the least significant part of the audio chain, or at least the
most mastered, i.e cables, whose physics is the first and
better known in electrical history , attract the greater number of
posts and pseudo contributions to an almost useless debate...
this is the sign than the believers of these ridiculous legends
that are "cable directionality" and "micro diodes" are at best
loosers that want to evade their failure to produce worthy
audio items...or perhaps their amps are so badly designed that
a few nanofarads or nanohenry are enough to make their
state of the arts design radio frequence emitters...
it must be aknowledged that none of these sectarians ever dared
to produce a scientific explanation using the relevant mathematical
tools, which i doubt are correctly mastered by these dreamers...
it explain why they stay on a philosophical debate build
on purely psychological beliefs with no scientific value, as a
scientific debate would expose the fraud for what it is,
a blatant lack of knowledge in (proved) electrical theories..
most mastered, i.e cables, whose physics is the first and
better known in electrical history , attract the greater number of
posts and pseudo contributions to an almost useless debate...
this is the sign than the believers of these ridiculous legends
that are "cable directionality" and "micro diodes" are at best
loosers that want to evade their failure to produce worthy
audio items...or perhaps their amps are so badly designed that
a few nanofarads or nanohenry are enough to make their
state of the arts design radio frequence emitters...
it must be aknowledged that none of these sectarians ever dared
to produce a scientific explanation using the relevant mathematical
tools, which i doubt are correctly mastered by these dreamers...
it explain why they stay on a philosophical debate build
on purely psychological beliefs with no scientific value, as a
scientific debate would expose the fraud for what it is,
a blatant lack of knowledge in (proved) electrical theories..
I believe that my ears and those of my associates tell me the truth (mostly), and that I have to follow what my ears tell me, in order to win listening contests, that are also done with ears, especially by ears of people who are not related to me, and who have no agenda, relative to me, to pick my efforts out as special. If that is a form of 'religion', so be it.
That must be it.All who claim they hear cable differences have useless amplifiers.That's very logical,otherwise,how could it be explained?
Don't be sorry
I know LCR is part of it (FR) but for me not all of it.Also I don't think that all amplifiers I've owned so far were that bad.On the other hand I also know that I am not so bad either.
So, can you detect these non-mundane differences or not, purely by ear?
BTW, here's an interesting article for you:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Ordeals.pdf
It is the other part of it that is ghastly to the subjectivists. They just don't want their imaginations to be that good!Don't be sorry
Ditto. But I think your imagination is better than mine.
Sorry, Olympic broadcast duties and all that.
I'm not sure what an example of a pop-style multitrack recording (with many different opinions on sonics) made in the late Fifites has to do with studios from this century but I haven't built one with a patch bay in 20 years. Even in the ghetto of radio all-digital or 'audio over ethernet' is SOP.
Since a release like KoB, in contrast to a minimally mic'd job, is a production product in which everything in the preceding chain is creatively massaged at the last stage for a pleasing result, I'm not sure what the point is about noting it uses wires. But it's your claim, and since we've taken that tact it's up to you to prove that the majority of releases regarded to have excellent sonics - from the RCA 3-mic classical of a half century ago through the Sheffields and into the latest digital - all run through 'hundreds of wires and connectors'.
As to the continuous repetition of that straw man that I claim ABX boxes are all subject to ground and RF issues, do we really have to rewind that far back? OK, let's.
- It's agreed that, IF interconnects are audible, the measurements correlated with known perceptual thresholds don't obviously reveal why
- Therefore IF interconnects are audible we don't know in advance which physical parameters are the cause
- Manufacturers claim the differences are due to materials, geometries, physical structures, connector types, gauges, etc.
- A mid-point ABX disrupts all the parameters the claimants say cause the effect, and represents a system change on the order of magnitude of those claims
The two ways being advanced here to address claims with no currently explainable causes are to respect and test the explanation of the claimants to the greatest extent proper protocols allow, or ridicule it all as floobie-dust and do whatever you want because it's all floobie anyway. The protocol I'm suggesting is tighter than yours and the objections confusing.
