Chord clearway or Tellurium Q Blue?

[andyjm]

On the subject of the OP and his cables, just worth pointing out that there isn't a single post in this thread that makes any reference to the technical specification of the cables - which is the only thing that might make a difference.

You can draw your own conclusions from this.

What should the OP conclude from this? That some people like to actually listen to hifi before making recommendations, whereas other people like to read about how it might work before dismissing it and then slagging it off?

Gazzip,

It would be tedious if the way you built bridges was to keep building different designs until you found one that didn't fall down. It would be much better if you could model the performance of the bridge mathematically, and then only build bridges that were robust.

The same is true of electronics. Think how long it would take to design even a simple device if you just tried components at random until it worked. The way to do it is to use maths, circuit models and the parameters of the components.

Cables are no different, in spite of what marketing departments will tell you. Given the basic parameters of a cable it is possible to predict very accurately how it will perform in a given circuit.

In an "amp -> speaker cable -> speaker" circuit, about the only parameter that matters is resistance, and hence cable size. Given the two cables proposed by the OP, the thicker one will introduce least colouration to the sound.

 

[lindsayt]

Colin Wonfor was (AFAIK) the designer of Tellurium Q Blue.

He is someone for whom I have a lot of respect, amongst online hi-fi forum contribitors.

On that basis my advice is: if you're buying 2nd hand, buy whatever you fancy.

If you're buying new please do a bit of Google research on "Colin Wonfor Tellurium Q" first.

Edit: typo corrected.

 

[Gazzip]

On the subject of the OP and his cables, just worth pointing out that there isn't a single post in this thread that makes any reference to the technical specification of the cables - which is the only thing that might make a difference.

You can draw your own conclusions from this.

What should the OP conclude from this? That some people like to actually listen to hifi before making recommendations, whereas other people like to read about how it might work before dismissing it and then slagging it off?

Gazzip,

It would be tedious if the way you built bridges was to keep building different designs until you found one that didn't fall down. It would be much better if you could model the performance of the bridge mathematically, and then only build bridges that were robust.

The same is true of electronics. Think how long it would take to design even a simple device if you just tried components at random until it worked. The way to do it is to use maths, circuit models and the parameters of the components.

Cables are no different, in spite of what marketing departments will tell you. Given the basic parameters of a cable it is possible to predict very accurately how it will perform in a given circuit.

In an "amp -> speaker cable -> speaker" circuit, about the only parameter that matters is resistance, and hence cable size. Given the two cables proposed by the OP, the thicker one will introduce least colouration to the sound.

I completely agree. However the first man made bridges involved no mathematics whatsoever. The maths came later and allowed us to understand and then refine bridge design. The original concept was very much suck it and see, and without those pioneers we would perhaps have no bridges at all.

 

[Gaz37]

Bridges either work or don't, I'm no structural engineer but I doubt a bridge can be designed to feel nicer to cross than another bridge. (Unless it wobbles I suppose)
I doubt that bridge reviews print unsubstantiated crap about them either

 

[shadders]

On the subject of the OP and his cables, just worth pointing out that there isn't a single post in this thread that makes any reference to the technical specification of the cables - which is the only thing that might make a difference.

You can draw your own conclusions from this.

What should the OP conclude from this? That some people like to actually listen to hifi before making recommendations, whereas other people like to read about how it might work before dismissing it and then slagging it off?

Gazzip,

It would be tedious if the way you built bridges was to keep building different designs until you found one that didn't fall down. It would be much better if you could model the performance of the bridge mathematically, and then only build bridges that were robust.

The same is true of electronics. Think how long it would take to design even a simple device if you just tried components at random until it worked. The way to do it is to use maths, circuit models and the parameters of the components.

Cables are no different, in spite of what marketing departments will tell you. Given the basic parameters of a cable it is possible to predict very accurately how it will perform in a given circuit.

In an "amp -> speaker cable -> speaker" circuit, about the only parameter that matters is resistance, and hence cable size. Given the two cables proposed by the OP, the thicker one will introduce least colouration to the sound.

I completely agree. However the first man made bridges involved no mathematics whatsoever. The maths came later and allowed us to understand and then refine bridge design. The original concept was very much suck it and see, and without those pioneers we would perhaps have no bridges at all.

