Atlas Hyper 2.0 conundrum. What would you do?

[Anonymous]

I rarely post in hi-fi fora these days precisely because of the voodoo that many people seem happy to believe in. What possible difference could there be between one brand of 99.99999% pure copper and another brand of 99.99999% pure copper? I also wonder why the wire is referred to as providing the difference when there may be up to a couple of hundred feet of unknown copper wire in the speaker, and the banana plugs and solder must, if you believe in cable voodoo, contribute to the sound as well - yet are never mentioned. Scientists are aware that copper is an element - it has unchanging, permanent characteristics.

Hi-fi is an unusual hobby in this respect. With cars, if you performance tune, you can measure the difference in performance. Luxury watches can only tell the time, by definition, whether they be Patek Phillippe or casio, but owners are paying for the looks, prestige, quality of finish, rarity etc. Hi-fi is the only science based thing I know of where people reject the science, even though all items are made according to long known scientific principles. For example, no designer would dream of designing a speaker without the use of measuring technology; but 99% of audiophiles (a name I despise BTW) have no interest in the measurements and would reject them anyway if offered as a comparison between products.

 

[Anonymous]

The fanciful notion that different "brands" of copper result in a different sound is folly, the coppers relationship with electricity is not affected by the name on the plastic coating that surrounds it, or by the price.

What is "unhelpful" is when people pretend, or delude themselves and others into believing, that this is not the case.

Unless of course you sell expensive cables, or benefit from their sale.

 

[MajorFubar]

Do your other hobbies have similarly contentious areas?

They do, but you don't seem to get the same degree of public rebutting from people who do not share your opinions, like only their opinion is the right one.

For the record (no pun intended), I'm still using cheap gold-plated interconnects I bought from Tandy's in the 80s. I'm perfectly happy with them and I have no real desire to change. But if someone on here said that in his opinion his £200+ cables made his system sound better to his ears, then I wouldn't tell him in a roundabout way that he's a buffoon with too much money, like some people are doing. How impudent!

There are people who swear blind that better cables improve the sound of their system. If they're not fooling themselves, but current physics says they are, all that tells me is we haven't yet discovered how to measure and quantify the difference. You cannot change the laws of physics, but we're still discovering what those laws are.

 

[CnoEvil]

I do not have an engineering background, but will try to answer this question that keeps being thrown at me.

Let's start with the basic, uncontroversial assumption that the best cables loose the least information, and pass on the signal as accurately and uncorrupted as possible. It then follows that anything that is done to minimize this loss will lead to improvements across the frequency range. IMO. The areas that can effect this are things like:
- Quality, thickness, material and costruction of the conductor
- Type of dielectric used.
- Material the plugs are made of, and how they are attached.

IMO Atlas is one of a handful of companys that design their cables from the ground up. The Hyper 2 use a Teflon dielectric which gives improved signal velocity and improved high signal delivery. The conductor is a multistrand 6N OFC copper with a 2mm sq cross section which gives improved bass. The plugs are composed of 80% copper with "beryllium copper" used on the contact area, and are cold welded to avoid the problems with welding and improve connection.

A good cable manufacturer has to balance resistance, capacitance, inductance, conductance, velocity of propagation, RF radiation and absorbtion, mechanical resonance, strand interaction, high filtering, reflections, electical resonance, dissipation factors, envelope delay, phase distortion, harmonic distortion, structural return loss, corrosion, cross-talk, bridge-tap and the interaction of these etc etc. (Cardas Audio)

With regard to cable resonance, there are easily performed measurements that show the difference between cables. If you are interested have a look under "insights" on the Cardas website. I suspect your minds are already made up, so whether you put the whole thing down to Snake Oil, is down to you.

Pesonally I think it is wrong to label a good percentage of the forum as foolish and gullable. In my own case I must suffer "selective delusionism" as I get don't always get consistant improvements, as it seems to be make, product and equipment dependant.

