speakers) scenarios to understand the electron movement better. I couldn’t anything on the Internet.

The most interesting thing for me was John Dunlavy essentially straddling both sides of the fence. I interpreted his comments to mean it is no simple feat to build a competently designed cable, and then to see his pricing. Unfortunately since the sale of DAL, Dunlavy only offers speakers. Some interesting changes have been made to the speaker line up. The SC-IVA and up see to remain unchanged, but the SC-III has some big changes which look promising.

The St. Andrews’ site is great since the author defines the problem, explains the assumptions, states the simplifications that can be made and why, and shows the math for both methods for the solution. He doesn't criticize, offer opinions, just a neutral presentation of the analysis used today. I gather he is somewhat interested in audio, by analyzing claims, and making non-judgmental statements, very cool.

If anyone out there can help me with links to sites on the Internet dealing with electron behavior in the field of audio applications, I would be most grateful.

Take care “Clueless.”

Lmb: I'm not sure who your "pro audio members" are, but I know of no one who believes that all cables sound the same.

On the other hand, I think John Dunlavy would admit that his i/c's and cables are, for most applications, audibly indistinguishable from "top-of-the-line" Radio Shack stuff.

Sir, I have read through all of your posts in this thread. You consistently state most cables sound indistinguishable in a blind test. Are you not implying cables do sound the same? Please clarify.

I have read many of the Dunlavy letters where he states zip cord sounds the same IF there is some engineering applied to it. I don’t think he says to just pull it off of the spool and put it to work. Twists, shielding, single core, stranded core, and proper dielectric are certainly considerations for good engineering, but not mandatory. My interpretation of his words are, there is enough of an understanding of the potential problems to make cables that don’t introduce distortion of any significant magnitude. It seems through testing, some manufactures do more damage than good and make good money on top of it. That is a problem, but again not unique to audio.

Clearly, some care must be taken. Clearly, most of the claims the high-end manufacturers make about the engineering of their cables to combat problems with parallel wires, noise, EM fields, and so on are valid, and measurable; but perhaps not audible. Unless I have missed something in the last 20 years this, is how marketing tries to differentiate a product. Take a look at Microsoft or any other company in a highly competitive industry. Certain individuals are extremely wealthy selling goods that do not work as advertised., sorry for the digression.

Is this behavior right? In my opinion no it is not. Do I think just because a high-end manufacturer offers an expensive cable, it is worth the money, absolutely not. Check out a “Recommended Components” list, Stereophile lists Radio Shack 18-guage solid core wire as a “recommended component.” This is an industry magazine that should be used for ideas and maybe as a guide, but it certainly is not a "bible," nor is any other magazine like it.

My problem with this whole debate is each side chooses not to disclose the whole story. I have provided links from scientifically based sources that question both sides of the table. Ultimately in my mind, the measurements would have to be done with the cables in place between the source and destination. Component interaction should be a part of the analysis. Speakers (and rooms) introduce distortions many orders of magnitude larger than the wire (and most components) to be included in the measurement. This would imply objective and subjective testing is needed to be complete. This is my opinion.