Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site clyde.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!saf
From: saf@clyde.UUCP (Steve Falco)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Hitachi super-pure cable
Message-ID: <850@clyde.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 09:17:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: clyde.850
Posted: Wed May  8 09:17:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 02:16:08 EDT
References: <659@charm.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 24

I have never participated in any double-blind tests of any product -
particularly not audio cables.  Thus I feel eminently qualified to
comment on a previous reply to a comment on Hitachi super-pure cable.
(Let me toss a :-) in here to stifle the flames...)

The comment that aroused my ire denounced gold connectors because a
micron of gold has about the same resistance as a micron of nickel -
namely zero.  Yah but...  the surface-to-surface resistance is what it's
all about.  Nickel oxidizes but gold doesn't (much).  So gold connectors
actually give you a nice zero-ish resistance while the nickel connectors
can give you a bunch of ohms, assuming they have become sufficiently
corroded (very).  It is also known that metal oxides can act as
rectifiers - in fact, oxidized copper plates were used as diodes - I
believe they predate even selenium rectifiers - we're talking ancient
here.  But you really don't want rectifiers in your cables.  So much for
the technical discussion.

Obviously (!) gold is "better".  Is it sufficiently better?  Is it
audibly better?

I don't know 'cause I haven't done any listening to substantiate a decision.
Why not actually give it a fair test before deciding it's hype?  

	Steve Falco