Hi,

@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }

I agree that the use of wires for conduction was implemented before the maths – but the maths followed very closely.

So what can we do with a piece of wire ?

It can conduct electricity as all frequencies providing DC to MHz for cables – think telephone line carrying voice and broadband signals with 80Mbits/s download speed being common. Skin effect is known, as are the transmission line parameters L, R, C and G.

Wires are also used in integrated circuits which carry GHz signals. Wires are used as an aerial to transmit radio frequencies.

Wires are used to create a magnetic field, which can be used for electromotive forces, or be part of an electromagnetic circuit.

The physical and electrical aspects of metals and wires is very well known for scientists and engineers to create devices, which are synthesised, simulated, and analysed.

The classical physics and quantum effects of metals and wires are known.

So, scientists and engineers know all effects that are relevant to electrical and magnetic devices.

For someone to state that science does not have all the answers, without providing the thought process or theory on what science is missing, is basically disbelieving science. Which is ok – they can believe what they want, but claiming they can hear differences where all relevant science on cables in thoroughly understood and states that they cannot, is akin to believing in magic.

No person can hear the difference in a signal due to a single electron difference, so any claim that they can hear quantum effects would not be valid.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[lpv]

suspended bridge

suspended cable

 

[andyjm]

Colin Wonfor was (AFAIK) the designer of Tellurium Q Blue.

Cofounder and Technical director.

Not long ago I was looking into his SECA 15W Class A kit he posted on Audio Haven.

There seems to have been a falling-out between Colin and Tellurium. He doesn't appear on their website, and he seems to have been written out of the 'founding of Tellurium' story except for an oblique reference to a technical expert.

 

[andyjm]

Bridges either work or don't, I'm no structural engineer but I doubt a bridge can be designed to feel nicer to cross than another bridge. (Unless it wobbles I suppose) I doubt that bridge reviews print unsubstantiated crap about them either

Completely off topic, but up until the last few hundred years, churches and the occasional castle or palace were the main civil engineering projects of the day. Apparently churches fell down with surprising regularity as the tall spires and large unsupported spaces tested the skills of the designers. Without a proper understanding of the forces involved, it was luck that a church held together.

It was seen as an act of god if the church collapsed, particularly if it collapsed on the parishioners - in which case it was taken as a sign that the congregation were not sufficiently pious.

Tough times.

 

[davedotco]

On the subject of the OP and his cables, just worth pointing out that there isn't a single post in this thread that makes any reference to the technical specification of the cables - which is the only thing that might make a difference.

You can draw your own conclusions from this.

What should the OP conclude from this? That some people like to actually listen to hifi before making recommendations, whereas other people like to read about how it might work before dismissing it and then slagging it off?

Gazzip,

It would be tedious if the way you built bridges was to keep building different designs until you found one that didn't fall down. It would be much better if you could model the performance of the bridge mathematically, and then only build bridges that were robust.

The same is true of electronics. Think how long it would take to design even a simple device if you just tried components at random until it worked. The way to do it is to use maths, circuit models and the parameters of the components.

Cables are no different, in spite of what marketing departments will tell you. Given the basic parameters of a cable it is possible to predict very accurately how it will perform in a given circuit.

In an "amp -> speaker cable -> speaker" circuit, about the only parameter that matters is resistance, and hence cable size. Given the two cables proposed by the OP, the thicker one will introduce least colouration to the sound.

I completely agree. However the first man made bridges involved no mathematics whatsoever. The maths came later and allowed us to understand and then refine bridge design. The original concept was very much suck it and see, and without those pioneers we would perhaps have no bridges at all.

Hi,
@page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
I agree that the use of wires for conduction was implemented before the maths – but the maths followed very closely.

So what can we do with a piece of wire ?

It can conduct electricity as all frequencies providing DC to MHz for cables – think telephone line carrying voice and broadband signals with 80Mbits/s download speed being common. Skin effect is known, as are the transmission line parameters L, R, C and G.

Wires are also used in integrated circuits which carry GHz signals. Wires are used as an aerial to transmit radio frequencies.

Wires are used to create a magnetic field, which can be used for electromotive forces, or be part of an electromagnetic circuit.

The physical and electrical aspects of metals and wires is very well known for scientists and engineers to create devices, which are synthesised, simulated, and analysed.

The classical physics and quantum effects of metals and wires are known.

