If differences in either termination, impedance mismatch, mechanical vibration, physical layout (complex AC/DC LCR), including skin effect, aspects of each given conductor type including crystal structure, and dielectric considerations...if all of these did not result in cables with obvious sonic differences, then people would not be speaking about or observing these sonic differences.
If you actually considered and armed yourself with the information on the actual mechanism by which the human ear hears and interprets the supplied data, and then also considered the cummulative effects of the complex and simple aspects of a given cable and then had the simple good sense to try experiments in a well put together audio system...... perhaps some of the contributors to this thread would end up expressing more than their basic ignorance.
It has always been an aspect of those who posses a bit more capacity for thought, intelligent observation combined with basic reasoning skills, and that, layered with a decent does of human consideration to 'walk away' from the ignorant and 'difficult'.
I am generally of that nature. But, I also don't tolerate ignorance very well. And that's a good thing. So, to toss such things back to those who insist there is no difference in cables, I'll say that it is likely because you just might be, that you just might be....ignorant and difficult.
Whether you are capable of hearing, thinking, interpreting, and a very small amount of forward thinking..is out of my hands. But do not bring your ignorance to the table. You insult yourself. It generally comes down to an aspect of capacity for self observation, ie, psychology 101. I've always thought that engineers in general, should be required to take a -minimum- of two basic psychology corses while in school, in order to get their degree. It would do the world in general..a world of good.
side note, John: The summation is to a 0 effective field from the two shields but the opposing fields (at that zero point) are still extant. Kinda like a rope stretched or a item pressed equally from two sides, etc. I'm sure you 'get it' but most here might not realize that.
If you actually considered and armed yourself with the information on the actual mechanism by which the human ear hears and interprets the supplied data, and then also considered the cummulative effects of the complex and simple aspects of a given cable and then had the simple good sense to try experiments in a well put together audio system...... perhaps some of the contributors to this thread would end up expressing more than their basic ignorance.
It has always been an aspect of those who posses a bit more capacity for thought, intelligent observation combined with basic reasoning skills, and that, layered with a decent does of human consideration to 'walk away' from the ignorant and 'difficult'.
I am generally of that nature. But, I also don't tolerate ignorance very well. And that's a good thing. So, to toss such things back to those who insist there is no difference in cables, I'll say that it is likely because you just might be, that you just might be....ignorant and difficult.
Whether you are capable of hearing, thinking, interpreting, and a very small amount of forward thinking..is out of my hands. But do not bring your ignorance to the table. You insult yourself. It generally comes down to an aspect of capacity for self observation, ie, psychology 101. I've always thought that engineers in general, should be required to take a -minimum- of two basic psychology corses while in school, in order to get their degree. It would do the world in general..a world of good.
side note, John: The summation is to a 0 effective field from the two shields but the opposing fields (at that zero point) are still extant. Kinda like a rope stretched or a item pressed equally from two sides, etc. I'm sure you 'get it' but most here might not realize that.
So, let me get this straight..
1. Since people report these effects, they must be there?
(Isn't it funny how there are less UFO sightings now that cell phone cameras are abundant..)
2. The majority of the contributors to this thread are ignorant..
3. Really smart people just walk away from those they consider ignorant and difficult..and you are "generally of that nature"
4. Those who do not agree with you on this topic, might be ignorant and difficult.
Hmmm.. it seems that you really bend over backwards to make friends, eh??
While it is rather "sexy" to think that there exists something external to the coaxial system, there is none. It certainly feels odd, but you have to consider the fact that one cannot measure anything external to the outer shield, so there is no flux available to produce a stimulus to a measuring device.
It's kinda like a toroid..externally there is ZERO field, but yet if one takes a path through the toroid itself, a voltage gradient exists.. A quandry to be sure...no field, but voila, a transformer effect.
ps...I posted the first part as you did not come across very nicely..
Cheers, John
1. Since people report these effects, they must be there?
(Isn't it funny how there are less UFO sightings now that cell phone cameras are abundant..)
