Differences between OFC and OCC copper?

[CageyH]

Apart from the price, is there any "real" difference between these two types of copper, in a cable of similar construction used between a source and pre-amp?

I see from the Atlas website that they say this about OCC

The benefits are obvious, with almost no crystal boundaries, the audio signal is no longer impeded down the copper wire and more information and detail is delivered faithfully to the receiving equipment.

How "golden" do your ears have to be to hear the difference?

[struth]

I don't believe it is any more pure than 99.99%. at least its never been proven to my knowledge.

[Reffc]

Apart from the price, is there any "real" difference between these two types of copper, in a cable of similar construction used between a source and pre-amp?

I see from the Atlas website that they say this about OCC


How "golden" do your ears have to be to hear the difference?

No audibly discernible difference except in the marketing. No manufacturer has ever provided any evidence except subjective pseudo-techno-babble that there can be any audible difference. It's a condutor. It conducts. ;)

[awkwardbydesign]

I believe the theory is that the crystal boundaries act like tiny diodes, causing non-linear resistance. The fewer boundaries, the less the effect. How audible that might be, I can't tell.
But as someone said, every cable has a negative effect, just that some have less effect than others; ie. there is no such thing as a perfect conductor*.
* At room temperature.

[Gordon Steadman]

This bus conductor used to throw people off his bus on a regular basis. Sadly, one or two of them died.

When they strapped him to the chair and threw the switch, he just smiled and looked unconcerned. After the third attempt, they gave up and put him back in his cell. They did ask how he managed it though and he just said..."well, I'm just a bad conductor"

So, there may not be perfect conductors but there may well be bad ones.

It all sounds like marketing bollocks to me.

[awkwardbydesign]

It all sounds like marketing bollocks to me.
As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from marketing bollocks". :eyebrows:

[struth]

This bus conductor used to throw people off his bus on a regular basis. Sadly, one or two of them died.

When they strapped him to the chair and threw the switch, he just smiled and looked unconcerned. After the third attempt, they gave up and put him back in his cell. They did ask how he managed it though and he just said..."well, I'm just a bad conductor"

So, there may not be perfect conductors but there may well be bad ones.

It all sounds like marketing bollocks to me.

Boom Boom!

[Andrei]

OFC is Oxygen Free Copper
OCC is Ohno Continuous Casting

Oxygen free is a good thing because it is corrosive. Just a high purity copper will do fine thanks.
Professor Ohno devised a method so there would be no or few boundaries in the copper.

In theory both of these are a good thing but the effect is really tiny and probably inaudible.
The OCC in particular is hardly relevant. Every solder joint or RCA or banana connection will have vastly larger breaks and I am skeptical that it is possible to audibly detect misalignment in the copper boundaries.

[Yomanze]

Apart from the price, is there any "real" difference between these two types of copper, in a cable of similar construction used between a source and pre-amp?

I see from the Atlas website that they say this about OCC


How "golden" do your ears have to be to hear the difference?

It isn't about how golden your ears are, it is about how transparent the rest of your gear is. No one will be able to tell the difference in some setups, but others will show the differences, which are are never major.

You might get a touch more attack or a touch more tonal colour, and "OCC", "grain-oriented" cable will reduce just that, "grain" in the sound.

I do have the ability to instantly switch between different types of interconnects on my system and the differences are tiny, but they are there. Enough to become less tiny over the long-term, arguable whether it's something to really worry about. :D

EDIT: if I ever see "wow' associated with a cable change these days, then I have my bowl of salt ready...

[Wakefield Turntables]

I wouldn't worry about the foo that's bandied around with regards Cu casting techniques, just get a reasonably pure Cu IC with a decent set of RCA's and enjoy your music.

[awkwardbydesign]

It isn't about how golden your ears are, it is about how transparent the rest of your gear is.
Err, no. And yes. It's strange, the denial that some people CAN hear better than others. There is no question our sight varies wildly, smell and taste too, but the idea that we can't hear something that someone else can! :eek: It's measureable too, just as sight is, but how many people have their hearing tested and have the audiogram showing by how much and at what frequencies? And I'm not talking about a vague "Yes your hearing's fine" for safety at work.
At the moment my stereo isn't transparent enough to show these differences, but I know someone who's is, and cable differences are clearly audible.

