I've had sad experience with electromigration in fine pitch PTF- in this case, the electrolyte came from the moisture in the air. Silver is particularly susceptible and usually requires a carbon overcoat. John may have something else in mind, implying that the conductor migrates into the dielectric?
That's another thing that's disclosed on the label, reportedly a can of pepsi has 2g more sugar. Random fact time: coke is made with beet sugar in much of europe, where it is made from corn syrup in the USA. Since we are talking about pepsi vs coke, of note is the statistical gamesmanship of the pepsi challenge, always offering pepsi second gave an advantage and the results were that the test was not statistically significant.
Glad I was able to divert your attention away from the real questions at hand. It might be interesting to take two pieces of wire, send the same signal through them into a differential amp. Then burn one in (how does one do that?) and repeat the test, do this a few times and see what changes.
I could do this test, but then the police might find out and they'll ask questions...
True story, a friend's dad thinks the government is spying on him and used to spend time in a fort he fashioned out of aluminum sheet and he'd wear this hat he fashioned from an ice cream pail wrapped with magnet wire.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration , according to this article it becomes important at current densities of 10^6 or 10^7 amps per square cm. If that statement is true, it is important for nanoscale traces on an IC, but not audio wire.
Last edited:
Obviously there is some miscommunication here. It occurs to me that exotic conductors like long- (or single-) crystal copper and silver would be less susceptible to electromigration. And where does the electrolyte come in?
John
Yes, in the field I worked (PTF electronics) electromigration is an electrochemical phenomenon. In the context that d to the g uses it, it's something that is a factor at a few million amps. Not exactly relevant to audio. I'm still waiting for some actual explanation or evidence beyond, "Because I said so!"
What does it matter whether or not physical changes occur in the metal? This is irrelevant to audio as it relates to human beings. The fact is, there is NO ONE who can demonstrate that they can hear a difference. If anyone can, The Amazing Randi has a million dollars waiting for them. John, are you up for a quick and easy million bucks?
Doubtful that's going to happen. Randi is quite sick (undergoing chemotherapy) and has announced that he's only going to consider high-profile challenges. Compared to the multimegamillionaire scammers like Sylvia Browne or John Edward, "hearing wire" is pretty lame stuff.
John has already made it clear that he can't hear the differences without peeking, so the only thing left is plausibility arguments (what we're given is "Because I say so") or demonstrations of physical/measurable changes (what we're given is vague and irrelevant references to basic textbooks which have zero about his claims).
John has already made it clear that he can't hear the differences without peeking, so the only thing left is plausibility arguments (what we're given is "Because I say so") or demonstrations of physical/measurable changes (what we're given is vague and irrelevant references to basic textbooks which have zero about his claims).
To be honest about this, did YOU actually think that physical changes in a piece of pure copper could be noted just sitting at room temperature in a lab? I am pretty sure the researchers were impressed as well. However, not all imperfections in the copper will self correct. It may take a little more effort, and I suspect electrical flow just might give it. This was explained in the next section of the text that I footnoted.
You see everyone, I am working in reverse. I looked through the telescope and saw the moons of Jupiter. Now I am only concerned in how they got there and to predict their motion. (What Galileo must have thought, 400 years ago). ;-)
I heard the difference first, and now I try to explain it, but I do NOT deny it, just because my explanation is still not air tight.
You see everyone, I am working in reverse. I looked through the telescope and saw the moons of Jupiter. Now I am only concerned in how they got there and to predict their motion. (What Galileo must have thought, 400 years ago). ;-)
I heard the difference first, and now I try to explain it, but I do NOT deny it, just because my explanation is still not air tight.
Last edited:
Who CARES if there are changes or not? I can sit with an oscilloscope all day long and show differences between one component vs. another identical component. I'd be surprised if there were a measurable difference in burned in vs. non burned cable. - But even if there were - If no one can HEAR the difference, How does it matter in respect to audio?
Galileo could show anyone willing to look through his telescope the same thing he saw. Before you can be taken seriously, you need to at least demonstrate that you can see what you claim.
Noodling around in this thread wasn't a complete waste of time, I found a really interesting site by an academic where he tests various audio claims and beliefs.
Home page to The Scots Guide to Electronics
Enjoy!
Home page to The Scots Guide to Electronics
Enjoy!
Yes, Galileo COULD show anyone who wished to look through his telescope the same thing he saw, yet many would not look. It is the same here, as many will not listen.
Now, what exactly did happen almost 400 years ago? 'Francisco Sizzi (Professor of Astronomy) dismissing Galileo's claim that his telescope had permitted him to see the 'moons' circling the planet Jupiter:'
"Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the Earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist."