2. The majority of the contributors to this thread are ignorant..
3. Really smart people just walk away from those they consider ignorant and difficult..and you are "generally of that nature"
4. Those who do not agree with you on this topic, might be ignorant and difficult.
Hmmm.. it seems that you really bend over backwards to make friends, eh??
While it is rather "sexy" to think that there exists something external to the coaxial system, there is none. It certainly feels odd, but you have to consider the fact that one cannot measure anything external to the outer shield, so there is no flux available to produce a stimulus to a measuring device.
It's kinda like a toroid..externally there is ZERO field, but yet if one takes a path through the toroid itself, a voltage gradient exists.. A quandry to be sure...no field, but voila, a transformer effect.
ps...I posted the first part as you did not come across very nicely..
Cheers, John
KBK said:
Funny, I've always thought it would do the world a lot of good if everybody were required to take some science courses...there are so many who take the science verbage and make up their own pseudoscience, and there are so many who buy into it..
Viewpoints...
I kinda like the diversity. It'd be boring otherwise..
Edjakashun...
Absolutely. That way, people would know just enough to know how ignorant they are and to know when they're not qualified to hold an opinion on a particular subject. Even better, they might find science more interesting than they thought and turn out to be really good at it.
When I were a lad (dinosaurs still roamed the earth) we took eight subjects, but were required to include: Maths, English Language, French, and English Literature. I can see a justification for the first two, and weak possibles for the last two, but whatever happened to physics?
To get back on topic, I know enough to know that the most commonly touted "scientific" explanations for audio cable sound (skin effect, transmission line) are hocus-pocus at best. Skin effect and transmission lines apply at RF, not audio.
jneutron said:
Absolutely. That way, people would know just enough to know how ignorant they are and to know when they're not qualified to hold an opinion on a particular subject. Even better, they might find science more interesting than they thought and turn out to be really good at it.
When I were a lad (dinosaurs still roamed the earth) we took eight subjects, but were required to include: Maths, English Language, French, and English Literature. I can see a justification for the first two, and weak possibles for the last two, but whatever happened to physics?
To get back on topic, I know enough to know that the most commonly touted "scientific" explanations for audio cable sound (skin effect, transmission line) are hocus-pocus at best. Skin effect and transmission lines apply at RF, not audio.
Re: Edjakashun...
That perspective cuts a much wider swath than most comfortably admit. My experience is learning roughly divides into three phases: first realizing just how ignorant of a subject I am, then after much study growing comfortable, confident and productive with it and believing I have it 95% sussed, and finally with more experience realizing just how ignorant I am. As a group (we) engineers are in my experience particularly bad at regaining ignorance, especially in a social setting. Having significantly mastered one application of a difficult science - the degree is called Bachelor of Applied Sciences for a reason - we comfortably assert opinions in areas well outside our training. Unless we've gone on to specialize, Psychoacoustics and related testing is a good example of being well outside our training.
EC8010 said:
That perspective cuts a much wider swath than most comfortably admit. My experience is learning roughly divides into three phases: first realizing just how ignorant of a subject I am, then after much study growing comfortable, confident and productive with it and believing I have it 95% sussed, and finally with more experience realizing just how ignorant I am. As a group (we) engineers are in my experience particularly bad at regaining ignorance, especially in a social setting. Having significantly mastered one application of a difficult science - the degree is called Bachelor of Applied Sciences for a reason - we comfortably assert opinions in areas well outside our training. Unless we've gone on to specialize, Psychoacoustics and related testing is a good example of being well outside our training.
Really, I was just inquiring if the notable effect of E Field / D Field activity, at a static moment, where field vectors change and then flow as B Field to the next vector change, within a conductor containment, might be more noticeable, from a measurement perspective, in Litz wire, than that same activity with a solid conductor.
Also wondered if the wire surface area to total dielectric surface X dielectric constant might be a factor.
I do not think that skin effect is going to have any audible effect on our millions of years old, semi autonomous threat assessment correlator, that sits between our conscious awareness and raw sensory data. That device is extremely good at suppressing known aberrations to enable a scan for threats possibly covered by the suppressed information.