So, scientists and engineers know all effects that are relevant to electrical and magnetic devices.

For someone to state that science does not have all the answers, without providing the thought process or theory on what science is missing, is basically disbelieving science. Which is ok – they can believe what they want, but claiming they can hear differences where all relevant science on cables in thoroughly understood and states that they cannot, is akin to believing in magic.

No person can hear the difference in a signal due to a single electron difference, so any claim that they can hear quantum effects would not be valid.

Regards,

Shadders.

A hi-fi system is just like a quantum event.

The 'event' happens and sound is produced. Just as in Quantum physics it requires the presence of an observer to define the event, ie whether the results sound like music or not.

We even have our own "Schrodinger's Cable" conundrum, two identically specified but different cables will behave in exactly the same way until we introduce an observer (listener). At this point the observer will decide on which, if either, of the cables are better, prior to this point in time all 'results' are posible, even the one that says that both cables sound the same.

(I know I am mixing my sciences here, but I find the parallels amusing.)

 

[seemorebtts]

I recently bought some QED Reference of some sort speaker cables at a good price on the bay. The difference was marked. Compared with my usual stallwarts it was mid forward with both treble and bass roll-off.

It looked good, was as new and was 'factory terminated' with those nice QED metal or whathaveyou Airtight plugs. - I wanted to like it ... it didnt happen. A good cable for the right system but not mine.

I sold it on shortly thereafter and got my money back.

If you buy wisely s/h you should be able to compare cables to your hearts content and not loose money.

You might loose your mind in the process ... .

Just an example 

spot on.this is how i go through cables.what are you using at the moment

 

[Vladimir]

On the subject of the OP and his cables, just worth pointing out that there isn't a single post in this thread that makes any reference to the technical specification of the cables - which is the only thing that might make a difference.

You can draw your own conclusions from this.

What should the OP conclude from this? That some people like to actually listen to hifi before making recommendations, whereas other people like to read about how it might work before dismissing it and then slagging it off?

Gazzip,

It would be tedious if the way you built bridges was to keep building different designs until you found one that didn't fall down. It would be much better if you could model the performance of the bridge mathematically, and then only build bridges that were robust.

The same is true of electronics. Think how long it would take to design even a simple device if you just tried components at random until it worked. The way to do it is to use maths, circuit models and the parameters of the components.

Cables are no different, in spite of what marketing departments will tell you. Given the basic parameters of a cable it is possible to predict very accurately how it will perform in a given circuit.

In an "amp -> speaker cable -> speaker" circuit, about the only parameter that matters is resistance, and hence cable size. Given the two cables proposed by the OP, the thicker one will introduce least colouration to the sound.

I completely agree. However the first man made bridges involved no mathematics whatsoever. The maths came later and allowed us to understand and then refine bridge design. The original concept was very much suck it and see, and without those pioneers we would perhaps have no bridges at all.

Hi,

@page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }

I agree that the use of wires for conduction was implemented before the maths – but the maths followed very closely.

So what can we do with a piece of wire ?

It can conduct electricity as all frequencies providing DC to MHz for cables – think telephone line carrying voice and broadband signals with 80Mbits/s download speed being common. Skin effect is known, as are the transmission line parameters L, R, C and G.

Wires are also used in integrated circuits which carry GHz signals. Wires are used as an aerial to transmit radio frequencies.

Wires are used to create a magnetic field, which can be used for electromotive forces, or be part of an electromagnetic circuit.

The physical and electrical aspects of metals and wires is very well known for scientists and engineers to create devices, which are synthesised, simulated, and analysed.

The classical physics and quantum effects of metals and wires are known.

So, scientists and engineers know all effects that are relevant to electrical and magnetic devices.

For someone to state that science does not have all the answers, without providing the thought process or theory on what science is missing, is basically disbelieving science. Which is ok – they can believe what they want, but claiming they can hear differences where all relevant science on cables in thoroughly understood and states that they cannot, is akin to believing in magic.

No person can hear the difference in a signal due to a single electron difference, so any claim that they can hear quantum effects would not be valid.

Regards,

Shadders.

A hi-fi system is just like a quantum event.

The 'event' happens and sound is produced. Just as in Quantum physics it requires the presence of an observer to define the event, ie whether the results sound like music or not.

