Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[danlavry]

I just received the link bellow from a friend. Can you believe it?

http://www.pymblehifi.com.au/NordostCableBurning.htm

Regards
Dan Lavry

[Barry Hufker]

It's nice to know there are places which are still a fool's paradise.

Barry

[PookyNMR]

(!!!)  Oh My...

[Peter Simonsen]

Jesus Christ! I find it! hmmm  No wait..I cant find words to say about it..its too far out !

Kind regards

Peter

[LBjorke]

$25 for a single cabe, but only $50 for a pair!

What a deal!

[ottor]

you forgot to read the disclaimer in the footer of that page...     perhaps they don't believe it themselves...

"Pymble HiFi takes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of, or the representations made by, the content of this site."

Otto Ruiter

[danlavry]

LBjorke wrote on Thu, 13 July 2006 23:08

$25 for a single cabe, but only $50 for a pair! What a deal!

What do you expect from someone that says:

"It provides a very wide band and deep conditioning into the conductor core, which produces changes in the way signals pass through the metal".

"Uses a proprietary combination of composite and complex signals... parts of the signals oscillate at ultra low frequencies and other parts are in ultra high ranges.... This method sets up beat harmonics, or hetrodynes, between the 2 complex waveforms. In the digital domain this would be referred to as aliasing products..."

Regards
Dan Lavry
http:/www.lavryengineering.com

[Andy Peters]

danlavry wrote on Thu, 13 July 2006 16:02

LBjorke wrote on Thu, 13 July 2006 23:08 $25 for a single cabe, but only $50 for a pair! What a deal! What do you expect from someone that says: "It provides a very wide band and deep conditioning into the conductor core, which produces changes in the way signals pass through the metal". "Uses a proprietary combination of composite and complex signals... parts of the signals oscillate at ultra low frequencies and other parts are in ultra high ranges.... This method sets up beat harmonics, or hetrodynes, between the 2 complex waveforms. In the digital domain this would be referred to as aliasing products..."

"A combination of reflection and refraction, resulting in the ionization of isotopes, makes for a superior aural result."

My bullshit's no better than theirs.

-a

[horselesspaul]

I like:
1) It neutralizes spurious charges that build up around the cables and the insulation.

Can it be used to neutralise the spurious charges for the product itself?

[Ronny]

danlavry wrote on Wed, 12 July 2006 17:36

I just received the link bellow from a friend. Can you believe it? http://www.pymblehifi.com.au/NordostCableBurning.htm Regards Dan Lavry

I believe that people will say that. People sell goop that goes on converter chips and claims it brings clarity to the signal and that setting your monitors on special maple boards increases sonic quality. Special feet for the amp that reduces vibration thus cleaning the signal and producing more profound lows and sharper highs. Gold knobs that not only look great but makes cymbals sparkle. Shatki stones to set your monitors on that increase quality and one time I saw a company selling little pyramids that sit on top of the gear to improve sonics. No this cable break-in company doesn't surprise me at all. With subjective psychoacoustics, truth in advertising is non-existence, because when it comes to the auditory cortex there are no standards to go by. It's one person's personal perspective versus another. One man's music, is another man's noise. I doubt that we will see an end to outrageous audio claims in my lifetime.  

[danlavry]

Ronny wrote on Sat, 29 July 2006 18:11

danlavry wrote on Wed, 12 July 2006 17:36 I just received the link bellow from a friend. Can you believe it? http://www.pymblehifi.com.au/NordostCableBurning.htm Regards Dan Lavry I believe that people will say that. People sell goop that goes on converter chips and claims it brings clarity to the signal and that setting your monitors on special maple boards increases sonic quality. Special feet for the amp that reduces vibration thus cleaning the signal and producing more profound lows and sharper highs. Gold knobs that not only look great but makes cymbals sparkle. Shatki stones to set your monitors on that increase quality and one time I saw a company selling little pyramids that sit on top of the gear to improve sonics. No this cable break-in company doesn't surprise me at all. With subjective psychoacoustics, truth in advertising is non-existence, because when it comes to the auditory cortex there are no standards to go by. It's one person's personal perspective versus another. One man's music, is another man's noise. I doubt that we will see an end to outrageous audio claims in my lifetime.

We agree that the con may not end soon. I wish we were not so accepting of that fact, because acceptance of such practices  will slow down progress in the fight against the con artists.

Say someone comes in and first talks about his 25 years experience as a team leader of some project (which is a lie), then talks about modifying the electric field inside a conductor (electric fields exist only outside a conductor), then pushes a bunch of lies about actually altering the copper itself...

Should there be some point for such a pile of lies to face accountability?