And can we please stop misrepresenting my raising the potential of effects of something of the order of magnitude as an interconnect with an accusation all ABX boxes are buzzboxes? If I haven't mentioned it, insertion of an ABX box is a change obviously and trivially of the same order of magnitude as changing a cable - connectors, contacts, wires, RF susceptibility and ground structure change - and can be demonstrated as unnecessary to maintain pretty much any DBT structure you want. If you agree an ABX box has as much impact on a system as a non-pathological interconnect, I see no logical grounds to accept inserting one in line with the DUT. Unless of course you're predisposed towards a null conclusion.
Oh i don't know, i wouldn't be so sure as there must be other things governing what's going on
Years before i got seriously into audio i was into radio, now you may not think there is a link but there could be.
To get the best out of a radio system all cable, connectors & load (aerial) impedances needed to be matched. This was known as the VSWR or Voltage Standing Wave Ratio. The idea was you got this as low as possible to avoid reflections from the antenna that would not only increase the dissipation in the RF amplifier but supply full power to the antenna. Please notice that these would also be mistimed due to something called the "velocity ratio" of the cable. In fact ideally you'd need to have a certain length of coaxial cable between transmitter & antenna, depending on the velocity factor. This was down to the type of insulation used in the cable. Foam dialectric had a higher velocity factor than solid insulation.
Now it occurs to me that phono plugs are a bit of a PITA simply because they have no defined impedance (think digital audio) & also the load often isn't defined or matched to what's feeding it.
If you can get a reflection from an antenna that isn't matched to the impedance of the cable etc it occurs to me much the same can happen in audio. Before anyone goes nuts & says this isn't radio i encourage everyone to think about exactly what radio is
It's simply an FM or AM modulation using electricity passed through some kind of shielded cable to an antenna. In our case the load is whatever we connect the cable to so we aren't broadcasting stuff (Class D amps might like to look into this).
I'm 100% sure that if a radio receiver could tune down to 50 & 60Hz we'd be deafened by the sound of our power distribution network
What i'm saying is that just looking at LCR might not be anywhere near enough to describe cable behavior.
Ditto. But I think your imagination is better than mine.
I'm not having any problem with that.
You don't know what you're missing....hahaha
Please don't call them subjectivists. It does a disservice to those who truly are subjectivists.
se
If you can get a reflection from an antenna that isn't matched to the impedance of the cable etc it occurs to me much the same can happen in audio. Before anyone goes nuts & says this isn't radio i encourage everyone to think about exactly what radio is
How do you develop a reflection of any significance in a line that's thousands of times smaller than the electrical wavelengths it's carrying?
se
Interresting comment after 11675 posts
Oh. ****. Sorry about that.
Please ignore.
se
Quite the opposite- many researchers maintain that rapid switching increases test sensitivity. So if the ABX box (and I have NO experience with commercial units, so won't wave my hands about their qualities or lack of same) has no more effect than a non-pathological wire (of which there are many in every commercially available recording/playback chain), then if it indeed increases test sensitivity, why not use it?
I'm still waiting for ANY evidence from the grumblers that a commercial (or well-built custom) ABX box has any audible effect, in or out of the system. You asserted grounding and RF problems, others have asserted that the quality of the components are lousy (without deigning to mention what ABX box they're talking about or substantiating their assertions).
So, time to stop dancing, present your evidence, and take a stand. I still haven't seen you willing to step up and do a test.
One idea whould be to build an active speaker. LCR differences could then be ironed out with equalisation. If that (equalized) speaker sounds the same or better then the same active speaker (unequalized) with "audiophile" wire it could be boiled down to measurable LCR issues. We did something like that in Essex in 1993. We build a digital active 2 way speaker with IIR and FIR filters that was from the viewpoint of impulse response a clone of the B&K measurement microphone. We demonstrated that system during the Heathrow show and invited Journalists like Ken Kessler to Essex. The results where extremy positive and i build 100 DSP units in the illusion that people will buy that system. I think i sold 12 worldwide and lost several thousand deutschmark and 2 years of work of one Prof., two PHDs, and 3 Dipl.Ings, not to mention a host of other people involved. Later the system was stolen from the Essex lab so it is not awaillable any more. We could aso switch in phase correction and psycho acoustic filters like the infamous BBC dipp. The world is not ready for neutral and true to the source sound i gess.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.