We even have our own "Schrodinger's Cable" conundrum, two identically specified but different cables will behave in exactly the same way until we introduce an observer (listener). At this point the observer will decide on which, if either, of the cables are better, prior to this point in time all 'results' are posible, even the one that says that both cables sound the same.

(I know I am mixing my sciences here, but I find the parallels amusing.)

And true audiophile can hear endless improvements by infinitely 'upgrading' passive components. Reminds me of the Mandelbrot set.

 

[lpv]

Completely off topic, but up until the last few hundred years, churches and the occasional castle or palace were the main civil engineering projects of the day. Apparently churches fell down with surprising regularity as the tall spires and large unsupported spaces tested the skills of the designers. Without a proper understanding of the forces involved, it was luck that a church held together.

It was seen as an act of god if the church collapsed, particularly if it collapsed on the parishioners - in which case it was taken as a sign that the congregation were not sufficiently pious.

Tough times.

 

[Gazzip]

Completely off topic, but up until the last few hundred years, churches and the occasional castle or palace were the main civil engineering projects of the day. Apparently churches fell down with surprising regularity as the tall spires and large unsupported spaces tested the skills of the designers. Without a proper understanding of the forces involved, it was luck that a church held together.

It was seen as an act of god if the church collapsed, particularly if it collapsed on the parishioners - in which case it was taken as a sign that the congregation were not sufficiently pious.

Tough times.

...and it still happens to this day! Although this was dodgy working practices rather than dodgy engineering.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/08/content_8394761.htm

 

[Vladimir]

Completely off topic, but up until the last few hundred years, churches and the occasional castle or palace were the main civil engineering projects of the day. Apparently churches fell down with surprising regularity as the tall spires and large unsupported spaces tested the skills of the designers. Without a proper understanding of the forces involved, it was luck that a church held together.

It was seen as an act of god if the church collapsed, particularly if it collapsed on the parishioners - in which case it was taken as a sign that the congregation were not sufficiently pious.

Tough times.

...and it still happens to this day! Although this was dodgy working practices rather than dodgy engineering.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/08/content_8394761.htm

Obviously photoshop manipulation. Is that Chinese version of The Onion?

 

[Gazzip]

Completely off topic, but up until the last few hundred years, churches and the occasional castle or palace were the main civil engineering projects of the day. Apparently churches fell down with surprising regularity as the tall spires and large unsupported spaces tested the skills of the designers. Without a proper understanding of the forces involved, it was luck that a church held together.

It was seen as an act of god if the church collapsed, particularly if it collapsed on the parishioners - in which case it was taken as a sign that the congregation were not sufficiently pious.

Tough times.

...and it still happens to this day! Although this was dodgy working practices rather than dodgy engineering.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/08/content_8394761.htm

Obviously photoshop manipulation. Is that Chinese version of The Onion?

No Photoshop. Really happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8123559.stm

 

[Vladimir]

Completely off topic, but up until the last few hundred years, churches and the occasional castle or palace were the main civil engineering projects of the day. Apparently churches fell down with surprising regularity as the tall spires and large unsupported spaces tested the skills of the designers. Without a proper understanding of the forces involved, it was luck that a church held together.

It was seen as an act of god if the church collapsed, particularly if it collapsed on the parishioners - in which case it was taken as a sign that the congregation were not sufficiently pious.

Tough times.

...and it still happens to this day! Although this was dodgy working practices rather than dodgy engineering.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/08/content_8394761.htm

Obviously photoshop manipulation. Is that Chinese version of The Onion?

No Photoshop. Really happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8123559.stm

WOW! That is simply amazing sight. *shok*

 

[peterpan]

Van den hul CS 122 are the cheapest but must be a bad cable. Then Tellurium q Bluetooth who becomes mixed reviews. The Chord are the most expensive but found in the past Chord cables always a little harsh.

 

[nopiano]

Van den hul CS 122 are the cheapest but must be a bad cable. Then Tellurium q Bluetooth who becomes mixed reviews. The Chord are the most expensive but found in the past Chord cables always a little harsh.

Glad you've not lost the will to live after ploughing through your thread! Mr. Van den hul was one of the first to promote higher quality audio cables I believe. He also was great at designing stylus profiles.

An interesting piece here:- http://www.stereo.net.au/news/the-far-side-of-aj-van-den-hul