Oh, noes…
demagnetizing copper
cryogenic 'treatment'.
And what, pray, happens when every strand of copper is bent a few degrees?
All those supposedly sweetened invisible copper strand crystals … shift.
Let's not forget also that copper is not magnetic.
In fact, it is weakly anti-magnetic.
LOL to that thread of (un-)reason.
GoatGuy
demagnetizing copper
cryogenic 'treatment'.
And what, pray, happens when every strand of copper is bent a few degrees?
All those supposedly sweetened invisible copper strand crystals … shift.
Let's not forget also that copper is not magnetic.
In fact, it is weakly anti-magnetic.
LOL to that thread of (un-)reason.
GoatGuy
Also Z-foils datasheet somehow overlooks directionality. For some reason it emphasize how stable it is at any conditions. They also mention impedance ratio between 100MHz AC and DC of only 1.001 (source here) meaning that the Z-foil construction is non-inductive and non-capacitive among other properties. Also interesting to actually see the Z-foil resistor construction. Note trimming marks at the bottom.
Attachments
How else can they justify the premium price they ask for their stuff... There must be extra "treatment"
The_Relativity_of_Wrong
the essay: The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong
the essay: The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong
I wasn't a a dog to confirm that. But it makes me think. If a dog sees a whole sausage and another half, how does it see things? 1 + 1/2 or 2? Or maybe it thinks "one whole thing, but it will take two courses to bring it back to my shack".
I admit I'd like to share my gratitude for the spending of your time sharing this knowledge. It's educational, useful and it was fun reading it. But I do not abandon the idea that there might be audible directionality in resistors despite your useful explanation, but let's say, I'm on the quest in searching for explanations and proof. It's your right to deny this possibility, it is also the right of others to accept it, if they wish.
I have no wish to show any lack of respect towards anyone from "the rest of you'. I browse this forum regularly and I often find useful information shared from "the rest of your group".
I expect however, the same in return, despite the totally different approaches and (maybe) the lack of objective evidence, that can take a lot of time and resources to build.
I thank you for your thorough, argumentative post.
Excellent! Thank you for sharing this and I hope it gets more readers!
Well done for humanity! We have achieved an extremely lot of things in science and technology during this years and I'm glad we still do.
We succeeded to exclude lots of subjectivity in many of domains, but it is my personal experience we still struggle to do so in the audio domain. A phenomenon comfortable to deny because of the lack of defending evidence.
It's fun when no matter what approach you're using to achieve a goal, it works.
I was going to write down a reply, but I found out it was already written in Asimov's essay. If you wish, read it.
You could make one giant step forward if you could show, in a valid controlled test, that indeed there is an audible difference. I suggest that this should be the first step.
Jan
I can only assume you have your own private definition of 'device' and/or 'mathematics'. Maybe you live on your own private planet too?50AE said:
You don't have to trust me. You can visit Australia, but I suggest you use an airline which uses the widely accepted definitions of Australia, latitude, longitude etc. rather than your own private ideas.
Reality is itself.
I said it is itself; it is still itself whether we see it or not. What we see is a matter of human perception. We don't have to see something in order for it to exist.
Numbers exist, quite independently of how we think of them or whether we 'see' them. You can't have your own private set of numbers.
I am unclear whether you are making this all up, or merely spouting post-modern nonsense you have read somewhere.
Valid controlled test, like this:
Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments
Did you make similar test?
That a nice test, indeed. I have done something like that in the past. I have an Vanalstine ABX box.
Jan
Nice Vanalstine ABX box.
25 years ago (oops, actually now closer to 30) , I also built such a thing, but more "gross". People turn out to be pretty darn good at hearing very subtle sonic signatures of clicking relays and such. Allows them to become remarkably repeatable at the "X" position in guessing correctly.
I addressed that by having a number of relatively loud relays that clicked on-or-off essentially at random that weren't part of any signal path. Just noisemakers. And I told everyone that the noise was not part of any signal switching. In fact, I told them exactly what it would do: make a random on-or-off switching noise with every A→B→C→X etc position.
For switches, back then (1980s) it was still possible to get a big ol' bag of super high quality mercury wetted reed relays and attendant activation coils. My bag (of 144 "one gross") of them were SPDT. Very useful.
With that an a microcontroller based on a 6502 core and a bunch of TTL output latches, a niftly little 1,256 byte (yep, 1¼ KB!) program could scan a remote controller's switches, send codes to the latches, and accumulate results.
The testing methodology was simple enough: you could press A, B, C or X. Only your votes on X counted. And to "do a test", you needed to accumulate 25 × ratings. You also had a button to "erase the last 5" which would replay the exact same X choosings in succession for re-rating.