I have neither the energy nor the inclination to argue further, and support the right of everybody to try for themselves without being labelled as a plutocratic nincompoop! 🙂

Cno

 

[dannycanham]

Number 1 of the 10 biggest lies in audio:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

I do not have an engineering background,

With respect this may explain your sympathy for cable voodoo.

Let's start with the basic, uncontroversial assumption that the best cables loose the least information, and pass on the signal as accurately and uncorrupted as possible.

False. No information is lost. Zero. Zilch. Whatever resistance, inductance and capacitance the cable has it is a linear network and can only do the following:

1) Vary damping factor (and effective feedback of speaker voltage) via resistance

2) Upset transistor amps via capacitance

3) Make transistor amps happier via inductance.

Less bass or more bass is NOT information loss, it's simply more or less amplitude of bass.

The areas that can effect this are things like: - Quality, thickness, material and costruction of the conductor - Type of dielectric used. - Material the plugs are made of, and how they are attached.

The laws of physics still apply, quality is a subjective term that has no meaning, the electrons don't know what type of plugs are fitted, or what the marketing hype says.

IMO Atlas is one of a handful of companys that design their cables from the ground up. The Hyper 2 use a Teflon dielectric which gives improved signal velocity and improved high signal delivery. The conductor is a multistrand 6N OFC copper with a 2mm sq cross section which gives improved bass. The plugs are composed of 80% copper with "beryllium copper" used on the contact area, and are cold welded to avoid the problems with welding and improve connection. A good cable manufacturer has to balance resistance, capacitance, inductance, conductance, velocity of propagation, RF radiation and absorbtion, mechanical resonance, strand interaction, high filtering, reflections, electical resonance, dissipation factors, envelope delay, phase distortion, harmonic distortion, structural return loss, corrosion, cross-talk, bridge-tap and the interaction of these etc etc. (Cardas Audio) With regard to cable resonance, there are easily performed measurements that show the difference between cables.

I'm sorry but this paragraph is 100% marketing drivel. The 2mm area improves bass? RUBBISH. More resistance gives more, looser bass, less resistance gives less bass but better damped. Which is the 'improved' version? Who can say - it depends upon the system - but it can't be both. Also I can buy 2.5mm copper in 50m rolls from Wickes - so why should I limit myself to 2mm from someone who comes up with pseudo-science of that grade?

As for Beryllium Copper, total and completely laughable rubbish. Harmonic distortion?? From a cable?? A cable is a linear network, it cannot possibly affect harmonic distortion, which can ONLY be caused by a non-linear system.

It seems the more one digs into cables, the phonier they become! And what on earth is 'bridge-tap'? Some kind of tap-dance performed on bridges? Really.

Knock yourself out 😉: http://www.wickes.co.uk/25mm2-twin-and-earth-cable-6242yh/invt/156253/

 

[Dan Turner]

Thanks CnoEvil for saying much of what I was itching to, but with far more eloquence and in far more informed terms than I surely would.

I find it ironic and ludicrous when people are willing to dismiss a persons observations as being impossible (and imply that person to be an idiot) and point to scientific understanding as evidence. Do these people know how science works? Just in case they dont: scientists take observations that they don't understand and go about trying to understand them, building upon or revising curent understanding along the way. They don't dismiss them. If you're the sort of person who does then you have no right to bandy 'science' around as if it backs up what you're saying because it doesn't.

Anyway as has already been said, none of this helps the OP (who is being very wise and staying out of this). As someone who has direct experience I feel certain that he'll be able to hear a difference between the QED and the Atlas cables. I could. It was obvious and I'm sure that anyone who tried it would be able to readily hear the difference. I'm afraid I can't explain the reason why, unfortunately I don't have the budget to conduct cutting edge physics research, and I suspect neither does anyone else, so we're probably all destined to argue and wind each other up until the thread gets locked. How sad.

Sorry to the OP for my part in that, but I just couldn't help myself.

