From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Very expensive cables
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:45:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.073117.2195@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> you write:
>subject only to some hasic rules to exclude pathological cases (speakers
>whose Z goes < 1 Ohm, valve or other amps with Z>.5 Ohm, cable length>10 m).
>What people in my trade call an existance proof (you may not be able to make
>it, but someone can).
Sounds good, and should be doable for most decent cables.
>> Even Stereo Review reliably got differences in a double blind test, and
>> that was with Monster Cable, which is pretty awful :-).
>Between Monster and what? Are we still talking speaker cable?
The el cheapo Monster and 12 gauge zip cord.  In this case, only
certain listeners could tell, and then only with test tones.
However, cheap Monster is so close to 12 gauge zip (and its worse
than many 12 gauge zip, and worse than 12 gauge romex, which is cheaper)
I consider this reasonable.  This is from memory, anyone who has the
SR article in question is welcome to correct me.

>It certainly will be possible to get differences: that is why I used the
>qualifier "sane" in front of cable. Using 75 Ohm coax will probably
>make a difference: it might change things in a way some people like, which
>is fine by me. Ditto for cables made of closely placed copper strips or
>other constructions that give seriously large capacitance. For these things,
>you are right. Not just the R, C and L be marked, there should be a warning
>saying "this cable may turn a marginally stable amp into a short lived
>radio station", or words to that effect.
The first "high-end" cable, made by Fulton, I think, had high capacitance
and got flamed in the press for causing some amps to oscillate.

>My problem is this. An audio sleeze goes to Pirelli or whichever manufacturer
>of 50c/m cable. He pays $2/m for the same stuff with pretty coloured insulation
>and his name on it. He might even stuff it through a bit of hose with cotton
>packing around it. He then sells it for $50/m, with the L, C, R specs
>printed on it. 
How prevalent do you think this is?  I'm a part-time cable manufacturer,
and all my stuff is custom made to my specs.  About the only thing "off
the shelf" is the conductor itself (no insulation) and that is custom
ordered from the mill.  A number of larger manufacturers even have the
conductors custom milled, some with custom equipment!  I can assure
you, this costs a lot of money, especially in small quantities.  The
few manufacturers I know of that use "off the shelf" cable are using
awfully exotic stuff which isn't going to be found in any supply house
(direct order order from the factory) and they are paying dearly for
it.  I know of no instances like you describe.  Feel free to state that
all this has no sonic effect (which I'll disagree with :-) ) but please
don't claim manufacturer dishonesty without evidence.

>I'm not sure the propagation of AF signals down a bit of wire is of comparable
>complexity (but I like to make several mistakes a day to stay in practice 8-)
The only thing I can demonstrate quantitatively (i.e. with a scope) is
differences in dielectric absorption.  Many claim that this can't be audible
at AF frequencies - I disagree and intend on proving it, hopefully.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Newsgroups: rec.audio