For the most part, the medical profession would not allow such garbage to be spread around. True, health is most important, and selling a $10000 cable based on lies does not kill. But ripping someone off is wrong, even if it does not kill.

For me, there is a huge difference between someone saying: "I like the way this cable sounds" and the way so many things are being sold. Is it not wrong to pretend that you are talking about science while you are making things up?

One can argue that it is up to the buyer to figure out when they are being lied to. Such an argument would require me to be a competent medical doctor, car mechanic, cook, house contractor... Such argument allows snake oil salesman to have a free hand with no accountability.

In my view, the seller, the expert, the presenter of goods or information must meet some minimum criteria, and be accountable for their actions. Someone that does not know science or engineering, should not pose otherwise. Would you want a phony doctor to perform a medical operation on you? Would you want a con artist to take you for a ride to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars? Or for 1 dollar?

Regards
Dan Lavry  

[trevord]

Hey.. The guy has expenses..
Do you see the quality of those cable photographs?

The irony is ... technology and modern manufacturing have truly made high quality audio reproduction relatively inexpensive, but the number of people who believe you get better sound the more you spend seems to be increasing.

[Ronny]

danlavry wrote on Sat, 29 July 2006 17:09

We agree that the con may not end soon. I wish we were not so accepting of that fact, because acceptance of such practices  will slow down progress in the fight against the con artists. Say someone comes in and first talks about his 25 years experience as a team leader of some project (which is a lie), then talks about modifying the electric field inside a conductor (electric fields exist only outside a conductor), then pushes a bunch of lies about actually altering the copper itself... Should there be some point for such a pile of lies to face accountability?

Absolutely. False advertisement is false advertisement and I don't think either you or I fall into the acceptance category. The problem is who has time to take legal action. I think we are doing our part by calling a spade a spade and at the risk of not gaining a few friends, in the process.  

Quote:

For the most part, the medical profession would not allow such garbage to be spread around. True, health is most important, and selling a $10000 cable based on lies does not kill. But ripping someone off is wrong, even if it does not kill. For me, there is a huge difference between someone saying: "I like the way this cable sounds" and the way so many things are being sold. Is it not wrong to pretend that you are talking about science while you are making things up?

Yes, it is, but I think the major problem is not the small profiteers who make the outrageous claims, based on their wacked interpretation of the laws of physics. It's the large companies that sell the volume, that don't relate to the specs and utilize used car salesman speak and power of suggestions to sell their wares. They are careful with their words and don't leave so many openings that can be checked out with the math.

Quote:

One can argue that it is up to the buyer to figure out when they are being lied to. Such an argument would require me to be a competent medical doctor, car mechanic, cook, house contractor... Such argument allows snake oil salesman to have a free hand with no accountability.

I personally don't believe in caveat emptor in this case. A manufacturer has the responsibility of being honest to the consumer. Unfortunately the world evolves around the mighty sale for dishonest people and they are liable to say anything to make the buck. One of the reasons that I like to pop into this newsgroup is the fact that you are one of the few honest manufacturers. I think there are other manufacturers that are honest and make claims honestly, that don't cut the mustard, but I don't think that they eliminate the human emotional element in their tests. Plain and simple they are fooled because they don't realize the infallicies of the auditory cortex and the human ability to recall information consistently. For example, they are cajoled into thinking that 192k sample rates are better, because the numbers are higher and they expect it to be better. ITR, we can continue to vent our opinions and call out snakeoil salesman, continue to educate the unbeknownst publicly such as on this forum, but the worst enemy is that most of the claims by the large manufacturers are phycoacoustical and therefore opinions are used instead of science to sell the product.

Quote:

In my view, the seller, the expert, the presenter of goods or information must meet some minimum criteria, and be accountable for their actions. Someone that does not know science or engineering, should not pose otherwise. Would you want a phony doctor to perform a medical operation on you? Would you want a con artist to take you for a ride to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars? Or for 1 dollar? Regards Dan Lavry

Absoultely not. I have the experience to know that they are bullshitters and I'll never cower from outing an audio charlatan in a public forum. I'm thankful that you are the same way, I just wish that we had more manufacturers that thought like you did and spent their time and dough improving their product from year to year, instead of spending the bucks on hype advertising.

[Barry Hufker]

This falls into the same category as the age old question, "What do you call the person who finishes at the bottom of his medical school class?         Doctor."

In other words, there are all kinds of quacks no matter what the field.  It makes no sense for an individual or person to sue these people as the claims are subjective.  I perceive it, you don't.  You can't win at that.  Should the FTC investigate?  Maybe, but it isn't high profile enough.  It's just like them investigating used car sales -- good luck with that.