We are here because all of our ancestors had very good threat assessment correlator's and it should not surprise anyone that we can hear something wrong and then grow accustomed to it and no longer be aware of it. Nor should we be surprised that some folks are able to consciously manipulate this SEMI autonomous mental machine and hear better or, more accurately than others, or the best test equipment currently available. Which does not have a natural selection environment much older than a few hundred years.
In addition, that threat assessment correlator is quite adept at creating an actionable assessment of free field audible events from very sparse data. That it can construct a believable and actionable recreation from our audio devices is not surprising either. That it will lock onto some lack or surplus or alteration of information that it is using and or expecting to find available for processing, to pursue this self defense activity, is also not surprising.
That we assume we can measure these subtle events and understand them as objective data points within a field of surrounding data points could be viewed as hubris on our part. At least until our various test regimen and equipment can also recreate that actionable sonic event with something approaching the millions of years old correlator we all rely upon in our everyday lives.
Actually I do not think an argument about skin effect is anything other than trying to hide the rubbish under the rug
Sorry to have started a new round of what does appear to be an old wounding.
Bud
Also wondered if the wire surface area to total dielectric surface X dielectric constant might be a factor.
I do not think that skin effect is going to have any audible effect on our millions of years old, semi autonomous threat assessment correlator, that sits between our conscious awareness and raw sensory data. That device is extremely good at suppressing known aberrations to enable a scan for threats possibly covered by the suppressed information.
We are here because all of our ancestors had very good threat assessment correlator's and it should not surprise anyone that we can hear something wrong and then grow accustomed to it and no longer be aware of it. Nor should we be surprised that some folks are able to consciously manipulate this SEMI autonomous mental machine and hear better or, more accurately than others, or the best test equipment currently available. Which does not have a natural selection environment much older than a few hundred years.
In addition, that threat assessment correlator is quite adept at creating an actionable assessment of free field audible events from very sparse data. That it can construct a believable and actionable recreation from our audio devices is not surprising either. That it will lock onto some lack or surplus or alteration of information that it is using and or expecting to find available for processing, to pursue this self defense activity, is also not surprising.
That we assume we can measure these subtle events and understand them as objective data points within a field of surrounding data points could be viewed as hubris on our part. At least until our various test regimen and equipment can also recreate that actionable sonic event with something approaching the millions of years old correlator we all rely upon in our everyday lives.
Actually I do not think an argument about skin effect is anything other than trying to hide the rubbish under the rug
Sorry to have started a new round of what does appear to be an old wounding.
Bud
KBK said:
It has always been an aspect of those who posses a bit more capacity for thought, intelligent observation combined with basic reasoning skills, and that, layered with a decent does of human consideration to 'walk away' from the ignorant and 'difficult'.
I am generally of that nature. But, I also don't tolerate ignorance very well. And that's a good thing. So, to toss such things back to those who insist there is no difference in cables, I'll say that it is likely because you just might be, that you just might be....ignorant and difficult.
Whether you are capable of hearing, thinking, interpreting, and a very small amount of forward thinking..is out of my hands. But do not bring your ignorance to the table. You insult yourself. It generally comes down to an aspect of capacity for self observation, ie, psychology 101. I've always thought that engineers in general, should be required to take a -minimum- of two basic psychology corses while in school, in order to get their degree. It would do the world in general..a world of good.
You sound like you're upset about something. What happened? Didn't sell any cables? Oh No...
Ignorance is wide spread hereabouts, and perhaps your mission should be to visit every thread in turn, and using your considerable charm, educate all of those too stupid to appreciate your cables.
Good luck.
jneutron said:
John, I had you pegged wrong, thought you were one of the "others"
Here's one that grabbed my interest a while ago. It's a power conditionerthat will clean up the noisey junk that passes for AC power. It's a steal at $7881.81...
PS: Note the IEC connector. A new home for your$1200.00 power cord.