Edit - I must just add anyway, we're not talking about spending stupid amounts of money here, the cables in question cost £15 p.m. Surely for a (relatively) small company to have them made to their own technical and cosmetic specification that's not so ridiculous of a cost to the consumer is it?

 

[Anonymous]

One more post like this and I'm going to have to assume you have masochistic tendencies, cno 🙂

Let's start with the basic, uncontroversial assumption that the best cables loose the least information, and pass on the signal as accurately and uncorrupted as possible

Sadly, even that is controversial. In some other thread it was posited that Naim used to recommend a slightly inductive (i.e. deliberately non-perfect) wire for their speakers.

The Hyper 2 use a Teflon dielectric which gives ...

...is claimed to give...

Oh, and just for the record: I'm not labeling anyone, everyone is entitled to their own "opinion". But I do take issue when people start reproducing other people's opinion (you can believe all I want, I don't care) without so much as a single question mark, or worse, get offended when the (acquired) opinion does not appear entirely waterproof. Below is my "opinion" of your Cardas quote:

resistance, capacitance, inductance: yes, see globs' 1,2,3

conductance: inverse of resistance. See globs' 1

velocity of propagation: light speed or close to it (95%). At typical lengths (let's be generous and say 30ft), the signal spends 33ns in the wire. For the difference to be audible to a human, the velocity difference must the closer to 50us (20 kHz hearing limit), in other words: you will not hear it unless you build a cable that transmits electricity a thousand times slower than pure copper does (and actually use pure copper for the other speaker).

RF radiation and absorbtion: see globs' 4

mechanical resonance: do they mean the Lorentz effect? i.e. if you move the cable, you incite a current due to the earth's magnetic field? Or do they mean the actual Tacoma Narrows kind of effect where you can shatter a wire by moving it to and fro at its eigenfrequency? Who moves a cable once it's installed? For playing jump rope?

strand interaction: see globs' 2,3. Also note that strands are only really "strands" if they are mutually isolated (i.e. individually insulated) -- and most audio wire I've come across is braided but not insulated.

high filtering: also known as low-pass filter, determined by the capacitance between + and -. See globs' 3

reflections: occur at surface boundaries, i.e. when you use different material on the wire, plugs and speaker terminals. If this were an actual problem, then gold-plated terminals would sound worse than copper terminals (assuming copper wire), and silver wire would only sound good with silver terminals.

electical resonance: see reflections. Note that resonant frequencies are determined by wire length and propagation speed. Even if this were actually a problem, you could simply fix it by shortening your wire by a few millimeters

dissipation factors: see globs' 1

envelope delay: I'm not sure what to think of this. Envelope delay is a term from signal theory and deals with non-perfect carrier signals in modulation. The sound on an audio cable is not modulated for all I know, or speakers would need built-in FM or AM tuners. Either that or the author plays electric guitar...

phase distortion, harmonic distortion: see globs' 2,3

structural return loss, corrosion: ok, fair, structural losses were not mentioned yet. I'd be interested how they design their cable to age gracefully. Do they have a botox program for their products?

cross-talk: see globs' 3

bridge-tap: this is funny. Ask Wikpedia why.

 

[dannycanham]

Excellent bit of reading in this one around pages 30 & 50, damn scientists at it again: Or rather not, due to House Rules - MODS

 

[MajorFubar]

DQ to Globs: why is it you always think you and only you are ever right and no one else ever is? In that respect you are the biggest flat-earther of all because you don't seem to be able to accept that there may be reasons above and beyond your beliefs and your scientific explanations for why things are as they are.

Put away your multimeter and your sonic screwdriver, and use your ears. If by using your ears you still feel there are no differences between some 50p per meter twin-n-earth and something the same price as a used family car, that's totally fine. They're your opinions, and you're entitled to them. But stop keep putting them across as indisputable facts and painting everyone who disagrees with you as blithering misguided idiots.