It's the very expensive version of the placebo effect.  If you think it will make a difference then it does.  And audio magazines are accomplices.  They don't want to expose these people because the magazine is no longer a "true believer" as to what can improve hi-fi.  And it also cuts into ad revenue.  But I am sure they police themselves enough not to run the truly bizarre ads.

It's always been buyer beware and it always will be -- in anything.  That's how it's always been.  I can't imagine this world working any other way given how life has worked so far.

Think of the first guy who "bought" a defective wheel from the inventor -- what a schmuck.  You'd think he'd know better!

Barry

[Luke Fellingham]

I wonder if they can do anything for my power cables as well?

[AlexVI]

Almost worse, how much do you think Pymble HiFi paid Nordost for the VIDAR machine? It looks fancy enough...

AVI

[Loco]

Well, Phil Taylor said on TapeOp that the silver-core directional digital cables at The Astoria got even better sound after the burn-in period, helped by the shatki stones on top of the cone-supported Weiss anti-Jitter boxes at both ends...  

[Jon Hodgson]

Loco wrote on Fri, 11 August 2006 14:18

Well, Phil Taylor said on TapeOp that the silver-core directional digital cables at The Astoria got even better sound after the burn-in period, helped by the shatki stones on top of the cone-supported Weiss anti-Jitter boxes at both ends...

Yeah, but that's because he did the burn in during a full moon, any other time and it's useless.

[Ronny]

Loco wrote on Fri, 11 August 2006 09:18

Well, Phil Taylor said on TapeOp that the silver-core directional digital cables at The Astoria got even better sound after the burn-in period, helped by the shatki stones on top of the cone-supported Weiss anti-Jitter boxes at both ends...

I was a participant on some of the Astoria cable and gizmo tests when they were remodding the studio, while I didn't hear any audible differences, there were some, because some of the examples didn't completely null, I know because I performed the null tests myself. Where those difference came from, or if they can be attributed solely to the cables, or burn in time or whatever, remains to be seen and as far as I was concerned, the tests were inconclusive. BTW, only a couple of people claimed that they heard a difference, Phil being one of them.

[Ralf Kleemann]

Ronny wrote on Sat, 12 August 2006 19:47

I was a participant on some of the Astoria cable and gizmo tests when they were remodding the studio, while I didn't hear any audible differences, there were some, because some of the examples didn't completely null, I know because I performed the null tests myself. Where those difference came from, or if they can be attributed solely to the cables, or burn in time or whatever, remains to be seen and as far as I was concerned, the tests were inconclusive.

If Cable B has a smaller resistance, say 0.05 Ohm, than Cable A with 0.08, then the resulting audio output would be louder with Cable B, thus the diff result would be <> 0. This could happen if you were using an extremely efficient conductor. Maybe this is what caused the difference in your test setup, aside from other possible factors that may or may not be significant.

For the same reason I just sent a Vovox "sound conductor" - which is their word for "copper wire" - back to the shop. There was a minute difference in volume, but when adjusted to the same volume as the reference cable, I could not make out any difference in the sound. At all. Call me ignorant, but I decided to go with my ears, as well as with my 8th grade physics teacher.

Best regards,
Ralf

[danlavry]

Ralf Kleemann wrote on Wed, 16 August 2006 19:11

Ronny wrote on Sat, 12 August 2006 19:47 I was a participant on some of the Astoria cable and gizmo tests when they were remodding the studio, while I didn't hear any audible differences, there were some, because some of the examples didn't completely null, I know because I performed the null tests myself. Where those difference came from, or if they can be attributed solely to the cables, or burn in time or whatever, remains to be seen and as far as I was concerned, the tests were inconclusive. If Cable B has a smaller resistance, say 0.05 Ohm, than Cable A with 0.08, then the resulting audio output would be louder with Cable B, thus the diff result would be <> 0. This could happen if you were using an extremely efficient conductor. Maybe this is what caused the difference in your test setup, aside from other possible factors that may or may not be significant. For the same reason I just sent a Vovox "sound conductor" - which is their word for "copper wire" - back to the shop. There was a minute difference in volume, but when adjusted to the same volume as the reference cable, I could not make out any difference in the sound. At all. Call me ignorant, but I decided to go with my ears, as well as with my 8th grade physics teacher. Best regards, Ralf

So we are talking about cable resistance? Another "audio industry statement" that if left un challenged, may convince someone of a wrong fact...

You are correct to say that if I remove a drop of water out of the Atlantic ocean, I can claim "in a strict sense of the word" that the ocean has changed. But I can say the ocean has not changed in a "practical sense".

Other then for some general philosophy, I can say that a change from .05 to .08 Ohms will make ZERO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE in most cases. The outcome depends on more then just cable resistance. It also depends on LOAD RESISTANCE.

