Apparently, the best sounding cables have a mixture of gold and silver. Silver can sound a bit hard on it’s own. Gold sounds a bit dull on its own, the two married together give a more even balance in the correct ratios.
1 Like
Why not if those metals are used right. Silver shouldn’t really sound bright, at least harshly, if it isn’t in direct contact with a solid dielectric maybe excluding porous ones (when it comes to ICs), that’s been mentioned by many.
It’s a point to consider that speakers and components are usually standardized with copper so it’s relative, when a (let’s say silver) cable is said to be bright you could as well say it’s not the cable’s fault, the speakers are bright and then copper is dull enough to tame them.
1 Like
Maybe that huge MBL speakers need some serious break in time. After one million hours the silver cables should be a match in heaven. That is if you still have these speakers.
1 Like
Maybe the silver cables need that million hour break-in time. That’s actually oxidation time, I heard silver cables change in sound perhaps primarily due to build-up of silver oxide and apparently for the better.
…how about pure silver oxide cabling? Would be interesting.
1 Like
My experience with silver cables (I’ve been using them for about 25 years) is that if you move them, they take a whole 24 hours to get the top detailed treble back
1 Like
I will second to that. In addition, I cleaned all connectors quarterly and it takes at least one day to get rid of dullness.
Maybe I could tolerate my Zu Gede RCAs with a digital source if I wiggled them around twice a day…
(I mean, they’re truly just horrid with the DAC and take about 10 to 15 dB of tolerable playback volume away with the piercing sharpness, but they’re just great when used with the phono preamp)
About the use of silver in interconnects, I’m getting the impression that sonically it might be valued because high-quality silver has a lattice/grain structure that is beneficial to the signal. Even though high conductivity is actually not at all what we want for voltage transmission because ever more of the conductor conducts the frequency band evenly the more resistive it is (excluding the return conductor where at least in a coaxial design we want low resistance shielding)
Now then there is certainly similar quality copper available (7N cryo UP-OCC, what have you) and it would STILL sound different. Surely? Haven’t compared but surely some have!
I don’t think we can compare the objective quality of signal transmission between these materials, it would be a matter of preference but the question remains, why would same purity, same draw/cast method metals adjusted for the same geometry, sound different? (Better put, why do they?)
…or do they? Actually, do they? I have a feeling the surface oxides and grain tension differences could be involved. But eliminate the oxides and don’t bend the conductors not once after having been drawn/cast and then compare! (What a bother though)
“We developed a novel wire fabrication process that preserved the grain-free structure of single-crystal copper (SCC) grown by the Czochralski method. The resistivity of grain-free SCC showed a reduction of 9% compared to the international annealed copper standard (IACS) resistivity, with the resulting value smaller than that of silver”
Also:
" Electrical conductivity of single crystal copper has been reported to be as high as 112-114% IACS. The application of elevated temperatures and pressures can further improve single crystal copper’s conductivity to 117% IACS. 83 ii) The second mechanism is based on the contribution of graphene to conductivity"
Won’t be cheap, this copper, but significantly cheaper than Siltech’s single crystal silver surely.
For audio applications the cited reductions in resistivity wouldn’t be the matter of importance so much as how great the correlation is between grain boundaries and these resistivies - if the measurements show this much, I suspect the impact on perceived SQ would be relatively even greater (again not because of less resistance but how the signal waveform is affected by grains. Iconoclast customers report the differences between TPC, OFE, OCC and SPTPC as significant already and between these metals we don’t even have significant difference in %IACS, maybe 103% for OCC.)
If what I’m getting at isn’t clear I’ll reiterate:
People report SQ difference between copper types whose grain structure is different.
The grain structure is correlated with measured %IACS.
The copper types offered by Iconoclast are approximately the same IACS, yet still they sound different. The single crystal coppers measured in studies show 9 to 17% improvement in IACS. The difference in SQ could be yet greater than what has previously been achieved.
1 Like
I have previously noted this cynical suspicion.
But it is better to listen and make one’s determination by the sound produced in a given system.