There's a billion and one things science can not yet explain. How come you think you know it all?

And I still think if you cannot add anything constructive to the O/P's question other than your usual diatribe of derision, then perhaps you'd kindly do the O/P a favour and not bother posting.

 

[MajorFubar]

^^^WHS

Over and out.

 

[Anonymous]

or worse, ...

That should not read as a snipe, I apologize that it does. It was not directed at anyone in particular

 

[CnoEvil]

For further clarification take it up with George Cardas or John Carrick who are better able than I to answer your derision. Then it would be more of a fair fight....or even take your OPINIONS up with the magazine, who also hear a difference (and host this forum that you seem to support).

Good luck and Goodnight

Cno

 

[Anonymous]

DQ to Globs: why is it you always think you and only you are ever right and no one else ever is? In that respect you are the biggest flat-earther of all because you don't seem to be able to accept that there may be reasons above and beyond your beliefs and your scientific explanations for why things are as they are.

While some aspects of the universe are still a mystery, cables are not. The laws governing cables, antenna and electronic devices hold fast, to such an extent that we have the integrated chip with millions of gates working at RF frequencies everyday, all the way to power distribution grids using transmission line theory etc.

I'm sure the P.T Barnums of this world love to invent all sorts of imaginary stuff to sell over-priced tat at rip-off prices to gullible punters, but I cannot condone the wholesale deceit, and am disappointed about these people bringing the hi-fi industry into disrepute.

Put away your multimeter and your sonic screwdriver, and use your ears. If by using your ears you still feel there are no differences between some 50p per meter twin-n-earth and something the same price as a used family car, that's totally fine. They're your opinions

No, they are not my opinions, they are scientific fact and principles fought for and proven over the past few hundred years. Sweeping aside these honest discoverers of our universe isn't helping your case TBH.

Additionally there's the actual cable. What you may not have thought about is that the capacitance, inductance and resistance of cable is on a PER METER basis. For instance take your favourite shiny cable you just shelled out thousands for because the reviews said it was great. Now compare a 1m length and a 3m length.

That's right - the 3 meter length has 3x the capacitance, 3x the resistance and 3x the inductance. So this 'cable sound' has now changed it's properties by a factor of three just as you unwound it from the reel at the shop. So much for the magic cable: it totally depends upon the length, so you are _already_ working with the laws of nature.

If cable vendors had any honesty they would list the resistance, capacitance and inductance per meter so we'd know what we were getting. Then the reviewer should list those attributes for the whole cable they test. Telling us 'it had great bass' is totally meaningless unless we also know a) The amplifier, b) the speakers and c) the total cable resistance.

Hi-fi has strayed too long from the sound scientific principles that have pushed every other industry forward, we ignore reality at our peril.

 

[Dan Turner]

So Globs, just to clarify, are you saying that it is a scientific fact that all cables sound the same?

 

[dannycanham]

DQ to Globs: why is it you always think you and only you are ever right and no one else ever is? In that respect you are the biggest flat-earther of all because you don't seem to be able to accept that there may be reasons above and beyond your beliefs and your scientific explanations for why things are as they are.

Put away your multimeter and your sonic screwdriver, and use your ears. If by using your ears you still feel there are no differences between some 50p per meter twin-n-earth and something the same price as a used family car, that's totally fine. They're your opinions, and you're entitled to them. But stop keep putting them across as indisputable facts and painting everyone who disagrees with you as blithering misguided idiots.

There's a billion and one things science can not yet explain. How come you think you know it all?

And I still think if you cannot add anything constructive to the O/P's question other than your usual diatribe of derision, then perhaps you'd kindly do the O/P a favour and not bother posting.

That is very 2+2=5 thinking.

YOU are the person NOT using your ears.

Proven time and time again when all other mitigating factors are taken out, so that you are truly listening using your ears. The people who think there are differences beforehand find that the differences they find don't correlate with cables being swapped.

