OCC Copper wire, or any other wires??

[ChuckD]

So I producer friend and a well known amp builder are trying to convince me that this OCC Copper wire "sounds" better.

I don't think it should matter with the small lengths and very narrow frequency range of audio line level signals.

What do you think???
Can someone share some experiences here?

Here's a link to explain what OCC copper is:
http://home.att.net/~chimeraone/cccaudiowireccaudiosolder.html

Thanks

-ChuckD

 

[thermionic]

[quote author="ChuckD"]
I don't think it should matter with the small lengths and very narrow frequency range of audio line level signals.
[/quote]

Neither do I in all honesty, unless you're running it near sources of interference in which case screening will be an issue.

Taken from cable oem's web page:

We have tested every type of conductor used in audio wire and cable we could find,to determine waht "sounds" the best.

Picking up on spelling usually isn't my style, but in this case I'm dubious... Cable design is an academic art, if you had the credentials to indulge in such an activity one would like to think you would've got someone to proof read the opening statement on the web-page...

Do they give specs in terms of resistance or capacitance? Or does their cable simply "sound better"?

Cryogenic freezing... mmm.... Wonder how low they go, 0deg Kelvin? So the electron flow in the cable retains superconductive performance at room temperature?

I only gave the site a brief scan, but I'm highly cynical. Can you find an oem that has a similar process with technical justification?

We use copper content solder instead of silver. In our listening evaluations, the use of silver solder adds a grain or edge to the upper midrange frequencies. Definitely not musical and very fatiguing over time.

We re-wind the CCC wire into special spools and have it cryogenically treated. This process reduces the background noise in the wire and improves low level detail and transient performance. We wind a single layer of the wire on large diameter cardboard tube. This prevents the wire's crystalline structure from damage.

I'm dazzled by science man, time for me to hit the sack.

Cheers,
Justin

 

[NewYorkDave]

Sounds like "audiophile" sucker bullshit to me! :wink:

 

[sismofyt]

Just use ordinary wire man. Music don't care. Only oudiophools do.

A couple of days ago I pissed of an entire hifi shop by offereing them a grand (oh well a danish grand, roughly 150$) if any of their shop 'experts' were willing to do a controlled AB. Sure, no no-one would, but I got all kinds of silly talk. Finally I exploded and call them all muthfukkin' liars and worse shit (I was in a rotten mood :twisted: ) and toke my friend to another dealer to shop for some hifi. :roll:

Asswipes.

 

[Scenaria]

I thought everyone kept their wire in the freezer :green:

 

[SonsOfThunder]

The "C37 Lacquer Police" will soon be along to call this one, methinks. :green:

Based on some knowledge of physics and fooling around with some of this stuff, I'm going to go on record to say that I have heard some "wire" that actually sounded like crap...high end was obviously rolled off. Don't know what the deal was, but I think I still have a set of RCA cables that I'd send to whomever would like to hear them.

But I think for internal component wiring, you aren't going to hear the diff with what these guys are selling. I don't think that specific alloys of copper are going to make any big diff. And I don't think putting anything in the freezer (even the deep freeze) is going to do anything to the wire...or the molecules.

I think for longer runs, that wire geometry will make some difference, but more along the lines of noise rejection than sound or freq response. IMHO, it don't get no better than Canare L4E-6S. Good connectors are important also, but I'm not talking about the kind you put on once and then you have to desolder the connector on the chassis to get them off. Canare, Switchcraft, Neutrik are all good. Cleaning those connections regularly is another good thing to do.

I'll shut up now! Peace!
Charlie

 

[jrmintz]

I once did a quick AB listening test of three mic cables when I was cutting some vocals - Mogami Quad, Gotham, and Monster 1000. Same mic, same preamp, same singer. It wasn't a controlled experiment, I really just wanted to quickly see if I could hear a difference and form a preference. The answer is I could hear a difference, subtle but noticeable. The singer was also an engineer and he could hear it too. The one I liked best was the Gotham and least was the Monster. It sounded a bit pinched and thinner to me. It was a small difference, hardly night and day, but it was there.

And I wasn't sniffing C37. Not yet, anyway.

:green: :guinness: :sam:

 

[soundguy]

I havent done any kind of listening tests with hookup wire. Ive done lots of listening tests with balanced cables, but most recently I was pretty blown out of the water with guitar cables. I started a record a few weeks back and on the first day, we grabbed every cable we could find in the studio and did comparisons with the signal chain we were using. The results werent in the least bit subtle. Out of a pile of cable, the end contenders were George L, Canare GS-6 (I thnk its gs-6, whatever their guitar cable is), the $20 monster cable, whatever that is and a 20 foot proco lead the guitarist had for a million years. There is nothing audiophoolery about the HUGE differences between these cables, and the George L cable was better by approximately 1 million times... This is a very noticable thing that even the most tone deaf person out there could here. The capicitance on the canare in comparison is so high that the gain on the preamp had to be adjusted and there was no pick noise... We wound up using the canare with strats and the george L's with les pauls and SG's. It was a good first step in the right direction dealing with the sound we were going for, all from a guitar lead, who would have thought.

