Really? Wire can have no effect on current flow? Wires can't pick up noise? Wires can't have capacitance or inductance or resistance or triboelectric effects?
Guess I don't know the 1st, 2nd or 3rd things about electricity or electronics.
Really, you want to play semantic games? Do I really have to spell out the basic facts of how these things work and under what conditions they actually matter, to you?
You are a moderator on a board for building speakers. You can't possibly not understand when and where such things actually have a significant effect. Pluto has a calculateable effect on what happens to a ball I throw, but nobody who knows what they are doing bothers to take an effect like that into account.
You can't possibly be telling me, you don't understand that for speaker wire, capacitance or resistance only become large enough to have an effect on things, if you are using insanely thick/thin/long or otherwise wildly unsuitable wires.
There are good reasons why we generally use copper for electrical wire.
As far as noise goes, I am certain you can't possibly think any of those things affect the wire going to your speakers in any way that isn't going to require high resolution test gear, when they are carrying up to a couple of hundred volts and several amps worth of power in an amplified signal?
As to cables else where in your system. I can only assume you have at least passing familiarity with things like "grounding" and "error correction".
Or do you have an expensive collection of Monster HDMI cables?
"triboelectric". Really? I had thought you might at least have brought up the "skin" effect so beloved of snake oil salesmen trying to sell expensive speaker wire.
Answer me this at least.
Why is stranded cable preferred to solid wire for speaker wire?
Personally, if I were looking to bring up something out of context, I'd have mentioned S/N level issues when you have a highly efficient compression driver on a horn. Since that can actually be an issue when you have a speaker that will do 110db+ @ 1 watt of power, but hey that's just me and it is really just another case of "Anything breaks if you use it in a way it's really not intended to be used", which is what underlies most of the "issues" you raised.
Last edited:
Your should learn to read carefully.. This is significantly different to what I said..
im·ma·ture
/ˌiməˈCHo͝or/
Adjective
Not fully developed: "immature fruit".
(of a person or their behavior) Having emotional or intellectual development appropriate to someone younger.
No appreciation for Monty Python eh?
Well since you don't feel compelled to make sense most of the time, I don't see why I should have to.
Please keep to technical arguments and don't make this personal or try to derail the thread with off topic irrelevant posts. 
The one thing that ties these arguments together is that things have degrees. Some things are less/not audible in practice. The 'magic' is simply in doing the small number of necessary things and doing them well so they're no longer an audible problem, but if you ask a dozen people what they are you'll get a string of responses.
This depends on what you're looking for. The important things are mostly known and there are ways to measure for most of them. Doesn't one take dozens of curves and tens of thousands of data points when they measure a speaker, only to condense them down to just a few?
No, but it can be made to sound good and in the process made close enough to the original to be accepted.
well,
No.
the Real reason for the 'glossary' was the fact that at the time,
(late 50's early 60's)
the audio publications were leaning far to being a pay to play,
marketing scam.
the rigged/incomplete measurement(s),
did not explain why things sound the way they do, so certain people,
( j. gorden holt) tried to explain things so that anyone,
(the nontechnical music enthusiast) who could read would be
able to understand what was meant.
thus the basis for the 'glossary'.
just because someone speaks a different language,
is that a reason to say they are
"a sad attempt at vindicating their own self worth and ineptness" ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
robert harley is not my fav reviewer, however,
he did out one 'fellow' who said in an AES speech,
that those that could hear aberrations in digital
recordings were akin to necrophiliacs and pedophiles.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/tas-180-esoteric-g-orb-rubidium-master-clock-generator-1/
Last edited:
Hi,
No, it relates to the nature of knowledge which
can be completely wrong. That doesn't mean
half-baked nonsense can be right, it never is.
rgds, sreten.
Really? Wire can have no effect on current flow? Wires can't pick up noise? Wires can't have capacitance or inductance or resistance or triboelectric effects?
Guess I don't know the 1st, 2nd or 3rd things about electricity or electronics.
If I hadn't listened in an ABX and gotten them all right in 2003 for a set of 2 different wires via relay, I wouldn't believe it. I was right which was used everytime! Just ask Bob Cordell....
If I had not heard a difference, with a witness who also heard, with power filtration and a cleaner power feed, I wouldn't believe that it is also a good thing.
If I had not built my own cap-tester (as they come off of the shelf, no need to change qualities of parts inherent), I would not know they also sound different. Even though the ABX showed no 'statistically proven' results of this test, I did have several who got all of them correct, and could pinpoint to me in conversation what was different to them.
You will always have people who doubt there is a difference.
You will always have people who believe they can hear a difference.
You will always have people who don't care if there is a difference.
You will always have people who can't hear a difference.
It does all come back to perception and how our minds perceive or relate the input to the tympanic membrane, transferred via electrical nerve pulses to the brain. You cannot tell someone else how a banana tastes, and in turn have the person experience tasting a banana just from how you describe it to them. There is also the matter of aural physiology being different from person to person. And the fact that measurements via microphone are linear, and the ear is a nonlinear input device.
For instance- In very hilly country, my ears plug up very fast, and cause pain due to altitude extremes. Other people that have ridden in the same car with me on the same trek and distance have not experienced any discomfort or pressure. This could be due to living environments and what we are used to daily I suppose, but that is still very much a factor.
It's not all cut and dry folks,
Wolf
Really? Wire can have no effect on current flow? Wires can't pick up noise? Wires can't have capacitance or inductance or resistance or triboelectric effects?
Guess I don't know the 1st, 2nd or 3rd things about electricity or electronics.
A correctly designed cable or wire will NOT cause ANY audible changes PERIOD.
How many times are you going to bring that up? Have you ever considered that that one time test COULD have been a fluke? Stranger things have happened. Have you redone a similar test since listening to wire and did you run any measurements on the wires to see if they actually measured differently? If not then the results are moot.
The term QUALIA is used to describe perceptual differences we humans have.
Read more about it here.....
Qualia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vsauce has a nice explanation of Qualia...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08
Last edited:
Doing good double blind testing is HARD, it's a LOT of work.
It involves enough trials to be certain that it simply isn't the result of chance. Which is a LOT more than just doing it 2-3 times.
It involves making certain there isn't a pattern that can help with the guessing. Going A-B, A-B, A-B... etc is not sufficient and does involve stretches where you will be listening to the same source 4-5+ times in a row. I've read about a statistics professor, who is extremely accurate at determining which is a truly random set of numbers and which one was created by his students, because the one the students lacks such stretches.
Even then, as DavidL said, it could simply have been random chance. After all if it's just an A-B comparison, you do have a 50-50 chance of getting it right each time. There is an old stock scam based more or less on this principle. Where you take a thousand people. Tell half of them that a stock will go up, the other half that the stock will go down. Then do the same for the half that you got it correct for and so on, until you have a small group of people for whom you have been 100% accurate in "predicting" the stock market.
Neither the test-ee or the test giver can know which is being used, to prevent cues being given consciously or unconsciously. Humans do not have amazing hearing, but we are very much oriented towards trying to figure out what other people are doing or thinking.
Finally, every thing has to be working properly and matched up to that you are in fact comparing apples to apples. This is not a trivial task. There are a lot of factors (loudness being the most common) which can easily bias the test to one or the other.
This is by no means an exhaustive list either.
So which is more likely.
1) You have an ability which defies the ability of science to measure, violates the laws of physics and everything we know about materials science.
2) Your test was insufficiently rigorous, biased or otherwise poorly set up. Especially since your own results apparently showed it wasn't a statistically significant result.
I know which I'm going with given what technology and science can do.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.