As per your "numbers":
Cable A has .05 OHM
Cable B has .08 OHM

Say the load is 10KOhms then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 3 nano dB! That is 3 billionth of a dB!

Say the load is 1KOhms then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 0.3 micro dB! That is 0.3 millionth of a dB!

Say the load is 75Ohms then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 54 micro dB! That is 54 millionth of a dB!

Say the load is 8Ohms (speaker) then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 0.019dB! Can anyone hear that? even in an ABX test? Not to mention that the mechanical interconnects on both sides of the cable, plus the compensation network at the amplifier output, the speaker wire resistance itself all out weigh the 30 milli Ohm difference.

To conclude: there will be no audible volume difference due to the resistance difference between .05Ohm and .08Ohm.  

And, those that try to argue that lower resistance due to silver core is a plus for audio, should consider that it is a lot more cost effective to go to the the "next wire gauge" of copper. For example, a 18 gauge solid silver is only about 10% less resistive then 18 gauge copper. So go for a 16 gauge copper and you beat the 18 gauge silver by about 50%, at much lower cost.

Also, I do understand the reasons for silver plating, and at times gold plating, as well as stranded wire (including isolated strands) against solid wire... and so on. There is always a solid technical reason for the variations.

But I have never come up with a technical explanation for silver core (silver on the inside), certainly not for any electronics I know. I would go as far as to say that I would not put it past the sellers of "concepts" such as "silver core" to sell copper wire with zero silver content, while claiming otherwise. Not that it would make a difference in transmission of analog audio or digital audio signals...

Regards
Dan Lavry
http://www.lavryengineering.com    

[Ralf Kleemann]

Hi Dan,
My apologies if my number examples were potentially supporting false assumptions. I just measured the resistance of the Vovox cable and one of my older XLR cables with the same length. They both have 0.8 Ohm resistance. I have no intention to promote the manufacturer or any of their claims. That's why I sent the cable back in the first place... AND for putting a directionality flag on them!!

Best regards,
Ralf

[danlavry]

Ralf Kleemann wrote on Thu, 17 August 2006 10:32

Hi Dan, My apologies if my number examples were potentially supporting false assumptions. I just measured the resistance of the Vovox cable and one of my older XLR cables with the same length. They both have 0.8 Ohm resistance. I have no intention to promote the manufacturer or any of their claims. That's why I sent the cable back in the first place... AND for putting a directionality flag on them!! Best regards, Ralf

I was not saying that you are the source of the claims. There are many sources and they "get propagated" by people that believe the stories, especially when such stories are being pounded over and over.

That arrow directionality marking is a great example for how some real big audio wire companies are responsible for massive public deception. That crock caught on big times, to the point that "other cable companies" felt "a marketing need" to do the same.

It is possible that some cables with arrows are OK, and that the arrows were put after the fact, for "marketing competitive reasons". Personally, I would not bother with any cables with arrows. If they promote that crock, what else are they ready to do?

As a rule, cables for audio and digital audio, are for signals under 25MHz (analog, AES, SPDIF...). In cases where we do not use hundreds of feet length (say for 25MHz and under at 50 feet or less) cables are a lot more about the physical construction, dimensions, mechanical properties, insulation material (dielectric constant). The conductor material is not where the differences are. You want copper, and you will most likely get copper, which by itself is rather "passive material". All the claims about "conditioning" those materials, "giving them directionality", better conductivity and so on is crock.    

The data regarding conductivity of various materials, how conductivity changes with temperature, the dielectric constants of the insulation (effecting cable capacitance and impedance) are all well known for many years and can be found in engineering reference tables and literature. The calculations for impedance, time delay, attenuation due to high current and attenuation due to high frequency for various structures (coax, twisted pair, printed circuit trace over ground plane and so on, is all well studied and known for nearly 50 year. The methods and even some specialized gear to check transmission properties are well established.

The "problem" for some specialized cable makers (or sellers) is that a mass produced cable can be sold for reasonably low cost. So they must find a way to "offer more" in order to charge more. So they come up with "buzz words", and put a lot into the "look" of the cable, making it very "fancy".

I have no problem with "fancy", as long as it is understood that one is paying for "fancy". The problem begins when they start floating "stories". And they are very experienced at spreading baloney.

I am NOT suggesting that making cables is an easy thing to do. The "machinery" used to take row materials and make them into cables is seriously "heavy duty" and impressive. Production tolerances are important, especially when you go to very high frequencies.  

Regards
Dan Lavry
http://www.lavryengineering.com

[compasspnt]

Actually, this "burn in" service may be something.

After all, they do use

"some well-known scientific properties."

What's wrong with that?