I think there is a HUGE difference betwen the C37 and the physical cable that your signal is carried upon and to write it off as audiophoolery is doing yourself a real disservice without listening first. Not all cable is created equal. That said, I wonder how much there is to be gained by the small signals inside a preamp, you wouldnt think it would be as delicate as the signal coming from a guitar but someday I'd like to do some tests, Im sure some preamps would also show that difference in cable more than others as well.

lots of variables...

dave

 

[SonsOfThunder]

HUGE differences between these cables

Okay, I'll concede on soundguy's observation, but the difference here, I believe, is going to be due to cable capacitance which is going to be a major factor because of the impedances of the guitar and amp.

Just out of curiousity what were the cable lengths? Any big differences?

btw, GS-6 would be the correct model number for the Canare. I don't work for them, but I used to sell the stuff and I fell in love with it years ago. It just works like "Butta"

Soundguy, what were you conclusions from listening to balanced cables?

Peace!
Charlie

 

[soundguy]

yeah, I wrote the whole thing off to capacitance, the predominant differences were degrees of high end roll off, but the george L was simply 3-D sounding and noticably louder sounding. Faster too. You could do things with the GL that you just couldnt do with the canare. Like blowing on single coils, for instance...

I use canare star quad in the field mainly because it sounds good and its super super super tough and it has a braided shield so its more than excellent with RF. Compared to mogami, however, it doesnt have the depth and again speaking to capacitance, it has a noticable roll off in the high end in comparison. Redco TGS completely rules, after lots of listening I wired my whole studio with it and it just sounds excellent. I liked the canare more than the belden quad, but there wasnt TOO much of a difference, the mogami better than the canare with noticable difference but the redco tgs and the mogami sound identical to me, however physically, they handle very differently, but in a studio situation that shouldnt be much of a big deal either way. Ive also been using the green garden hose quad cable BLUE Mics has made for them, I havent done a proper A/B with it, but I find it a little less constricting sounding than the canare star quad but that could very well be my imagination. It sounds good on a vocal though, which is usually a good test for extended open top end. Im losing my taste for canare star quad in situations where I dont need the RF protection, the mogami and redco is just way bigger sounding. cables have a sound, this isnt audiophoolery, or at least you dont have to be an audiophool to realistically hear the differences that do in fact exist, its pretty in your face stuff a lot of the time.

with the guitar cables, they were all approximately 20 feet or so, similar lengths. This is another point to consider with hook up wire, inside a mic pre you've got a few feet max, if you do it right, a few inches... I would think if you had two 20 foot lenghts that were similar sounding, cut them down to a few inches and I would doubt if the same degree of difference existed...

If you like the GS-6, you owe it to yourself to try the george-L. Its super thin coax. It just might explode your head, be warned. I have been recording that guitar we used for probably 8 years or so now and until we plugged it in with the georgeL, I never heard it make any of the sounds it did, I think the great sounds I got on this job really stem from those cables, as silly as that sounds to say.

I'll take the C37 challenge, but before you shake your head, compare GS-6 and GL cables, its not a subtle difference at all and the GS-6 sounds GOOD, so...

dave

 

[sismofyt]

He. I don't really care if the audio salesmen actually can hear a dif, I just luv watching them shit their pants when I scream 'AB BLIND TEST!'... I get all sorts of silly excuses why 'that isnt' relevant'.

I hope the fukkin drown in a pool of C37 :twisted:

For the record, I have done controlled blind test and I have heard a difference between various cables. BUT it was highly dependant on what gear was used. On some gear, no matter what cable was used, there was no difference. I think if there is a difference, the cable is *bad*, or poorly constructed, or - my own pet theory - the in/out amps, is shite. Which they often are in hifi gear.

Anyway, the difference was sublte, I'd say less than different caps, and the *sound* can often be eliminated by using quality _standard_ cable/connectors and good in/out amps. But here's no consistency, I can't say cable A sounds better than cable B..

This is all line level btw. Speakercables is a whole 'nother story.. No wait! It's the same ole story :roll:

I have NEVER SEEN ANY PUBLICED CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC A/B LISTENING TEST DONE ANYWAY.. not any I could trust.

I think I'll offer a million dollars to anyone who consistently can pick a good cable from another good cable in a AB test with a 90% succes rate.

That said, I cannot live without my Isoda cable inside my tonearm (turntable, records, you know ) They're made of unobtanium, I just make my day. I kid you not.

 

[sismofyt]

I have zip experience with guitar cables, but with those high impedances, I'll bet there _is_ some sonic differencies. I'd probably just buffer my geetar if I played one :green:

 

[NewYorkDave]

I don't doubt there's a difference in guitar cables, at least due to capacitance. The output of a typical electric guitar is at a rather high impedance; so if the capacitance per foot of one cable is half that of another, you will hear a difference, particularly with long cable lengths. This also makes a big difference with wider-bandwidth signals like AES data streams; cable designed for AES has about 1/3rd the capacitance of "regular" shielded, twisted pair (typically about 11pF/foot versus 33 pF/foot). This is simple science. But the cryogenic/OFC/"directional" audiophile shit... I just don't buy it.

