OK, I posted my cable test as submitted to JREF in a new thread.
Comments are welcome (in that thread)
Comments are welcome (in that thread)
jneutron said:
Where are you getting this???
As Cal said, the bass electrons are BIGGER...key word there..
The treble electrons can't get by them....DUH!!!
They stack up behind the bass suckers.
Sheesh, dinna you larn nuttin???
Cheers, John
jneutron said:
Big John is watching.
Better review those text books.
Johan Potgieter said:
Not that much culture involved I'm afraid....
http://www.singulartists.com/artist_u/uriah_heep_lyrics/july_morning_lyrics.html
Anyway I use heavy automotive cable (twin within a protective black sheath about 3mm dia) cause it's cheap and it's all copper.
Cheers
Q
Discussing hearing differences between cables with a friend(doctor who also plays with audio),he said that this might not be in the el.engineer's ability to know exactly why,as it is not a cable only issue,but also a hearing issue.A hearing test(the medical way)will help someone to know his hearing limits,and,logically his audio listening perspective.He knows much about music,and in his opinion many music lovers don't really know where to look(listen)for the real differences in audio equipment,eventhough at the time of listening to a piece of music these differences are detected by someone who knows a few things about music.Hearing makes other human senses to react,and very often it is what we call too small a difference,that makes the difference.
Panicos K said:
This is very true. Additionally, it even recording methods and mic types make a difference, so it's necessary to look for that really little detail to be abloe to repeatedly identify each cable. Picking the right source is also very important in identifying the little things.
Panicos K said:
Thanks for doing the best you can.
I've just played around with some recording, and found that every little thing makes a difference. Just recently visited a mic site the demonstrates the different sounds of mic make me also wonder whether I'm hearing the system or the mic or other processing aspects. Now I understand why some singers have their own personal mics.
planet10 said:
Also regarding your later post: Then I and most engineers I know belong to that end group, because what we profess has nothing to do with people or opinion or insight, but with scientific facts. Since you used the example, facts such as that the earth is round, gravity exists or Ohm's Law.
Generally, one of the major problems with this thread, interesting as it is, is that too often testimony of what is simply impossible (such as that the earth is flat) was simply ignored and arguments carried on in an almost "I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts" manner.
It has become a little too convenient to hide behind the pious "science does not know all" utterence. We certainly do not know all, but we know certain things. Such as that 3+5=8, Ohm's Law (and that the earth is round). Looking at that, it is rather peculiar to find that engineers are flat-earthers, i.e. folks that ignore the obvious. And sorry, Dave, one is either a flat-earther or you are not - you cannot be somewhere in-between.
It has been repeatedly stated that practical cables (let us stay with loudspeaker ones for now) cannot make a difference in audio. None of the parameters remotely leave that possibility open. There is nothing that we cannot measure here; it is like a round earth. It is basic science, not any misguided engineer's opinion; shooting the messenger will not eradicate the message (but it might reveal ignorance on the part of the shooter).
But as I respectfully hinted earlier (also subsequently ignored until a few posts ago), nobody questioned that revered ultimate instrument, the hearing faculty. Let me therefore be a little more blunt this time: The human hearing (including all of us!) is a very poor and inconsistent measuring sense. Like all our senses, it can compensate up to a factor of several hundred times. It does not even interpret the same frequency as exactly the same tone every day; its direction analysing properties vary with time and our biorythms. It has a poor memory, can tolerate copious amounts of 2nd and some 3rd harmonic distortion and even find their presence pleasing, etc. etc. There exists numerous acousto-medical research to this effect gathered over several decades by some of the most respected research facilities.
Until this is recogised in a discussion such as this, measurements of hair-splitting accuracy can be of academic interest only. Theory of such blind test analysis, inter alia by Jneutron, was informative and educational and to be observed in classic blind tests. But to my mind (and not denying the above but to make things simple as a first approximation), if two persons are most convinced about the differences between two brands of cable when they know what they are listening to, only to loose that ability under identical conditions when said makes are unknown, there can be only one explanation.
