What is the point of science if it does not explore the boundaries of knowledge and observation?
I'm not sure what your point is, but real science goes far beyond that. Much science is driven by mathematics, models, and paradigms. When Einstein's theory about light interacting with gravity was experimentally confirmed, a reporter asked him what he would have thought if the experimental results contradicted his theory. His answer was that the experiment would have been flawed. He had CERTAINTY that his "theory" was correct because it was mathematically derived from first principles, and logically followed from science that had already been confirmed. To him it was not so much a "new theory" as an elucidation on already confirmed science, and could no more be false than the proposition that "1+1=2". This was not about "what we see", it was about "what we understand" and the very nature of mathematics and the universe. Please don't restrict our playground to the merely observable.
People selling stuff on sites with statements such as -quo-
- High Quality Silver-Clad Copper Wiring. I hear a lot of talk about Silver versus Copper and there are strong opinions. We use a wire that is sonically in neither camps and yet use both Copper and Silver. This wire is totally down the middle, extremely clear and also homogenous sounding, very even-handed and not at all Hi-Fi'ish. I even make my own Interconnects from this wire, which is made by a UK company and I order 100 Metres at a time. Not cheap and not super expensive, it has never let me down.
Why is this a "quack" approach?
It's a fact that opinions on cables are usually radical and often opposing, even on OFC wiring. Just remember how many times you came across such views over the years.
It's a fact that some people, myself included, feel that some pure silver cables are the best we have (please note the discalimer "some"). While finalizing my own speakers in 2002, my friend and I tried a multude of cables and ended up with using pure silver wiring. We felt it was the best overall, though the difference compared to some OFC cable was only just percievable, minute, but neverteless it was there.
Perhaps we understnd the word "quack" differently. To me, a quack is someone who makes outlandish results from what is generally understood as sandard fare, yet here he is, claiming his standard fare is way better than all others. The quoted paragraph is simply stating an opinion while making no wild claims. As if someone simply said "I feel cable X is better than most".
It's a fact that opinions on cables are usually radical and often opposing, even on OFC wiring. Just remember how many times you came across such views over the years.
It's a fact that some people, myself included, feel that some pure silver cables are the best we have (please note the discalimer "some"). While finalizing my own speakers in 2002, my friend and I tried a multude of cables and ended up with using pure silver wiring. We felt it was the best overall, though the difference compared to some OFC cable was only just percievable, minute, but neverteless it was there.
Perhaps we understnd the word "quack" differently. To me, a quack is someone who makes outlandish results from what is generally understood as sandard fare, yet here he is, claiming his standard fare is way better than all others. The quoted paragraph is simply stating an opinion while making no wild claims. As if someone simply said "I feel cable X is better than most".
There will be a difference. Silver is a better conductor than Copper. So, you will be very lucky if they have the same geometry, the same resistance, the same lumped elements.
They will measure differently, so, to presume they will affect differently the circuit they are inside is just applying correctly the laws of electricity as we know them.
Now, to think that there is some "sound" related to the conducting material itself is an other story.
A "quack" approach would be to sell for an unjustified price a cable with false assertions, knowing they are false, in a dishonest way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLEhh_XpJ-0
Last edited:
Yes they will measure differently, the argument is that the difference will be inaudible unless the cable has extreme differences. A recent thread had a post with a link to some measured results between cables, they were very small 0.1db....
The best one for silver was a claim that a silver USB cable sounded brighter than a copper USB cable...
The best one for silver was a claim that a silver USB cable sounded brighter than a copper USB cable...
"A Survey Of 1/f Noise In Electrical Conductors"
1/f noise is not stationary and can be altered at will, rendering the 1/Δf (sideband) products subjectively much less offensive.
Dan.
1/Δf noise is readily audible and is a lot of what subjectively differentiates playback and recording systems......and wires/cables.
1/f noise is not stationary and can be altered at will, rendering the 1/Δf (sideband) products subjectively much less offensive.
Dan.
Last edited:
Some day you might get something right.
There is no doubting other people's subjective experiences. We just don't believe that they are necessarily the unerring reflections of the objective reality that you believe them to be.
There are those of us who are aware of our own humanity and the limitations that come with that. And then there are those who are in complete denial of their humanity and believe themselves to be superhuman.
se
Huh?
I did not say THAT !!!
Could you please read again what I said, because you are now putting words into my mouth making me say things I did not.
Don't you agree that science should not be chasing ghosts?
It must have a starting point related to the human experience.
Please read my posts again.
Cheers, Joe
That's why evidence is called for before speculation. Bald assertion and anecdote have all the evidentiary quality of claims of alien abductions with anal probing.
Show that a ghost exists before chasing it or demanding that others do so.
High end audio storytelling is full of remarkable claims. They fall more or less into three categories:
1. Something audible and well known (e.g., frequency response variations, instability, clipping, level, distortion, polar pattern...).
2. Something that is completely imaginary and appealing as a story, not incompatible with basic physics, but going well beyond any documented human aural sensitivity (e.g., conductivity change is a wire that changes the frequency response by 0.001dB at 20kHz).
3. Something that is completely imaginary and appealing as a story, but completely incompatible with basic physics.
Categories 2 and especially 3 require evidence when such claims are made. Without that, it's ghost stories and tales of alien abductions with anal probing, so people shouldn't be surprised when "shenanigans" is called.
That is where you are absolutely out of any reality, believing our ears are microphones we can measure. That documented human aural sensitivity exists. There is very few things on this subject. Fletcher and Munson ?
Like sight, hearing is a very complex process, varying with circumstances, age, culture etc. By example it is obvious you think sinus waves, when we are talking music. While eyes are more sensitive to movements than contrasts and ears the same.
Sorry, but, for me, your attitude looks like the one of some member of the tribunal of the Inquisition, defending earth is flat.
In a way, you are arrogant, in your contemptuous attitude, spending your time to rely on theories (the ones you believe in), with no respect to other's experiences and not even trying to verify anything.
"Evidences", "claims" etc.
I am sorry to say this, but who do you think is more "believable" ? A well known and successful audio designer like J.C, or some obscure moderator of a forum with a pseudo like your ? (Not like this could have any influence on my points of view ;-)
On my side, I am not a believer. I read others assertions with interest, and when something look strange to me, i verify, unless it goes obviously "against" verified theory.
If I don't believe in "burning cables" or "silver", who am-I to pretend L.C. is dishonest on this subject ?
Last edited:
Well outside this forum SY is a published Scientist,. JC has something to sell albeit via parasound these days. One follows scientific principle, the other is 'legendary'.
If you actually read what SY posts he is completely open to some new magic property of the human ears being found, but up until know everything can be explained by what we already know about how we perceive sound.
In your dayjob (or pre-retirement) you weave soundstages. You can move the vocalist left,right, up, down, forwards and backwards with a flick of a knob. No magic at all, but read reviews of music and you might think there was!
If existing tests show we can just detect changes at around NdB, then someone claiming that we can hear changes down to 0.01NdB has to demonstrate that himself - not merely assert it and demand proof from those who disagree or insult those who doubt it.Esperado said:
Sadly, audio is one of the branches of engineering where commercial success and praise are quite poorly correlated with a sound grasp of physics. Electronics is also a field in which good designs can be achieved by those who are confused about the fundamentals; even good designers can still talk nonsense from time to time. Calling it nonsense should not be misconstrued as a criticism of their other good work.
Dan you're going up against the folks who have literally written the book on this.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.