Interesting to note that George L's has no specs on their website. The fact that Eric Johnson endorses them is definitely a strike against them :razz:

Seriously, I'm sure they're good cables... but like all things marketed to guitarists--a superstitious crowd in general--I suspect there's a dose of hype in the mix as well.

 

[jrmintz]

Well, I did try Monster Guitar 1000 cable on bass, and I thought it sounded a little more open. That was just a quick impression though, and on an instrument with a 5k bandwidth, so who really knows? I ordered some George L cables last night when I read Soundguy's rave. I can't wait to hear what they do.

 

[Guest]

Of course there are differences in cables that affect sound.

A corroded cable will sound crappy.

A cable wound poorly will have higher capacitance.

A cabe shielded poorly will pick up more junk.

Cable connectors make huge differences. Trash connectors make trash signals.

Now these are the things off the top of my head that make a BIG difference in the signal passing through a cable. Whether or not the christiline structure is perfectly alligned and the cable has been in a deep freeze in Antarctica does NOT make a big difference. It will make SOME difference in how easily electrons flow, but it is so miniscule that it can not be an audible difference.

Good cables are certainly better than bad ones, and audibly so, but it sure as hell isn't due to advertising.

 

[thermionic]

In case my last response gave the impression I'm slightly blasé about cabling, I?d like to state that I put a high emphasis on it, it is truly important. StudioSpares in London sell a particularly nice twin-screened cable I?ve been using recently, I think it?s less than £2.00 p/metre OTOH.

If you?re going to pay more than say £2.00 p/metre on interconnect then you?d better make sure your monitoring environment is likely to illustrate the benefits, i.e you have a £200K room by Munro Associates with active triamp and climate conditioning etc. Even then I?m sceptical in a blind-test as I reckon the distortion introduced by circuitry / balancing op-amps etc will swamp a 0.04% improvement in conductivity.

Personally I find it downright immoral for the hi-fi press to endorse £X,XXX cable - if you?re not using a treated room you shouldn?t comment about anything subjectively, variation in subtle tone will be swamped by modes / flutter / phase issues etc. I think a law should be passed that you?re not allowed to subjectively review hi-fi unless you have an environment like the ctrl-room in Air Studios?

The George L cable is ?solder-less? right? I can?t figure out how a solder-less connection can yield improvement, surely the stripped copper will oxidise over time? Even OFC cable oxidises surprisingly quickly (it?s never 100% OFC, you?re just delaying the inevitable IMHO).

BTW, I would have thought excess capacitance would loose LF, not HF? Am I missing something here?

Cheers,
Justin

 

[sismofyt]

It's the capacitance between the screen and the conductor, it's not in series with the signal. That gives a HF loss.

Nearly all hifi shops, even those who sell REALLY expensive gear, have shitty rooms. :roll: But it looks nice :wink:

 

[sismofyt]

I've been involved in A/B blind tests using a custom device with super duper unobtanium relays to make it possible to switch between ten different cables. Had a remote and all.. pretty nifty. We where many people. We got a score card. The resuslt was like flippin' a coin.. :roll:

I've done similar things at home, driving my girlfriend nuts, changing cables while I'm not looking. Zip. And I do have pretty good ears.

You know, _sometimes_ I do hear a difference, but if I cannot dublicate it or be SURE it's the cable, I won't bother. Now I've done this so many times over many years, like half my life, so it's gotta stop. :green:

Good cables* with good gear doesn't have a sound.

*Good cables are NOT those speaker cables with Zobel networks or geetar cables with 10yF capacitance..

 

[soundguy]

hey justin-

The GL cables are solderless, I thought about the same thing and just figured that when the cable changes performance significantly, just cut the end off and refit it in the connector. Sure, the cable will get shoter over time, but all those leads are usually expendable anyway. IMO its pretty silly to sit and debat which is best or better, all you have to do is realize that things sound different and everything has a useful application. I always use canare star quad for overheads just because of what it does to the high end, etc. General usefulness is pretty subjective, but difference is sometimes obvious... There is a difference between mogami and hosa...

dave

 

[sismofyt]

By good cables, I mean stuff like Mogami etc, modern cables designed to have _no_ sound and _no_ problems in the audioband. Not crap shit with moulded plugs. They may not sound worse, but they'll surely break. Of course the need to be screened properly (if it's for line levels) etc, but it's not rocket science.

The only place I consistenly can hear a cable is in my tonearm as I said before. Why? I dunno. I haven't tried a gazzillion cables. It's very difficult to take them out... so I taped them to the arm :green:

As I said before I have yet to hear about ANYONE who can pick out a good cable amongst other good cables in a controlled AB test.

MAYBE there's one super genius some where on this planet, but it sure isn't one of them poor consumers who collectively bought millions billions trillions worth of snake oil during the last 30 years.