Bob,
Quite a high percentage of members here say that caps definitely burn in and settle (sound wise) for the better, especially when in the signal path. Too high to ignore. Some with up to 35 professional years of testing and audio design, endore this as well. So I am leaving this open in my mind!
Thank you about the tube explanation (the subject of which I have done the least reading). Obviously the explanation here is less mysterious than some of the other contentious subjects and your explanation is very easy to follow.
Jonathan,
Thanks for helping to encourage me to keep an open mind. It would be interesting to know the details.
I still want a decent explanation why a percentage of people hear a difference based on quality, insulation, purity, and/or material, other than a placebo effect, etc. That explanation is about as scientific as someone saying believe me I can hear something.
I am serious about this being tested at Sy's next amp festival with adamant people representing both sides. Nobody leaves until one side agrees with the other or a third catagory is determined. This has been going on for too long!
One hundred years ago, there was no such thing as a Geiger counter. Did that mean there was no thing as radioactivity until the day the GC was invented? Perfect timing!
Regards//Keith
Quite a high percentage of members here say that caps definitely burn in and settle (sound wise) for the better, especially when in the signal path. Too high to ignore. Some with up to 35 professional years of testing and audio design, endore this as well. So I am leaving this open in my mind!
Thank you about the tube explanation (the subject of which I have done the least reading). Obviously the explanation here is less mysterious than some of the other contentious subjects and your explanation is very easy to follow.
Jonathan,
Thanks for helping to encourage me to keep an open mind. It would be interesting to know the details.
I still want a decent explanation why a percentage of people hear a difference based on quality, insulation, purity, and/or material, other than a placebo effect, etc. That explanation is about as scientific as someone saying believe me I can hear something.
I am serious about this being tested at Sy's next amp festival with adamant people representing both sides. Nobody leaves until one side agrees with the other or a third catagory is determined. This has been going on for too long!
One hundred years ago, there was no such thing as a Geiger counter. Did that mean there was no thing as radioactivity until the day the GC was invented? Perfect timing!
Regards//Keith
KP11520 said:
The problem is there are no 'facts'. No one has rigorously studied any of these questions. And just to note, it takes a large body of evidance (ie, multiple tests) for something to be agreed upon as 'proven'.
I would love to help set up some of this sort of testing, were it possible. I too am tired of claiming unsupported 'facts'.
At a religious forum, you might find a high number of people who say that biological evolution doesn't happen. Yet they can safely be ignored.
Have you read Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"? It's a classic. I think it might be already in the Gutenberg archive.
The problem of course is that in order to properly ABX the different cables, you need some kind of relay switching system either for the cables themselves or for recording of systems with the cables. Neither approach can be said to be transparent considering the minute differences we're trying to hear.
When I finish getting all the distortion out of my loudspeakers and getting my listening room perfect, then I'll worry about cables.
When I finish getting all the distortion out of my loudspeakers and getting my listening room perfect, then I'll worry about cables.
KBK said:
Nothing so high tech. I saw the term "age annealed copper wire" in an ad somewhere and figured "temporal domain annealing" sounded much more interesting!
Actually that quarter cruncher takes a copper hardwired system and in one very loud intense blast of plasma creates a wireless network!
I really think that most of this has been covered... in 1967.
For a good read, I suggest Ragnar Holm's "Electric Contacts." It distinctly discusses metallic softening for thin conductors at even modest bias.
If I were a cable mfg, this is the book I'd be looking at, contact problems, inductance and the skin effect, actual versus expected contact area, and most importantly: experimental evidence.
aside:
I was at a speaker demo, and I heard this guy talk about how some velvet packed box near the connecter aligned the all the electrons in the same direction. As far as I know, that can only be accomplished with Cr02 , and at low temperatures.
ps: I couldn't vectorize a Hibbert space, but I did learn Einstein notation at one point... does that count?
For a good read, I suggest Ragnar Holm's "Electric Contacts." It distinctly discusses metallic softening for thin conductors at even modest bias.
If I were a cable mfg, this is the book I'd be looking at, contact problems, inductance and the skin effect, actual versus expected contact area, and most importantly: experimental evidence.
aside:
I was at a speaker demo, and I heard this guy talk about how some velvet packed box near the connecter aligned the all the electrons in the same direction. As far as I know, that can only be accomplished with Cr02 , and at low temperatures.
ps: I couldn't vectorize a Hibbert space, but I did learn Einstein notation at one point... does that count?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.