Attachments
Given that copper and silver are both prone to surface oxidation, and that silver oxide is a much better conductor than copper oxide, might it then be plausible that they sound different at high frequencies?
Also, at the interface between strands which display an oxide coating, is it possible that inter-strand signal transfer becomes non-linear (it has been suggested that the junction may display qualities similar to a diode). If so, is it possible that the degree of non-linearity may vary between copper and silver?
I am not supporting the veracity of these hypotheses, merely asking for opinions from those expert in this area.
pm
Also, at the interface between strands which display an oxide coating, is it possible that inter-strand signal transfer becomes non-linear (it has been suggested that the junction may display qualities similar to a diode). If so, is it possible that the degree of non-linearity may vary between copper and silver?
I am not supporting the veracity of these hypotheses, merely asking for opinions from those expert in this area.
pm
MJL21193 said:...thought you were one of the "others"
Logical fallacy 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
tomtt said:
I was refering to a post in the biwiring thread, that was quasi "others" sounding.
No comments on my power conditioner? Anyone of the audiophile contngent have this unit? I'm just wondering if anyone thinks it's worth that much.
Once again for all those who missed it:
Attachments
The diode theory was disproved years ago and many times over, but still continues to surface. Sorry, no references handy, but I remember it was pretty reputable work. I started really getting into this stuff again after a long hiatus, and IMO, there has been near zero progress made in 30 years. It's the same old arguments about cables and such we were having back in college, building Dynakits, Ace Audio preamps, while wishing for Audio Research tube preamps. Try to remember that reproduced audio is reproduced audio, and just like my dog not getting too excited about the image of a dog on the TV, you won't mistake it for live music except under controlled demo conditions (AR, back in the '70s or thereabouts). It just isn't worth getting too wound up about. My desire is still to explain what I hear using known electronic (and broader) theory, and design things that provide a decent musical experience using same. IMO, any other path makes little sense to me, but that doesn't mean I won't explore unusual claims. If somebody says, "look up there, a flying saucer!", I'll certainly look. I might even hope to see one, but they shouldn't be too disappointed when all evidence says it's really just somebody playing Frisbee with two paper plates stuck together with mashed potatoes. 
Precisely what I am trying to do. FWIW I currently use figure 8 zipcord for speakers (the really fancy version with the black stripe down one side), matched with Jaycar (US equivalent probably Ratshack) A$14 interconnects. Everything sounds fine and dandy, and I have no desire to upgrade. The fancy orange Home Depot chord mentioned here probably makes my cables look anaemic.
HOWEVER, back in the 80's I did a lot of experimentation using a switching arrangement hooked up to swap between two different wires and a straight bypass reference. I also took part in two well conducted single blind listening tests. Most of what we found confirmed the null hypothesis. However, on one occasion a regular cable v a 'tweak' cable comparison scored about a 0.75 correlaton with reality - the majority of listeners agreed that the tweak cable manipulated the sound, and sounded rather unbalanced (it was generally assumed that it was a cheap and nasty interconnect and that the 'good' cable was an audiophile one).
I also believe that using bare wire in the switching arrangement (instantaneous comparison beween two wires and a wire bypass) I was usually able to detect a difference between copper and silver conductors (with my preference for plain old copper). This comparison was carried out both sighted and single blind. In two subsequent sighted interconnect comparisons I believed I heard a difference between my bog stock copper cable and a 'tweak' cable, in both cases to the detriment of the 'tweak' cable which again appeared to manipulate the sound in an unnatural fashion (generally spotlighting detail to the detriment of the overall cohesion of the music).
My conclusions:
1. It may well be possible for designers to produce cables which alter the sound; however, to date I have not liked the alterations I have heard.
2. I believe that I have heard a difference when instantaneously switching between copper and silver conductors.
Paraphrasing Conrad, my desire has been to explain what I hear using known electronic (and broader) theory.
pm
MJL21193 said:
No, I don't have one of those. $1200? It's a steal. Nice metalwork.