That isn't just an opinion it is reality. Try living there sometime.

As for the other one commenting on the magazine hearing a difference. They couldn't back it up if their lives depended on it.

 

[MajorFubar]

YOU are the person NOT using your ears.

Probably not, seeing that I've never tried exotic cables. I said as such. But I'm just not so closed-minded as you.

The scientific philosophies behind it do not really matter. If different cables really do affect the sound (I'm open-minded, as I said), the fact that physics can't explain why isn’t “sweeping aside honest discoveries” or ignoring very obvious factors such as capacitance, resistance and inductance. All it means is we've not yet figured out how to measure and quantify the difference.

You can’t change the laws of physics, which I fully agreed before, but we certainly don’t know all the laws yet. Probably not even with regards to cables and electricity. We obviously know enough to get by, considering what we’ve achieved, but I bet we certainly don’t know it all. For example we’re only now seriously looking at what magnetism is and why it exists, though we’ve known what it does, how to make it and how to harness it for centuries.

Mankind always seems to think he’s got everything sussed and knows how everything works until something comes along which breaks the “law” he thought existed, and it throws him back to his drawing board. He’s been like that (at least) since someone proposed that the Earth was a round body which orbited the sun, which at the time was at odds with accepted thinking. Or when Darwin proposed that Humans evolved from apes, which at the time was sacrilegious. Even in the last century, for decades scientists thought there was nothing smaller than protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom.

Never stop questioning, and never think “what a load of claptrap because science can’t explain that”.

 

[Anonymous]

Forgetting about science for a minute, what about blind tests? countless self confessed audiophiles with golden ears have failed them, i wonder why...

 

[Craig M.]

Forgetting about science for a minute, what about blind tests? countless self confessed audiophiles with golden ears have failed them, i wonder why...

well said.

globs and tremon, although not to everyones taste, thanks for the knowledgeable and informative posts. it's very nice to see posts on this forum that acknowledge facts.

 

[CnoEvil]

In regione caecorum rex est luscus (Desiderius Erasmus). 🙂

 

[CnoEvil]

Forgetting about science for a minute, what about blind tests? countless self confessed audiophiles with golden ears have failed them, i wonder why...

Two audiophiles walked into a Chemist....they were going to the pub but were double blind. :rofl:

 

[Anonymous]

Forgetting about science for a minute, what about blind tests? countless self confessed audiophiles with golden ears have failed them, i wonder why...

Two audiophiles walked into a Chemist....they were going to the pub but were double blind. :rofl:

🙂

 

[MajorFubar]

...forgot to comment on:

That isn't just an opinion it is reality. Try living there sometime.

My reality accepts that there *might* be something in it. So thanks for the invitation to your reality, but I'm happy with mine which allows me to remain open minded and make my own judgements.

 

[Anonymous]

So Globs, just to clarify, are you saying that it is a scientific fact that all cables sound the same?

No.

I'm saying that (assuming RFI is damped with a ferrite or is not an issue) two cables with the same total capacitance, inductance and resistance as each other will sound exactly the same. Exactly the same.

Additionally in the general case of adequate conductance with a most amps most cables will sound exactly the same. Capacitance is usually irrelevant in speaker cables, inductance is pretty small, so most of the difference will come from resistance. Or as us scientists describe cables: How thick and how long it is.

I'm not surprised people swear there is a difference, in blind testing of the exact same item about one third will claim it's better or worse than the same thing was just before. As in my example however, it doesn't mean there is, it just means their wallets are open to the latest disreputable salesman.

What a lot of people don't realise is many of the people 'designing' and selling these expensive cables have no technical training or knowledge at all, and are just selling the marketing. P.T. Barnum all over again. They then give you the warm fuzzy subjective comfort of ignorance on which pretext to relieve you of your money, preferably large chunks of it that you should be spending on Speakers, Room treatments or Music.

 

[MajorFubar]

So four pages on, your answer to the o/p's question is what exactly?