This is the correct audience to ask about 'zebra' wire.
Initially thought it to be a crafts wire but the search results all look like ISM.(industrial scientific medical)
It's available with gold or silver plating and high purity copper core.
I'm still intrigued back a few pages with those speaker runs using a solid return and stranded high side.
Initially thought it to be a crafts wire but the search results all look like ISM.(industrial scientific medical)
It's available with gold or silver plating and high purity copper core.
I'm still intrigued back a few pages with those speaker runs using a solid return and stranded high side.
So we have something in common, as these are some basic rules for doing science or scientific progress.
The difference seems to arise over the question what to do with assertions not backed by scientific evidence.
At that point some people are obviously more than willing to sacrifice their scientific approach in favour of their beliefs.
Extensive use of the playbook of eristics starts and search for truth is replaced by the urge to fight.
@ Rick Miller,
There is a nice collection at the AES pnw section site:
Laws For Audio Engineers
including the original von Recklinghausen "law" . At that time iirc the debate about measurements and listening impressions and von Recklinghausen was strongly advocating an update of the IHF measurement catalog to get a better correlation between the objective and subjective side.
A pros pros duck´s quack:
Duck Quack Echo | Acoustics, Audio and Video | University of Salford - A Greater Manchester University
There a lot of things that are quite difficult to measure as our perception works the way it does.
Try for example to" measure" a virtual sound source without exploring the hearing sense.
'Stress' is the usual explanation offered when golden ears fail to hear a difference in a blind test. I merely said that I would not use that explanation myself.Jakob2 said:
I would leave that to someone who knows far more about statistics than I do.
I was going by 'tone of voice', but perhaps you always talk in an apparently aggressive manner? Some people do. Forgive me if I misunderstood.
I can confirm that I have no financial interest in audio. Some years ago I was paid for a set of three articles in Wireless World about the complementary feedback pair but that was about how they work, not how they sound. I have never made claims about my ears so I have no reputational interest either. Perhaps other prominent contributors to this thread will make similar statements of interest now?
It could be, but I suspect this is unlikely. My view (call it a "belief" if it pleases you) is that we more or less know what we need to know for good audio, and have done for some years. Any new information will be at the margins and only provide for minor improvements which most people will not hear - including most who fondly imagine that they will hear it clearly.
In some cases, yes (e.g. silver vs. copper with identical geometry). In most cases, no because a cable which sounds different from an ordinary cable is inferior electrically even if it sounds 'better' to some people.
No. We can measure things we can't hear. If we can hear it then in principle we can measure it, even if at present we do not or do not yet know how to. Ears are a good guide to what pleases me; they may be a poor guide to anything else.Rick Miller said:
I have a gut intuitive hunch that ultimately this will be fully understood , even by the aes. Hint: Specific Organic material.
That sounds interesting!
I see over on the power cable thread that you have significant experience in that area.
Provided it doesn't require you to get entangled in screeds of theory, would you possibly summarise the significant reasons why a line cord can alter a system response?
Perhaps the power cable thread is the place to post the summary. I think I am correct in saying that you haven't already done so on that thread, but am happy to be corrected.
Note that I ask this as a matter of scientific interest, and am not attempting to stir things up!
Thanks.
A system where two rca cables connects an amp to a preamp, with 3 prong line cords, establishes a ground loop.
If the preamp sends a signal through one shielded cable, the low frequency current return will be typically through the bonding ground, with only some of it returning to the preamp by the shield of that cable.
At high frequency, the current will return by the shield of the rca being driven.
How the current returns to the pre will be dependent on the reactances the signal encounters. That will depend on the resistances, the loop area of the line cords with rca's.
Without control over the path of the currents, even moving the line cords around can affect the system.
There are diagrams in my gallery.
ground loop theory/tests. - My Photo Gallery
Granted, the diagrams are five years old, but I suspect those pesky Maxwell equations still hold..
jn
Last edited:
Yes, it's important to understand the basics, sounds like you have a lot to discover
You called - how can I help?
Ah, maybe all we need is for Mr Wurcer to expand to detail the warnings about the difficulties of blind testing for small differences.
You already know my views as I've detailed them but I've never seen Mr Wurcer's warnings on this topic, have you?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.