Cerious Graphene Extreme ICs..
- Thread starter es347
- Start date
Just commenting, I know its hard to argue against a belief based system... I also know that anyone who opposes such view will be attacked and ripped to bit verbally by the believers, but my view is as valid as any others.
Questioning something is not pissing rudely on it, as you so succinctly put, maybe looking into the facts behind these esoteric cables would be better, than just accepting the claims made regarding many audiophile cables.
Someinteresting facts on graphene....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene
https://www.quora.com/Is-graphene-g...h-technology-application-will-it-happen-first
There you have wot, there is a wealth of information out there regarding signal transmission from DC to RF and everything in between, sorry if I don't subscribe to the claims made regarding many audio cables... could you detect different cables in a proper run double blind test?
es347 well if it wasn't my apologies I thought you posted it on April 1st and if not then I am confused. You started this thread and on the first page were super enthusiastic about the cables and how great a value they are and the various cables they bested or equaled in your system. Now as the thread has progressed you post a one line offering, "I replaced all my cerious cables with monster cables" without offering any further info. Such as why? And which Monster Cables specifically? Sorry it just seemed like you might have meant it in jest considering your early comments.
Marce,
Here's where the breakdown IMO occurs. Both sides are a belief based system. The extremes of either side believe either a) that physics and measurements that we currently have can explain all about cables and other audible differences, or b) that just about everything makes a difference and can be heard.
Somewhere in the middle of both are most of us that just shake our heads when these arguments come up. Just as with born-agains the recently converted to either side tend to do the most proselytizing.
Myself, I've been in the room when most people thought they heard a major difference and I heard no real change. I didn't take the opportunity for ridicule, I just stated that I didn't hear much difference. I have also heard things that I would have sworn before couldn't make a difference, change the sound. Not all have been for the better but something was changed and I have no explanation, scientifically for it.
When these types of discussion get on the web it's usually black and white but over my time in audio I have noticed the vast majority of us get along no matter what our beliefs.
Neither side need saving!
Here's where the breakdown IMO occurs. Both sides are a belief based system. The extremes of either side believe either a) that physics and measurements that we currently have can explain all about cables and other audible differences, or b) that just about everything makes a difference and can be heard.
Somewhere in the middle of both are most of us that just shake our heads when these arguments come up. Just as with born-agains the recently converted to either side tend to do the most proselytizing.
Myself, I've been in the room when most people thought they heard a major difference and I heard no real change. I didn't take the opportunity for ridicule, I just stated that I didn't hear much difference. I have also heard things that I would have sworn before couldn't make a difference, change the sound. Not all have been for the better but something was changed and I have no explanation, scientifically for it.
When these types of discussion get on the web it's usually black and white but over my time in audio I have noticed the vast majority of us get along no matter what our beliefs.
Neither side need saving!
'beaur' the problem here is not about audible differences of cables. It's about the implied technical advantage of Graphene wire. Now if you enjoy having these wires in your system, well that's great. But when someone suggests that the advantages of Graphene wire makes a better speaker cable sized wire than copper wire, then we have a problem.
I don't think either argument is implied both are fairly obvious usually. What you aren't seeing is that, a) most audiophiles do not have the technical knowledge to decide between the opposing camps. I don't think any technical discussions are looked at in detail by most people. If they believe things make a difference they will most likely side with the person who says xxxx made my system better. If they don't then they dismiss the discussion, b) reiterate that audiophiles don't need saving. If someone says graphene makes a difference most of use will file it away for the time when we can actually hear the cables. Few if any are going to rush out and purchase a loom based on a couple of positive recommendations. The ones that do won't be swayed by any technical arguments to the contrary so those arguments are either to tout your superior knowledge or arguing with the wind.
BTW as far as I can tell audiophiles out there cover the range of little money with expensive cables to mega money with zip cord and all combinations in between so obviously people have a wide range of experiences/preferences no matter the evangelists from either side.
Beau
BTW as far as I can tell audiophiles out there cover the range of little money with expensive cables to mega money with zip cord and all combinations in between so obviously people have a wide range of experiences/preferences no matter the evangelists from either side.
Beau
..tongue was firmly in cheek...I'm hanging on to my GEs regardless of the negative comments!
..just for the record I'm a retired PE licensed electrical engineer having worked in power distribution for over 40 years. I also tend to be a skeptic. I have no scientific explanation why power cords, XLRs or speaker cables can sound different per se but in my most humble opinion they do. Am I an exotic cable evangelical? Not hardly as I couldn't give less of a dump if anyone purchases based on my posting an opinion. So assuming the 1st amendment is alive and well on the WBF then it would follow that posting opinions is allowed as long as done so in an affable manner. Just one last point regarding the GE XLRs...I paid $249 for a 1m pr. That doesn't seem to be a ridiculous price IMO...hardly in the nosebleed strata. Ok I'm done hear...over and out..
Dutch cable manufacturer Van den Hul introduced carbon cables (Linear Structured Carbon® (L.S.C)) in the late 80's - the First and the Second, as well as an hybrid speaker cable with carbon, the Revelation. They were not expensive and were very well received at that time, and IMHO still represent excellent value. I still own a full set of these cables, and can assure you they have a well defined type of sonority - very neutral, although they can lack dynamics in some systems. I remember they were a terrific match with Sonus Faber Extrema's.
Van den Hul presented THE CNT (Carbon Nano Tube) cable at the Munich Hifishow2004, we can find some info on it here: http://www.vandenhul.com/products/the-cnt
Van den Hul presented THE CNT (Carbon Nano Tube) cable at the Munich Hifishow2004, we can find some info on it here: http://www.vandenhul.com/products/the-cnt
I am not on one side or the other...
If you perceive a sound change then you have to first confirm that it is real and not your perceptions playing games, this is done as we know by blind testing of some sort. If it is a real sound change then you investigate what is causing it....
That's engineering
They are carbon nano tubes, but NOT carbon nanotubes, the extra space they add is critical from a legal advertising point of view.... they are thin carbon wires not the carbon nanotubes, another example of Audiophile marketing claims and smoke and mirrors.
No, no it's not. Performing experiments for hypothesis proving is science. That's the fundamental difference people forget, and use to abuse. Engineering is using the principles we know to be true, to create something. Science is for investigation into the unknown with a variety of different methods but fundamentally it's not engineering because it's the unknown - and engineering is the known.
Why do you guys care about people buying these cheap cables? Do you try to talk people out of not smoking because you assume they don't know about the health risks? Do you go to the Harley Davidson dealership and explain to everyone there that Honda's are superior?
It is known and accepted that marketing claims in audiophile zone are technically abusive and hyperbolic - it is part of the game. But this does not affect the performance and IMHO should not be considered as an argument when debating technical and subjective aspects of their operation.
They are making a misleading claim, making people believe they are buying into cutting edge technology using carbon nanotube cables when in fact they are carbon cables (that are thin but are not nanotubes). This does not help the hobby move forward, in fact the opposite, some reality is needed to encourage more to accept that good sound is available (and was in every high street shop such as Currys only a few years ago) at a reasonable price without esoteric cables, demagnetizers and all the other myths and flak that hides the reality of music reproduction.
Funny in all the engineering projects I have worked on; if something happens or sound changes we have checked our results/perceptions and then investigated the cause... on engineering projects!
We are co-mingling two different questions:
1] What are they?
2] How do they sound?
These are separate questions and need separate answers.
1] What are they?
2] How do they sound?
These are separate questions and need separate answers.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |