I think you misunderstand our questions. Nobody said you are a heretic or swindler. We did say you might be mistaken. Independent thinking is fine, provided it is independent of consensus rather than independent of reality.dvv said:
The claim that different wire metals change the sound is often made (and so possibly might be true) but:
1. there is no explanation known to science
2. there are other explanations as to why people might think they have heard this effect.
Let us assume that the effect you heard is real. It is still premature to assign it to the metal, as the cable may be different in other ways. It puzzles me that people always seem to assign any perceived cable differences to the conductor, when the insulation is far more likely to be the cause of any real differences. OK, wild hypothesis coming up (independent thought): silver atoms migrate into the dielectric and modify its behaviour.
Hi,
Why?
As long as we do not need great lab-level accuracy (which we rarely do), it is simple to improvise current probes in more ways than I care to mention. Sniffer coils can be threaded upon transformer leadout wires, low value resistors connected in series (great to use with battery powered digital 'scopes) and so on...
Necessity is the mother of invention, not of capitulation...
Ciao T
Why?
As long as we do not need great lab-level accuracy (which we rarely do), it is simple to improvise current probes in more ways than I care to mention. Sniffer coils can be threaded upon transformer leadout wires, low value resistors connected in series (great to use with battery powered digital 'scopes) and so on...
Necessity is the mother of invention, not of capitulation...
Ciao T
Hi,
Really?
I would disagree. There a number of characteristics in which copper and silver differ. For example, copper oxide and silver oxide differ remarkably in the way they conduct. Even only 6% (0.5dB) reduction in ground impedance can lead to measurable differences.
I do not think that there are as such no scientific reasons as to why silver and copper wires may affect signals and noises differently at all, in fact I can see a few good ones.
Sure. There are always other explanations.
However in the presence of real differences we may not have to bother with them.
Ciao T
Really?
I would disagree. There a number of characteristics in which copper and silver differ. For example, copper oxide and silver oxide differ remarkably in the way they conduct. Even only 6% (0.5dB) reduction in ground impedance can lead to measurable differences.
I do not think that there are as such no scientific reasons as to why silver and copper wires may affect signals and noises differently at all, in fact I can see a few good ones.
Sure. There are always other explanations.
However in the presence of real differences we may not have to bother with them.
Ciao T
Dvv, I know that there are some unanswered mysteries regarding thinking, perception, and behavior of random processes outside of somebody's mind. It had been proved by scientists in multiple experiments around the world many times, but nobody can explain why it happens if not to go outside of Newtonian model of physics, to entanglements of human minds and Universal Mind, no matter how weird it seems to be.
Here is one interesting graph...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'd love to, but it's pretty short already for the content! Perhaps there is a Google books reproduction (although those are brilliantly contrived to leave out a crucial page or two, as soon as one is really interested!).
If oxide is the cause then this is a termination issue, not a cable issue as such, although I accept that the oxide and the underlying metal travel together. It would also tend to cause one metal to be always favoured, but my understanding is that the anecdotal evidence points both ways. Of course, I suppose it could be another example of low level distortion being avoided by some and favoured by others.ThorstenL said:
If it is the metal itself which makes the difference, which seems to be what people claim, then it must have either have some non-linearity (not seen) or frequency dependence (no internal frequencies in the audio range AFAIK). Internal frequencies in metals tend to be significantly higher than the audio band.
Sy, I would be grateful if you quite simply listed the first five (5) mistakes you think we made. No lenghty explanations needed, just a list.
But my general comment stands as written. I will think long and hard before posting any shematic of what may be a simple auxilliray circuit, let alone anything more complex such as a power amp, lest I be jumped upon how it is theoretically badly concieved, how my values are impossible, and I'm pretty sure there would be somebody explaining to me how it couldn't possibly work, even if it's playing music in my room at that very moment.
Not to even mention "discussions" like why did you use that cr***y transistor and not xxxx, why just yy mA therough this trannie and not yy*+30% mA, those who "know" that those output devices don't have a hope in hell of sounding even decent, etc. I really hate back seat drivers. ESPECIALLY those who just glance at a schematic and know it all instantly. Maybe because I am really stupid and need at least a day to familiarize myself enough not to ask a really silly question, if I have one.
I'd recommend you read the Linear Audio article, then make your own list.
What stood out was a very unlikely score (I've run HUNDREDS of sensory panels, and your reported score for something you characterized as subtle is so unusual, it screams "poor controls"), and a complete absence of any mention of the details that would have taken the most effort to get right (e.g., level matching procedures, timing measurements and control, switching noise measurement and control, switching procedure, randomization of presentation, recording and scoring, isolation of the switching, randomization of controls...). Post hoc recollection is notoriously inaccurate- unless you video recorded the experiment, you will get the recounting of the details wrong.
I would repeat my advice to hire a good magician (if you can't afford a good experimental psychologist or sensory scientist) to help you set up your controls. That's the stuff that they're experts at and engineers aren't. Engineers and scientists are incredibly susceptible to being fooled and fooling themselves, much more so than most other people. Magicians LOVE having scientists for an audience.
Regarding your other comment, I've never hesitated to post my own circuits and schematics, but admittedly I'm not trying to sell or promote anything in audio and have benefited from the more intelligent criticisms.
If you make a public statement you should not be surprised if you sometimes get public disagreement. It ought to be polite, but life is not always like that. The mods will prevent things from getting too out of hand. What you should not expect is that a design, however good or bad, will receive just praise (except from some quarters).dvv said:
Some people 'think' at the level of fashion statements, and confuse that with electronic design. They will criticise any circuit which does not use their favourite idea/bias point/components etc. You can ignore them if you wish.
There are others who really can look at a circuit and tell you that it won't work, based on sound engineering. If you think it does work, then it may be that you haven't actually built what you say you have built (surprisingly common - although you appear to know what you are doing), or it may be that the alleged problem does not appear in your environment. It may that your critics are wrong, in which case a reasonable argument can take place.
Please don't be put off. If you think you have got too strong a response then it probably means you have accidentally pushed someone's 'hot button' - most of us have them. Some of us could even tell you what some others' buttons are.
Front pastedown of Dunn tabulates fundamental constants and properties of materials at (roughly) 290 K. One item is the mean free time of electrons in copper, tau sub F: 2.4 * 10^-14 s.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that one of the critical frequencies (I forget which one, I am not a solid state physicist) in copper is somewhere near the visible frequency range, which is why copper is opaque (but 'copper' colour) for visible light but transparent for UV. (Hope I got that right - working from memory - always dangerous!)
I have made several attempts, not quite effective. Just enough to tease me. 30 gauge around little torrid, low value resistors. I have some ideas to build a little instrumentation amp for gain and try different perm doughnuts with much finer wire. It would be nice if I could find a published design. Otherwise, it is another distraction. I also wonder what king of amp the standard Tek probes need, as I see the probes for sale sans amps. I don't need the calibrated amp.
Would you care to mention a few ways? I'll divert for a couple of days.
If it's the probe I'm thinking of, the "amp" is essential, the probe worthless without it. And you need the power supply that is part of that modular series.
Edit: this is the one I was thinking of, but it looks like it's been superseded for a while: http://www.testequity.com/products/569/
Edit again: By, for example, these: http://www.testequity.com/products/1113/
But you really probably don't need the d.c. capability.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.