Sounds a lot like the 'professors' around here. ;-)
Now, what exactly did happen almost 400 years ago? 'Francisco Sizzi (Professor of Astronomy) dismissing Galileo's claim that his telescope had permitted him to see the 'moons' circling the planet Jupiter:'
"Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the Earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist."
Sounds a lot like the 'professors' around here. ;-)
Just a couple of question regarding the burn in instructions, that started this thread, quoted below:
• Install your cables as previously instructed.
• Put a constant music signal through the system (CD player in Repeat Mode or
FM Tuner), at a low volume level. If the system is turned on and off, be sure
to log playing time until the 2/2 break-in process is complete.
• If burning in interconnects only, your amplifier does not have to be turned
on—just source components.
Q1, if you burn in the cables by playing music, wouldn't playing music through the cables burn them in?
Q2 What happens after the two week burn in, when you start! restart playing music through the cables?
• Install your cables as previously instructed.
• Put a constant music signal through the system (CD player in Repeat Mode or
FM Tuner), at a low volume level. If the system is turned on and off, be sure
to log playing time until the 2/2 break-in process is complete.
• If burning in interconnects only, your amplifier does not have to be turned
on—just source components.
Q1, if you burn in the cables by playing music, wouldn't playing music through the cables burn them in?
Q2 What happens after the two week burn in, when you start! restart playing music through the cables?
You're comparing yourself to Galileo? Wow. What's next, Einstein? Jesus?
At least Galileo presented EVIDENCE, rather than stamping his feet and telling people to accept what he was saying purely on faith. A somewhat less obscure astronomer, Kepler, was quite supportive since he was actually given experimental EVIDENCE. Where's the EVIDENCE, John?
I have a VERY good headphone system, and a decent conventional stereo. I listen ('look') every day. I can convince myself that I hear a difference in cables with no trouble at all. I have done so before with several items, not just cables, (op-amps, DAC's, etc.) only to confirm that it was my imagination. Such convictions can easily be confirmed or rejected objectively.
Using your Galileo analogy, it would be like pointing one telescope at his alleged sighting, and placing an identical telescope next to it, looking in the same direction, but with the lens cap still in place. Many attempts by several people to tell a difference between the two could then be made. Perhaps over several nights. No one could know which was the telescope with the lens cap affixed. Their results would be tallied and analyzed statistically.
If no one, including Galileo, was able to discern a difference between the two sights using sight alone - beyond random guessing - it could then be concluded that Galileo was erroneous in his claim that he could 'see' something. Galileo would easily accept these results because it is reasonable and valid to his scientific mind. Will you?
Objective tests are made all the time in well controlled and valid conditions. NO ONE has yet been able to show that a difference can be heard between a $10K cable, and a twenty dollar cable of the same length and gauge.
The objective proof has been made hundreds if not thousands of times.
Therefore, when you make these claims publicly, the burden of proof is upon you. You don't even have to be able to say which is 'better', only that you can hear a difference. Unless you can show that you can hear a difference, you cannot be taken seriously in your claim.
As I said before, if you think you can hear a difference, go get your million dollars from the Randi Institute. It should be easy money for you.
Otherwise, before you delude others who come to these forums seeking knowledge into wasting their money unwisely, you should tell them that your results are subjective, and based on faith or intuition, not objective fact.
Last edited:
To continue flagellating the deceased Equus caballus,
Let's say that a few hundred years later, people again look for a difference in Galileo's two images using spectral photography. With it, they then see that there is indeed a measurable difference, invisible to the naked eye. That's great for science, but what if the original objective remains only to 'see' a difference using the unaided eye.
We know that there are easily measurable differences between different cable - perhaps even after 'burn-in' (doubt it, but I don't know for certain) The fact that no one can actually hear a difference renders all those differences moot. At least where it pertains to high fidelity listening. No one can dispute that there are measurable differences between cables. By the same token, no one can dispute (successfully) that there are NO AUDIBLE differences. Why then should anyone waste their money?
Let's say that a few hundred years later, people again look for a difference in Galileo's two images using spectral photography. With it, they then see that there is indeed a measurable difference, invisible to the naked eye. That's great for science, but what if the original objective remains only to 'see' a difference using the unaided eye.
We know that there are easily measurable differences between different cable - perhaps even after 'burn-in' (doubt it, but I don't know for certain) The fact that no one can actually hear a difference renders all those differences moot. At least where it pertains to high fidelity listening. No one can dispute that there are measurable differences between cables. By the same token, no one can dispute (successfully) that there are NO AUDIBLE differences. Why then should anyone waste their money?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.