[Gordon Steadman]

Err, no. And yes. It's strange, the denial that some people CAN hear better than others. There is no question our sight varies wildly, smell and taste too, but the idea that we can't hear something that someone else can! :eek: It's measureable too, just as sight is, but how many people have their hearing tested and have the audiogram showing by how much and at what frequencies? And I'm not talking about a vague "Yes your hearing's fine" for safety at work.
At the moment my stereo isn't transparent enough to show these differences, but I know someone who's is, and cable differences are clearly audible.

Although I have been, am and probably always will be, a cable sceptic, I can hear some differences between cables - not a lot, a tiny fraction in fact. The scepticism comes from the assertion that one is 'better' than another. It is more than possible to design a cable to adjust the sound ( I am assured) but adjustment doesn't mean improvement. Over many years of listening, I have never heard any cable that made me enjoy the music more than a good reasonably large cross section lump of copper, be it solid or stranded.

Maybe one cable will suit one system better than others, who knows. That doesn't make it a better cable, merely that it suits that system.

I'm with the guys at Macintosh who insist that the only criteria is that the cross section is big enough to pass the signal properly. All the rest is foo. They are expert, I am not but I'll go with those whose opinion means something rather than those who just have an interest in selling stuff.

[Yomanze]

No audibly discernible difference except in the marketing. No manufacturer has ever provided any evidence except subjective pseudo-techno-babble that there can be any audible difference. It's a condutor. It conducts. ;)

With all due respect LFD engage in what is widely considered 'heretical' thinking with wire purity as a key part of their design prioritites. The only difference between the LFD MK4 and American market-bound "MK4 Signature" is that the Signature has a ribbon cable on the positive speaker outputs, which pleased them compared to the MK4.

Does he need to provide scientific evidence or get his work pooh poohed by lack of scientific evidence? No, he simply dismisses the current state of the art in measurement techniques as providing the answer of what sounds good and what sounds bad.

[Reffc]

With all due respect LFD engage in what is widely considered 'heretical' thinking with wire purity as a key part of their design prioritites. The only difference between the LFD MK4 and American market-bound "MK4 Signature" is that the Signature has a ribbon cable on the positive speaker outputs, which pleased them compared to the MK4.

Does he need to provide scientific evidence or get his work pooh poohed by lack of scientific evidence? No, he simply dismisses the current state of the art in measurement techniques as providing the answer of what sounds good and what sounds bad.

With all due respect to you (and I don't remember offering any peer criticism whatsoever of your work, none at all), the issue of OFC V's OCC and audibility is entirely subjective, and all I was pointing out was that most claims to the contrary are usually rooted in marketing hype. We are dealing with science, not magic and pixie dust! There's little NOT understood about audio signal transfer so why must some continually add a mystique and magic around what is a fairly straigtforward issue? I don't ever remember stating anything about your work or any analogy to what you've stated above :scratch: Where ICs are concerned, I would suggest that termination standards and plug quality matter more than the purity of the wire used for the signal. People are also quick to forget that signal transmission is from a relatively low output impedance into a relatively high input impedance, so ultimate conductivity is of less importance (shielding/grounding aside) than geometry and dielectric characteristics. That may be an inconvenient truth but its the truth nonetheless. I can't see any real argument to this but remain perfectly open minded enough to accept any proper peer reviewed evidence (surely the correct way for engineers and scientists to behave?) than subjective claim. Again, that in itself is no criticism of anything that anyone is working on as experimentation and product development is what technical development relies on. I'll bow out of this one now, as no good inevitably comes from cable debates! People are switched on enough to make their own minds up.

[awkwardbydesign]

I'll bow out of this one now, as no good inevitably comes from cable debates! People are switched on enough to make their own minds up.
Well put. I'll follow your example.

[Andrei]

... the issue of OFC V's OCC and audibility is entirely subjective
Paul, I have never seen an OFC -vs- OCC debate / issue. I would not have thought they were in some sort of competition.

[CageyH]

The reason I ask is a cable I have seen has one version in silver plated OFC, and another version in OCC.
The OCC is almost double the cost. It looks like a good quality cable, but with my system I doubt that it is revealing enough to highlight any benefit.

[Yomanze]

Hi Paul,

I hope you didn't think I am affiliated with LFD, just a happy owner & didn't mean to come across like I was attacking.

I do agree though, apart from photos of grain boundaries it's not possible to quantify why OCC cables may sound different than plated or OFC cables. There is indeed a lot of magic fairy dust in cable sales, but this is a different topic altogether.

I would contest that you need something peer-reviewed to form an opinion especially if you've already gone down the scientific and measurements route, yet still can't work out why something sounds different, but agree that termination, grounding, plug choice etc. are all more important real-world consideration.