And the "score" was either identity guessing "I think X is B" or quality "0–9".
It was a great little box. Did lots of service.
Worked.
And the "random relay noises" this spooked the testing folk.
Sometimes the results were obvious enough that testing accuracy approached 100%. Many other times, barely better than flipping a coin.
And boy, oh boy, did we get a LOT of crabby, angry, insipid, question-the-machine or question-the-methodology feedback from frustrated "magic ear" guys.
GoatGuy
25 years ago (oops, actually now closer to 30) , I also built such a thing, but more "gross". People turn out to be pretty darn good at hearing very subtle sonic signatures of clicking relays and such. Allows them to become remarkably repeatable at the "X" position in guessing correctly.
I addressed that by having a number of relatively loud relays that clicked on-or-off essentially at random that weren't part of any signal path. Just noisemakers. And I told everyone that the noise was not part of any signal switching. In fact, I told them exactly what it would do: make a random on-or-off switching noise with every A→B→C→X etc position.
For switches, back then (1980s) it was still possible to get a big ol' bag of super high quality mercury wetted reed relays and attendant activation coils. My bag (of 144 "one gross") of them were SPDT. Very useful.
With that an a microcontroller based on a 6502 core and a bunch of TTL output latches, a niftly little 1,256 byte (yep, 1¼ KB!) program could scan a remote controller's switches, send codes to the latches, and accumulate results.
The testing methodology was simple enough: you could press A, B, C or X. Only your votes on X counted. And to "do a test", you needed to accumulate 25 × ratings. You also had a button to "erase the last 5" which would replay the exact same X choosings in succession for re-rating.
And the "score" was either identity guessing "I think X is B" or quality "0–9".
It was a great little box. Did lots of service.
Worked.
And the "random relay noises" this spooked the testing folk.
Sometimes the results were obvious enough that testing accuracy approached 100%. Many other times, barely better than flipping a coin.
And boy, oh boy, did we get a LOT of crabby, angry, insipid, question-the-machine or question-the-methodology feedback from frustrated "magic ear" guys.
GoatGuy
I was refering to Nikola Tesla, not Tesla Motors.
Too late. I already adressed that
Jan
Nice and funny test
Did you use your ABX box? For example one cheap DVD player and good CD player as source? Share some results, please...
Cheers,
Angel
A perfect device if you are dead set to prove that nothing makes a difference. Do the terminals take coat hangers directly?
It is basically a very low end passive pre + switch box, adding also a judicial amount of RF noise... Now why would i want a device like this in order to judge properly designed and built components?
A box like this should comfortably exceed the transparency of all possible DUTs, not the other way round. But as long as it keeps you comfortable in your beliefs - enjoy and cherish it
A perfect device if you are dead set to prove that nothing makes a difference. Do the terminals take coat hangers directly?
It is basically a very low end passive pre + switch box, adding also a judicial amount of RF noise... Now why would i want a device like this in order to judge properly designed and built components?
A box like this should comfortably exceed the transparency of all possible DUTs, not the other way round. But as long as it keeps you comfortable in your beliefs - enjoy and cherish it
Really? You must have had a broken unit. I've heard plenty of differences with mine.
@GoatGuy: Yes, good point, the switching noises. Frank did address that as well, and you can't discern from the relay noise which is which, probably the same as you suggested, switch lots of relays everytime, independent of what it is you are activating.
I think we all learned from the Tiefenbrun test so many years ago!
Jan
Last edited:
A perfect device if you are dead set to prove that nothing makes a difference. Do the terminals take coat hangers directly?
I assume you have taken the copper vs banana test?
A perfect device if you are dead set to prove that nothing makes a difference. Do the terminals take coat hangers directly?
It is basically a very low end passive pre + switch box, adding also a judicial amount of RF noise... Now why would i want a device like this in order to judge properly designed and built components?
A box like this should comfortably exceed the transparency of all possible DUTs, not the other way round. But as long as it keeps you comfortable in your beliefs - enjoy and cherish it
Great excuse for not doing the test. Add your last sentence here.
Thanks Jan. I'd heard of that result some years ago, but couldn't remember just exactly who it was who did the tests, nor did I remember the “oops… we left the source to just A and the A/B box was actually cut out entirely…” point. Made me smile. BTW: the mercury wetted reed relays were absolutely acoustic marvels. Apart from making near-no external noise, you could see on an oscilloscope that their switching was "bounce-less". Too bad they're hard to find these days. Also… they switched with TTL direct output too! Easy to design with. Just had to remember not to leave out the reverse EMF shunting diodes on their coils. Forget that, and your TTL would be dead in about 10 switchings.
GoatGuy
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.