[[email protected]]

The current online stereophile has a wire "review". After the usual
poetic waxing of this and that great improvement in "sound", the author
gets down to brass tacks. Or is it shorter wire?

"The "e" versions of the Au24 cables share the originals' good looks.
In fact, they look exactly the same, save for the addition of a mesh
outer sheath and an e added to the product name. When I asked,
Audience confirmed that, in terms of conductors, materials, and
construction, the "e" versions are exactly the same as the standard
Au24s. The differences are that the "e" versions have been sent out
for an undisclosed treatment, and a much more involved and apparently
labor-intensive process is used to attach the terminations to the
cable. Everyone at Audience was tight-lipped about the details, but
claimed that the "e" modifications "made a measurable difference in
conductivity." When an Au24 cable is returned for upgrading to "e"
status, Audience doesn't simply replace it; they actually cut off the
old terminations and send the cable through the "e" production process
alongside brand-new, virgin cable. Each cable is then re-terminated
and burned-in for 48 hours, and sent--now a little shorter--back to
the owner as an Au24e."

There you have it, shorter wire, and lighter wallet to boot all wrapped up
in a "burnined" wire miricle.

Could the "measurable " difference be because there is now less wire?

How does this mag publish such insulting "poetry" with a straight face?

In part one might think its share of that lighter wallet, someone has to
pay for marketing copy after all.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 06:45:52 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

The current online stereophile has a wire "review". After the usual
poetic waxing of this and that great improvement in "sound", the author
gets down to brass tacks. Or is it shorter wire?

"The "e" versions of the Au24 cables share the originals' good looks.
In fact, they look exactly the same, save for the addition of a mesh
outer sheath and an e added to the product name. When I asked,
Audience confirmed that, in terms of conductors, materials, and
construction, the "e" versions are exactly the same as the standard
Au24s. The differences are that the "e" versions have been sent out
for an undisclosed treatment, and a much more involved and apparently
labor-intensive process is used to attach the terminations to the
cable. Everyone at Audience was tight-lipped about the details, but
claimed that the "e" modifications "made a measurable difference in
conductivity." When an Au24 cable is returned for upgrading to "e"
status, Audience doesn't simply replace it; they actually cut off the
old terminations and send the cable through the "e" production process
alongside brand-new, virgin cable. Each cable is then re-terminated
and burned-in for 48 hours, and sent--now a little shorter--back to
the owner as an Au24e."

There you have it, shorter wire, and lighter wallet to boot all wrapped up
in a "burnined" wire miricle.

Could the "measurable " difference be because there is now less wire?

How does this mag publish such insulting "poetry" with a straight face?

In part one might think its share of that lighter wallet, someone has to
pay for marketing copy after all.


If all they do is cut off the connectors and put new ones on, they probably
shorten the cable by what? 2 inches, max (assuming that they cut right up
against the back of the old connectors)? If that's measurable for resistance,
then they are using a mighty sensitive digital ohm-meter to measure it, one
with 5 decimal place readouts. As for this "undisclosed" treatment, they
probably have the cable cryogenically treated, that is, dipped in liquid
nitrogen or some such in some ritualistic way involving immersion time,
warming back to room temperature, etc. It won't matter, wire is still wire.
Reminds me of the "Tice Clock"