In that sense I am a little confused by being branded as a flat-earther when the opposite is apparently true - the description better fits those that insist that science must be wrong simply because their ears tell them so.
I can also not support being compelled to purchase a certain brand of cable simply to suit an ill-designed amplifier. I have had my modest experience in amplifier design of all kinds over 5 decades and have never had this problem - any tendency at instability should and can be cured in the amplifier. (If I was such a singularly talented designer I should have been wealthy by now.)
In conclusion, again now addressing you, Dave, I cannot agree more that it is about the enjoyment of music. I am the last person to bring science into the picture if you like your radio - I did so too when my amplifier was down. But this thread never questioned that. It was about the way there and advice to those still learning that way - I seem to recall that that was how it started.
Regards (perhaps I can now bow out for the second time).
Anybody wanna try a real low impedance speaker cable?? Tis quite easy to make..
Made a 9.5 foot cable using half inch wide copper, 3 mils thick. #18 awg equivalent..
Kapton as dielectric (it has to remain flexible at 1.9 Kelvin).
Calculations of capacitance ballparked it at 1821 pf per foot if I use the 2 mil number and DC = 2.7, but that was only the 2 mils of kapton...the adhesive added another 2.5 to 3 mils thickness, lord only knows what dielectric. End result was 800 pf per foot, which is consistent with a dielectric thickness of about 4.5 mils.
From the coaxial relationship LC = 1034 DC (L nH per foot, C pf per foot), the inductance calcs as 1.53 nH per foot at 2 mils, 3.5 nH per foot at 4.5 mils. But remember, this is the coaxial relationship, a flat set will have edge fields, both e and m.
Measured inductance was 5.26 nH per foot. That makes the line impedance about 2.5 ohms, a very low storage run.
Measured values are very consistent with 4 to 5 mils of dielectric, I'm happy with the close fit between theory and measurement.
Getting to 8 ohms probably needs 10 to 12 mils of kapton, I'm gonna look around.
Meantime, this baby is gonna be used for woik apps..
Cheers, John
PS...ya know, I think I'm gonna use this design for the supply rails of my next single chip app..I'm waitin for my 4 pieces of LM4780 to arrive...but I'll make it a tri cable with ground in the center..with 5nH to the supply caps, and 800 pf, I may not even have to decouple at the chips..but that'll be fun to try.. (sorry for the off topic)
Made a 9.5 foot cable using half inch wide copper, 3 mils thick. #18 awg equivalent..
Kapton as dielectric (it has to remain flexible at 1.9 Kelvin).
Calculations of capacitance ballparked it at 1821 pf per foot if I use the 2 mil number and DC = 2.7, but that was only the 2 mils of kapton...the adhesive added another 2.5 to 3 mils thickness, lord only knows what dielectric. End result was 800 pf per foot, which is consistent with a dielectric thickness of about 4.5 mils.
From the coaxial relationship LC = 1034 DC (L nH per foot, C pf per foot), the inductance calcs as 1.53 nH per foot at 2 mils, 3.5 nH per foot at 4.5 mils. But remember, this is the coaxial relationship, a flat set will have edge fields, both e and m.
Measured inductance was 5.26 nH per foot. That makes the line impedance about 2.5 ohms, a very low storage run.
Measured values are very consistent with 4 to 5 mils of dielectric, I'm happy with the close fit between theory and measurement.
Getting to 8 ohms probably needs 10 to 12 mils of kapton, I'm gonna look around.
Meantime, this baby is gonna be used for woik apps..