1 Like
We already have UP OCC single crystal copper, so the attributes once you get to single crystal should be identical or…we don’t have the same structure in the copper. We can’t say it is single crystal unless it is. The advantage would be the COST, and if a single crystal type copper can be longer in length or drawn faster to lower the cost and improve yields, Economics is still a win, but not a change to what we already have now with UP OCC electrical.
If the Czochralski method is “different” exactly how is their “single” crystal not the same as UP OCC single crystal and what changes the electrical?
The second “method” involving high temps and pressure is counter to copper’s resistance, that goes up with temperature. This isn’t really a copper attribute but graphene’s and offsets the copper alloy’s (graphene infused) properties. Copper is still copper.
Best,
Galen
Well they are definitely different methods. The Czochralski method involves using a rotating seed crystal in a precision crucible.
“In addition, the casting
processes producing these polycrystalline materials cannot fabricate
some brittle materials or small diameter wires due to friction between
the mold and the cast component. These inferior properties are
brought about by grain boundary imperfections in the microstructure
[5,6]. To overcome these problems, bulk crystal growth processes
such as the Bridgeman and Czochralski are now widely used to
produce single crystals without any imperfection. Such crystals are
of superior strength, ductility, conductivity, and corrosion resistance.
However, these crystal growth processes cannot produce long crystals
continuously because of the dimensional limitation of the apparatus
[7]. Thus, the heated mold continuous casting process, called the Ohno
Continuous Casting was developed in the mid-1980s at the Chiba
Institute of Technology in Japan. The OCC process is a metal forming
process, producing ingots of directional structure with infinite length
without internal and shrinkage defects [8]. Such a continuous casting
process is cheap and conveniently produces bulk ingots.”
So apparently this Czochralski copper would be prohibitively expensive.
How it really is different from UP-OCC, that should be evaluated…
A long winded way to say you end up with ONE crystal. Same same as they say as UP OCC. Show me the beef otherwise. Most comments are PHYSICAL not electrical. So far it seems to say length (volume) is still a limitation.
Best,
Galen
I’ve got a feline! Queue Fab 4.
Yes…
Hearing it … yes.
1 Like
1 Like
I meant that I agree that yes, indeed, no practical benefit!
However, is the benefit offered by, say, Iconoclast OFE or SPTPC over TPC exactly practical? (Now it’s even questionable if they are benefits or lateral differences)
I don’t think it’s practical, despite the clear audible differences reported…
Where does the line go between practicality and nuances in hedonism?
Arenith, I can give you only my own experience. I spent over a month with all three of these speaker cables. Yes, they are different. Even my non audiophile wife could tell there were differences that could be consistently described when switching from one to the other. What defines practical benefit? Is everyone’s definition the same? Should everyone’s definition be the same? I often see talk in high end audio about what thing is best, and not so much about what thing is right for a given system. I would challenge that best, on paper, may not always necessarily be right in a given configuration. I picked the Iconoclast cable that I felt was right for my system. Isn’t that one of the facets of this hobby?
I highlighted your last quoted comment because, past a certain point, this hobby is all about hedonism! 
Let’s not try and kid ourselves. For all the audio rag talk about “bargains” in high end audio, most of this stuff (unless you’re @aangen 
) is freaking expensive! Hedonism and expensive are sometimes brothers. I’m not sure a discussion about practicality when using the words “high end audio” necessarily go together (IMO). 
6 Likes
If we are talking about making a SPECIFIC type of copper (TPC, OFHC, OFE, UP OCC) with different processes the advantages would be COST and LENGTH and those are usually tied together. As far as the end product? If you are reaching the same goal like the song says,
…There are so many paths up the mountain, but the view from the top is still the same… Little River Band
Audio is entertainment and it is a tailored distortion. I LIKE the distortion better than LIVE music and there, I said it! Yes, it has an intimate quality live does not (let along no distractions). Once we are enveloped in our honest desire for an experience and not an attempt at the duplication of live music, and argue wart for wart either way, we are free to manage the sound how we want it to be heard.
The trick is WHAT we use to add the distortions we enjoy. Should the cable be a zero? Maybe JUST the speakers add coloration, or not? What happens when it is recorded? The list goes on and on.
Best,
Galen
6 Likes