Best regards,

Neil


With all due respect to you (and I don't remember offering any peer criticism whatsoever of your work, none at all), the issue of OFC V's OCC and audibility is entirely subjective, and all I was pointing out was that most claims to the contrary are usually rooted in marketing hype. We are dealing with science, not magic and pixie dust! There's little NOT understood about audio signal transfer so why must some continually add a mystique and magic around what is a fairly straigtforward issue? I don't ever remember stating anything about your work or any analogy to what you've stated above :scratch: Where ICs are concerned, I would suggest that termination standards and plug quality matter more than the purity of the wire used for the signal. People are also quick to forget that signal transmission is from a relatively low output impedance into a relatively high input impedance, so ultimate conductivity is of less importance (shielding/grounding aside) than geometry and dielectric characteristics. That may be an inconvenient truth but its the truth nonetheless. I can't see any real argument to this but remain perfectly open minded enough to accept any proper peer reviewed evidence (surely the correct way for engineers and scientists to behave?) than subjective claim. Again, that in itself is no criticism of anything that anyone is working on as experimentation and product development is what technical development relies on. I'll bow out of this one now, as no good inevitably comes from cable debates! People are switched on enough to make their own minds up.

[Reffc]

Hi Paul,

I hope you didn't think I am affiliated with LFD, just a happy owner & didn't mean to come across like I was attacking.

I do agree though, apart from photos of grain boundaries it's not possible to quantify why OCC cables may sound different than plated or OFC cables. There is indeed a lot of magic fairy dust in cable sales, but this is a different topic altogether.

I would contest that you need something peer-reviewed to form an opinion especially if you've already gone down the scientific and measurements route, yet still can't work out why something sounds different, but agree that termination, grounding, plug choice etc. are all more important real-world consideration.

Best regards,

Neil


Ahhh...understood Neil, sorry for the confusion!

Yes, quite agree.

[Radford Revival]

The "diode lattice" thing has been proven to be untrue, I believe Doug Self demonstrated that at some point.

[zanash]

your mistaking apples for bananas.........

as stated ofc has reduced oxygen ...a good thing as copper oxide is a poor conductor

occ as stated is extended crystal length ....minimizing crystal boundaries, I also think it helps remove impurities as they can't sit between the crystal boundaries if memory serves


corroded [or oxygen rich] copper conductors are very audible as a opposed to none corrode conductors .....worst case is you wont hear anything

as to the sound of multi crystal boundaries as opposed to one single one ......its not something I've heard there are other factors that will have a far greater affect I refer you to the case above for example .

[Gordon Steadman]

your mistaking apples for bananas.........

as stated ofc has reduced oxygen ...a good thing as copper oxide is a poor conductor

occ as stated is extended crystal length ....minimizing crystal boundaries, I also think it helps remove impurities as they can't sit between the crystal boundaries if memory serves


corroded [or oxygen rich] copper conductors are very audible as a opposed to none corrode conductors .....worst case is you wont hear anything

as to the sound of multi crystal boundaries as opposed to one single one ......its not something I've heard there are other factors that will have a far greater affect I refer you to the case above for example .

In 50 years of listening to hi-fi, I have never seen a corroded copper lead. Perhaps a solution looking for a problem?

[Audio Advent]

I have in some headphones someone gave me. Had intermittent cutting out problems on one side when moved a certain way which turned out to be corroded, green copper wires at the driver end. Was an expensive pair of Denons too so I'd have expected it would have been advertised as having at least OFC copper cables. The sound opened up a bit when new cables were soldered on (compared to when they intimittently working of course, not compared to when silent). Maybe they got too sweaty listening to music or had taken them somewhere humid?

Sure I've found it on a tone-arm wire too but at least that had the excuse of being 30 odd years old rather than less than 10.

[mikmas]

In 50 years of listening to hi-fi, I have never seen a corroded copper lead. Perhaps a solution looking for a problem?

A short while back I brought my ancient Braun ps500 TT back in service. I was dismayed with the poor sound quality and dropouts I was experiencing and put this down to the age of the MM cartridge etc. I decided to at least improve the phono plugs as a starter. When I unscrewed the first cover the innards literally fell out ... accompanied by some green dust that used to be the wire....
I am surprised that any sound got through at all

[Reffc]

A short while back I brought my ancient Braun ps500 TT back in service. I was dismayed with the poor sound quality and dropouts I was experiencing and put this down to the age of the MM cartridge etc. I decided to at least improve the phono plugs as a starter. When I unscrewed the first cover the innards literally fell out ... accompanied by some green dust that used to be the wire....
I am surprised that any sound got through at all

Very common with non-OFC phono wiring where the very thin wires are exposed to air and corrode, especially near soldered joints. OFC brings its biggest benefit here. It's superior not because of any mystical signal transfer properties but simply because you don't tend to get the same joint failure issues. It is also one of the main reasons why older tonearm re-wires (re-wired with OFC) brings such improvements as often reported.