Cheers, John
PS...ya know, I think I'm gonna use this design for the supply rails of my next single chip app..I'm waitin for my 4 pieces of LM4780 to arrive...but I'll make it a tri cable with ground in the center..with 5nH to the supply caps, and 800 pf, I may not even have to decouple at the chips..but that'll be fun to try.. (sorry for the off topic)
Every little detail is important and plays it's role,both in the recording and playback chain.The very fine detail and delicate,refined sounds are the most difficult to keep as intact as possible both during recording and playback.It is right here,and when everything in the chain is very carefully matched that cables can show the difference,and start to remind you better the voice or instrument you've heard and recorded.
So sorry, Dave, this bit should have come in the previous post. But I was side-tracked, also we are losing the semi-final cricket to the West-Indies, so perhaps I can be excused.
You also said: Do speaker cables make a difference ... Damn sure they do!
If you were to have said that you find they do or it is your experience, no further quibble. That is about your enjoyment of music. But standing as it is, it is presented as scientific fact. That was part of my point. With respect, either you (and those having the same experience) consider your ears perfect, but if stated as general impersonal fact ..... kindly prove it!
Jneutron,
Not getting off that easily! As my memory serves, nothing you posted as fact was not fact
Regards all.
You also said: Do speaker cables make a difference ... Damn sure they do!
If you were to have said that you find they do or it is your experience, no further quibble. That is about your enjoyment of music. But standing as it is, it is presented as scientific fact. That was part of my point. With respect, either you (and those having the same experience) consider your ears perfect, but if stated as general impersonal fact ..... kindly prove it!
Jneutron,
Not getting off that easily! As my memory serves, nothing you posted as fact was not fact
Regards all.
The claims that everthing in the audio line makes a difference to low level detail does not hold up in my book. Logic (and common sense) dictates that any detioration in quality due to sub-standard cables (and this has never been proved) is easily masked by the non-ideal nature of all loudspeakers, where the deterioration is actually measurable and is many orders of magnitude greater. The quality of sound transducer is by far most limiting factor when we are talking about reproduced sound quality and this has always been the hardest stage to perfect. The resolving power of electrical signals down a wire is in no way in the same league as that of the mechanical electrical/air interface.
The problem for the camp that for some reason believes that difference between cables can actually be heard is not just proving this, but also justifying the change as an 'improvement' with the expensive cables - there is just as much grounds for saying there is a deterioration with thicker cables - yes there is 'I can here it!!!' or saying that solid platinum cables are the best.
This, in my opinion is not so much an 'earth is flat' viewpoint as 'this expensive shampoo cures baldness', ie it is a belief that has been sold on the grounds of some pseudo-scientific technobabble that we want to believe because it makes us happier and has not been demonstatively disproved - a kind of 'fashionable and expensive' is good mentality, manifested primarily by the right 'creative' side of the brain in association with the language processing, when these are unbridled by the left ' considering, common sense, understanding' side.
The intelligent imaginer well knows the limits and dangers of imagination/emotion so uses a common sense/scientific approach by default. This is definately the camp we should be in when assessing hi-fi, with all the inherant objective vaiables.
Live long and prosper.
The problem for the camp that for some reason believes that difference between cables can actually be heard is not just proving this, but also justifying the change as an 'improvement' with the expensive cables - there is just as much grounds for saying there is a deterioration with thicker cables - yes there is 'I can here it!!!' or saying that solid platinum cables are the best.
This, in my opinion is not so much an 'earth is flat' viewpoint as 'this expensive shampoo cures baldness', ie it is a belief that has been sold on the grounds of some pseudo-scientific technobabble that we want to believe because it makes us happier and has not been demonstatively disproved - a kind of 'fashionable and expensive' is good mentality, manifested primarily by the right 'creative' side of the brain in association with the language processing, when these are unbridled by the left ' considering, common sense, understanding' side.
The intelligent imaginer well knows the limits and dangers of imagination/emotion so uses a common sense/scientific approach by default. This is definately the camp we should be in when assessing hi-fi, with all the inherant objective vaiables.
Live long and prosper.
