Snake Oil Department, Top This

[mhardy6647]

Apropos of one of the countermelodies running through the fugue that is this thread -- I think I'll start a separate thread on the archaeology (or is it paleontology... or forensics?) of "audiophile wires" anon.
Meanwhile -- doing some quick searches for early tests of high-end cables, I ran into this -- which I believe I've seen mentioned on ASR before. From 1983, so quite a while after the seeds had been sown, so to speak.

source: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1983-08.pdf

 

[srrxr71]

Where are my quantum entanglement cables?

 

[fpitas]

Apropos of one of the countermelodies running through the fugue that is this thread -- I think I'll start a separate thread on the archaeology (or is it paleontology... or forensics?) of "audiophile wires" anon.
Meanwhile -- doing some quick searches for early tests of high-end cables, I ran into this -- which I believe I've seen mentioned on ASR before. From 1983, so quite a while after the seeds had been sown, so to speak.

View attachment 240666

source: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1983-08.pdf

View attachment 240667

Wow, 24AWG speaker cable. No wonder they thought a reasonable sized cable was better.

 

[fpitas]

Where are my quantum entanglement cables?

The Bybee Quantum Purifiers combed out all the snags

 

[mhardy6647]

The Bybee Quantum Purifiers combed out all the snags

You know, mentioning this epochal product got me to musin'...
In this day and age, with the rise in interest in analog media (LP rekkids and even -- heaven forefend! -- cassette tapes ), I wonder if, just maybe, there's a market for Newtonian Purifiers, too?

Where are my quantum entanglement cables?

Shouldn't that be "when are my quantum entanglement cables?"

 

[AudioSceptic]

Wow, 24AWG speaker cable. No wonder they thought a reasonable sized cable was better.

Did you read the article? This was with 30' lengths. With typical lengths, the resistance will be much lower and the difference much less.

 

[fpitas]

Did you read the article? This was with 30' lengths. With typical lengths, the resistance will be much lower and the difference much less.

Uh, well, ok. Still pretty bad idea. Is the idea to save money on speaker cable?

 

[AudioSceptic]

Uh, well, ok. Still pretty bad idea. Is the idea to save money on speaker cable?

Apparently this thin stuff was sometimes given away with budget systems/speakers, but the real point in this test was to make the comparison more extreme. AWG is not generally used in the UK so I had to look this up <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge#Tables_of_AWG_wire_sizes>. Wow, 0.5 mm diameter! Is that about what's used in telephone cable (the indoor stuff)?

 

[fpitas]

Apparently this thin stuff was sometimes given away with budget systems/speakers, but the real point in this test was to make the comparison more extreme. AWG is not generally used in the UK so I had to look this up <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge#Tables_of_AWG_wire_sizes>. Wow, 0.5 mm diameter! Is that about what's used in telephone cable (the indoor stuff)?

Yes, that was a common size here in the USA at least. Not much current.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Apparently this thin stuff was sometimes given away with budget systems/speakers, but the real point in this test was to make the comparison more extreme. AWG is not generally used in the UK so I had to look this up <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge#Tables_of_AWG_wire_sizes>. Wow, 0.5 mm diameter! Is that about what's used in telephone cable (the indoor stuff)?

Telephone cables are much smaller, it’s used for lighting flexible cords. That’s the reason a lighting protective circuit breaker is rated at 6 Amps, while the fixed wiring has a minimum CSA of 1.0 sq.MM and could be used on much more heavy loads than a circuit with a protective device rated at 6 Amps.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Telephone cables are much smaller, it’s used for lighting flexible cords. That’s the reason a lighting protective circuit breaker is rated at 6 Amps, while the fixed wiring has a minimum CSA of 1.0 sq.MM and could be used on much more heavy loads than a circuit with a protective device rated at 6 Amps.

It seems that telephone cabling (in-wall) is usually CAT 5 these days and this is normally AWG 24. Was a thinner cable used before?

 

[pseudoid]

...telephone cabling...

 

[fpitas]

It seems that telephone cabling (in-wall) is usually CAT 5 these days and this is normally AWG 24. Was a thinner cable used before?

Not here. I still have some of the old four conductor 24AWG, with a gray jacket.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Not here. I still have some of the old four conductor 24AWG, with a gray jacket.

Right, so that gauge is what was tested in the Stereo Review article. Thanks.

FWIW I know someone who used to reckon telephone cable actually sounded better than "normal" speaker cable.

 

[fpitas]

Right, so that gauge is what was tested in the Stereo Review article. Thanks.

FWIW I know someone who used to reckon telephone cable actually sounded better than "normal" speaker cable.

I guess if you like the bass lump. Not hard to believe someone might.

 

[sq225917]

We'll hold you to that.

Trust me, French speaker manufacturer in the 60/70s, I'll have to look up in old Ken Kessler articles.

 

[RichB]

Apropos of one of the countermelodies running through the fugue that is this thread -- I think I'll start a separate thread on the archaeology (or is it paleontology... or forensics?) of "audiophile wires" anon.
Meanwhile -- doing some quick searches for early tests of high-end cables, I ran into this -- which I believe I've seen mentioned on ASR before. From 1983, so quite a while after the seeds had been sown, so to speak.

View attachment 240666

source: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1983-08.pdf

View attachment 240667

Here is the conclusion:

That was then, this is now:

Recommended Components Fall 2022 Edition Loudspeaker Cables

Loudspeaker Cables Audioquest Dragon Zero: $27,500/8' pair "Notably transparent, able to deliver dynamic slam and detail," wrote MF. (Vol.45 No.9 WWW) Audio Art Cable SC-5 Classic: $240/10ft pair (gold spades; add $10/pr for silver spades), $250/10ft pair (gold bananas)

www.stereophile.com

- Rich

 

[fpitas]

Here is the conclusion:
View attachment 240807

That was then, this is now:

Recommended Components Fall 2022 Edition Loudspeaker Cables

Loudspeaker Cables Audioquest Dragon Zero: $27,500/8' pair "Notably transparent, able to deliver dynamic slam and detail," wrote MF. (Vol.45 No.9 WWW) Audio Art Cable SC-5 Classic: $240/10ft pair (gold spades; add $10/pr for silver spades), $250/10ft pair (gold bananas)

www.stereophile.com

View attachment 240808

- Rich

If you don't like dynamic slam and detail, I'm sure someone else will buy them

 

[RichB]

If you don't like dynamic slam and detail, I'm sure someone else will buy them

I cannot afford the dynamic slam, nor the duck.

- Rich

 

[HedgeHog]

Install under carpeting? OMG!

“Elevate Your Musical Experience with the Best-Selling Cable Supports on the Market: Award-Winning Cable Elevators Improve Dynamics, Focus, Detail, and More”​

View attachment 240454

Those are legit products. Ceramic power cable isolators are on power line poles. Cost $5 or so. But their use case migrating to the audiophile realm is a bit of a fantasy. It does keep cables routing tidy.