Originally, I believe it was conceived for wiring in avionics (especially for military helicopters) as it exhibited less failures due to cyclic fatigue and corrosion, important considerations to prevent aircraft falling from the sky (!) and was adopted by the hifi industry. Not that long after adoption in avionics, many aircraft (especially helicopters) switched to optic fibre for main systems and computer controls. Tin plated copper also shares similar properties and that and silver plated copper are also used where corrosion resistance is a must.

[Audio Advent]

Tin plated copper also shares similar properties and that and silver plated copper are also used where corrosion resistance is a must.

Didn't realise silver plated copper was for corrosion resistance. So could silver-plated copper wiring as marketed in the hifi world simply be another way of getting more money for common materials from other industries as often happens? Which came first? Although, it's dead cheap via people like Van Damme anyway..

[Reffc]

Didn't realise silver plated copper was for corrosion resistance. So could silver-plated copper wiring as marketed in the hifi world simply be another way of getting more money for common materials from other industries as often happens? Which came first? Although, it's dead cheap via people like Van Damme anyway..

Yes. Silver plated copper was about before it became en-vogue in hifi land, and was an alternative to tin plated copper, although silver does tarnish when exposed to sulphides in the air. It does however retain better oxidation resistance and even when silver does tarnish, the tarnished (oxidised) surface layer remains highly conductive, unlike oxidised copper. Silver plating was first invented way back in the 18th Century, with examples of the technique including the Sheffield process (fusing silver onto a copper ingot, then drawing the ingot out into wire) or electroplating, which was initially done using wired dipped in a conductive bath with an electric current provided by batteries.

It was initially used for silver plating utensils and ornaments as a way of offering something that looked like pure silver but was in fact silver plate. It was only later (late 19th and early 20th Centuries) that the electrical benefits became more widespreadly recognised, but not for reasons of mystical audio sound quality advantages! It was the improved reliability of silver plated (and later tin plated) copper wires.

The issue of copper corrosion was only dealt with relatively recently (in historical terms) when methods were established at producing purer forms of copper with less oxygen present (oxygen content promotes greater surface corrosion). Hence OFC. Other high purity coppers (including pitch coppers) are also fairly corrosion resistant compared with less pure forms. Again, these were not arrived at for, or by, the audio industry, although there are a handful of companies who smelt and extrude their own wires, or claim to have patents on their specific processes.

The silver plating was believed (I use the term advisedly) to be better for high frequency signal transmission (we're talking MHz rather than KHz) so was often used in very high frequency circuits. Pure (OFC) would be as good for all intents and purposes.

[Firebottle]

The silver plating was believed (I use the term advisedly) to be better for high frequency signal transmission (we're talking MHz rather than KHz) so was often used in very high frequency circuits.

No advisedly needed, silver plating has been used extensively at UHF and microwave frequencies for tuned circuits and particularly helical and cavity resonators and filters. Results in much lower losses at these frequencies, particularly in the GHz region.

It's just a shame that none of the surplus satellite equipment that features plenty of silver plating is of s*d all use at audio frequencies :doh:

:) Alan

[Reffc]

No advisedly needed, silver plating has been used extensively at UHF and microwave frequencies for tuned circuits and particularly helical and cavity resonators and filters. Results in much lower losses at these frequencies, particularly in the GHz region.

It's just a shame that none of the surplus satellite equipment that features plenty of silver plating is of s*d all use at audio frequencies :doh:

:) Alan

I guess it's that which is the pertinent point Alan. Higher up (as you say, at very high frequencies) it's been used for donkey's years. I guess, it's about taking the audio connotation out of it because as with many of these things, audio has really invented very little RE signal transfer tech. The more usual thing is that it borrows from other fields of engineering/science, then often coats it with a layer of BS for marketing purposes.

[Mark Grant]

Also LGC that's Long Grain Copper.
Never used any or heard of it until a customer phoned up asking about it.
http://www.audioquest.com/flx-slip/slip-144
Thought I would mention it :)

I do like long grain rice with a curry :)

[The Black Adder]

LOL...