Johan,in your last post you said 1)...human hearing is a very poor and inconsistent measuring sense.However,humans,it is with this sense that they invented,tuned,refined,and hear their musical instruments,and nothing else.I don't have any doubt(although I cannot prove it scientifically)that a violin's true colors are more correctly heard by my ears than anyone's measurement equipment.I respect and read carefully everyone's technical comments,and try to learn and increase my knowledge,as I told you in another post of mine that I do not concider myself as someone with anything more than basic technical knowledge.But,being not a good engineer like many in this discussion,does not say much of someone's hearing.And I think it is this feeling of the engineers that since they cannot measure it then no one can hear it,that automatically makes you a member of the ''flat earth society''
2)...''science is wrong because their ears tell them so...''Nobody said that I think.On the contrary,we all want some day a scientfic explanation why people hear these differences.It is right and I know you agree that science some times proves what before concidered as impossible,so,it is not correct either that someone's ears are wrong because science says so(now)
3)...''purchase a brand of cable simply to suit an ill defined amplifier...''If this is not a ''flat earth'' comment then I don't know what is.
2)...''science is wrong because their ears tell them so...''Nobody said that I think.On the contrary,we all want some day a scientfic explanation why people hear these differences.It is right and I know you agree that science some times proves what before concidered as impossible,so,it is not correct either that someone's ears are wrong because science says so(now)
3)...''purchase a brand of cable simply to suit an ill defined amplifier...''If this is not a ''flat earth'' comment then I don't know what is.
Pinacos,
With respect, hi-fi is not really comparable with a musical instrument. With music we are trying to carefully sculpture a sound that is pleasing to the beholder. With hi-fi we are trying to reproduce what has already been created faithfully, without any deterioration or added 'effect' - the two are very different. The ultimate hi-fi system does no more than try and recreate what was played by the real instruments and so the most fundamental test is a comparison with the original.
Ok - we can beef up certain frequencies or compesate for failings in some areas by adjusting others but if we lose sight of the basic ground rule of quality faithfullness then we lose the true music forever.
With respect, hi-fi is not really comparable with a musical instrument. With music we are trying to carefully sculpture a sound that is pleasing to the beholder. With hi-fi we are trying to reproduce what has already been created faithfully, without any deterioration or added 'effect' - the two are very different. The ultimate hi-fi system does no more than try and recreate what was played by the real instruments and so the most fundamental test is a comparison with the original.
Ok - we can beef up certain frequencies or compesate for failings in some areas by adjusting others but if we lose sight of the basic ground rule of quality faithfullness then we lose the true music forever.
Keladrin,you didn't say anything I dissagree with.I hope you trust me when I say I know the difference between music and hi-fi.Since man has invented hi-fi as the mean to bring ''music''in his home he must continue seeking ways to improve hi-fi performance,although I know as you do,that comparisson between real music and hi-fi will always lean on real music's side.
Now,if such improvements in hi-fi will come from cables,amplifiers or speakers,I don't really mind.Cheers.
Now,if such improvements in hi-fi will come from cables,amplifiers or speakers,I don't really mind.Cheers.
Panicos K said:
That has nothing to do with "flat earthers." The flat earthers had no proof earth was flat or round or any other shape. They just "knew" the earth was flat. An engineer is the very opposite of a flat earther. A flat earther is somebody who will not let the truth get in the way of his beliefs.
You don't believe in the existance of grey? The terms i used where convienient to describe the 2 ends of a spectrum. Anyone at either end is out-to-lunch.
I am a scientist by training, an engineer by up-bringing, and just shy of getting official accredidation as an engineer.
And i produced a concrete counterexample that proves that that is false. 2 practical cables that definitely make a difference (and which i'd be surprised if they didn't also have measureable RLC differences)
It is you who are putting yourself there then, not me. I would never call science wrong. In many things we well know our knowledge is incomplete thou. Matter of fact, it seems that an axiom of science, and life, is that the more we know, the more we realize that there is so much more to learn
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.