Seriously, I made a huge mains improvement to my Bang & Olufsen 1970s portable radio the other day. The highs were clearer, the bass better defined, and the midrange less muddled. You see, in the 1970s, they didn't really think much about RF noise on the mains from computers, and the moment I plugged my computer into the same distribution board as the radio it was unlistenable, with all sorts of horrible noise all over it. I looped the radio's mains lead one turn through an elongated ferrite toroid (suggested on this thread, I believe), and all was sweetness and light. It's the first time I've done anything about the mains and genuinely heard an improvement.
But no, $1200 for a pretty aluminium box containing virtually nothing is a rip-off. Unless it has common-mode chokes hand-wound on the thighs of Cuban virgins and fixed with C37 lacquer.
I use silver wire, though.
Just not controversial enough I think - just about everyone agrees that getting rid of cr** on the mains is a good thing. It's only really the price to get hot about.
How about cryogenically treated tubes?
Are directly heated tubes really better sounding, or is it just propaganda spread by former communist bloc countries to increase tube sales ?
Are SETs effette and do real men run PP, or even PPP?
Does putting picture of yourself in the freezer really improve your sound ? (I am not kidding about this one - just Google Peter Belt)
or probably the best of all:
Does the concertina or long tailed pair offer the best performance / sound, and why ?
pm
Power conditioners
Mach1,
BTW, I certainly agree that EMI is a problem. As an experiment, I hooked up a section of coax with two 6 inch unshielded pigtails which were connected to form a small loop antenna. Using a 350 Mhz scope I observed almost 100 mVPP Rf noise pulses in the living room, and I live out in the country.
I have not seen the specs for the >$1K power conditioner, but I believe you could do almost as well with industrial-type units. They are available from such manufacturers as Corcom and Schaffner for $10.00 - $60.00, depending on the current rating and high frequency rejection ratings.
It should be noted that there are two types of EMI: conducted and radiated. The power filters noted above will take care of conducted, but not radiated, RFI. For that, it is necessary to prevent any RFI picked up on cabling from entering the active electronics.
The real problem with EMI getting into audio equipment is the nonlinear nature of the amplifying devices therein. A simple diode junction (for example, the B-E junction in a transistor) can act as a rectifier and convert RFI into audio noise.
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I recommend a closed, metal chassis with no large slots or gaps. The ability of RF to pass through an opening varies as 1/(max gap dimension) cubed, so it pays to keep the max gap or slot size to less than 0.5 inch. Also, all cables going into the chassis need to have filtering applied upon entry into the chassis, especially if they are not shielded. It is not necessary to shield the entire length of speaker or mains cables, just filter them before they enter an amp/preamp chassis.
Mach1,
BTW, I certainly agree that EMI is a problem. As an experiment, I hooked up a section of coax with two 6 inch unshielded pigtails which were connected to form a small loop antenna. Using a 350 Mhz scope I observed almost 100 mVPP Rf noise pulses in the living room, and I live out in the country.
I have not seen the specs for the >$1K power conditioner, but I believe you could do almost as well with industrial-type units. They are available from such manufacturers as Corcom and Schaffner for $10.00 - $60.00, depending on the current rating and high frequency rejection ratings.
It should be noted that there are two types of EMI: conducted and radiated. The power filters noted above will take care of conducted, but not radiated, RFI. For that, it is necessary to prevent any RFI picked up on cabling from entering the active electronics.
The real problem with EMI getting into audio equipment is the nonlinear nature of the amplifying devices therein. A simple diode junction (for example, the B-E junction in a transistor) can act as a rectifier and convert RFI into audio noise.
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I recommend a closed, metal chassis with no large slots or gaps. The ability of RF to pass through an opening varies as 1/(max gap dimension) cubed, so it pays to keep the max gap or slot size to less than 0.5 inch. Also, all cables going into the chassis need to have filtering applied upon entry into the chassis, especially if they are not shielded. It is not necessary to shield the entire length of speaker or mains cables, just filter them before they enter an amp/preamp chassis.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.