One way to make expensive speaker cables!

[analog_sa]

Jennice

The polarising voltage has no connection whatsoever to the signal carrying wires. It only serves one purpose - to polarise the dielectric.

The suggestion that Kuei is ignoring a biasing voltage is almost insulting.

I have have no direct experience with applying polarising fields in a controlled fashion but have been baffled with the effect that lifting a speker cable offf the carpet produces.

[Jennice]

Analog-sa,

Right...!
If the point is to polarise a non-conductive (to some extend capacitive) material, then how is the insulator polarised uniformly?

Is it really that insulting to ask? I had somehow hoped for a logical, non-woodoo, explanation, rather than the need for someone to defend him (isn't he able to do that himself?)

Maybe it's because I'm doubting this woodoo stuff, and no "believer" has found a valid, bullet-proof argument for it to actually work... (Isn't that interesting, b.t.w.???)

Furthermore, if there should actually be sense in biasing the dielectricum, it should be biased beyone the voltage levels of the line signal.
Quite frankly, I can't see the point in 1.2V (whoever came up with that figure???) bias for a signal that may reach 2V or more, other than colouring sound with asymmetrical distortion rather than symmetrical distortion. Yes, it may sound different... but is different == better by definition!?

Regarding your floor phenomenon:
Might there be an electrostatic charge potential between your floor and the audio equipment? If so, it may be in the kiloVolt range, which is a rather differnt offset than what we're talking about in the thread. Also, it may indicate that your amplifiers have severe problems driving (slightly) capacitive loads...?

Jennice

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by Jennice
Noe you've lost me...!
Unless you're referring strictly to balanced cables, you will have current in your screen also.

Cables as such are neither balanced or unbalanced, shall we refer to the type of cable used in my case in an unbalanced connccection as pair & screen (for balanced I use a triplet and screen)?

Originally posted by Jennice
What you're experiencing may be the effect of the added DC on the input stage of thatever the signal cable feeds into ( maybe a poweramp?)

Of course not. Doing that would be really daft. No, NO and NO again. The bias ia applied between a screen which is used STRICTLY as screen (meaning no signal current flow).

Originally posted by Jennice
Other than that, I don't get the point of the DC.

Try it. Maybe you will.

Sayonara

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by Jennice
Is it really that insulting to ask?

No.

Originally posted by Jennice
I had somehow hoped for a logical, non-woodoo, explanation, rather than the need for someone to defend him (isn't he able to do that himself?)

The problem is that there isn't one I'd care to advance. I have heard a number of arguments, to me non of them hold water.

I will say that I have excluded microphony and dielectric absorbion as sources of the audible change we observe. I did a prett well blinded test once with someone who INSISTED that "all cables sound the same". The person was not a little shocked and put out when I illustrated to him that simply removing and returning the Bias on around 12m worth of AIR DIELECTRIC cable did make a difference he could hear with good realiability and without being prompted.

As mentioned earlier in the thread (it is polite to read a thread through before jumping in), I have empirically evaluated the problem and found that to my satisfaction the Effect exists. I am a practical Enginner first and a scientist second. If something works but is not explained (well) by current theory it still works as far as I am concered.

Originally posted by Jennice
Maybe it's because I'm doubting this woodoo stuff, and no "believer" has found a valid, bullet-proof argument for it to actually work... (Isn't that interesting, b.t.w.???)

So, if I concocted a sufficiently "scientific" Bull (most scientific theories are revealed by time as exactly that) that is hard enough to disproof that I can always insist on it's reality you would have been prepared to believe me.

Yet given that I am merely an empiricist who observes something and is content to accept reality, to accept his limitation of knowledge and to avoid theorising of the cuff I have become a Woodoo (actually VouDoun is a better spelling - it's a very interesting system that I am more than a little familiar with, as an aside) High Priest.

Funny how in modern times the "scientific" methode has shifted from the laboratory to the armchair. Well, your approach certain explains something about the state of the cable industry.

I better go away and concoct some scientific bull about quantum physics, electrostatic fields and sound transmission if I want to sell some of my cables I guess....

Originally posted by Jennice
Furthermore, if there should actually be sense in biasing the dielectricum, it should be biased beyone the voltage levels of the line signal.

I agree.

Originally posted by Jennice
Quite frankly, I can't see the point in 1.2V (whoever came up with that figure???) bias for a signal that may reach 2V or more,

While it may REACH 2.8V peak on occasion, CD's are usually matered with 14db headroom, so the AVERAGE level in LOUD passages will be 14db lower and much below 1.2V. So 1.2V will bias the dielectricum. However, if our dielectricum is air and the wire bare silver and the Biasing still brings audible changes we may conclude that whatever is audible is NOT related directly to biasing the dielectric and to "swamp out" dielectric absorbtion.

Originally posted by Jennice
Might there be an electrostatic charge potential between your floor and the audio equipment? If so, it may be in the kiloVolt range, which is a rather differnt offset than what we're talking about in the thread. Also, it may indicate that your amplifiers have severe problems driving (slightly) capacitive loads...?

Now let's just assume that for arguments sake the experimenter has already considered the obvious and the amplifier is capable of driving any load and that no electrstatic field exists (it may have been eliminated with commercial antistatic spray), yet the difference in sound persists. What do you do then?

I had an eyeopening experience once (nearly 20 years ago) when I had to liberate some sensor cable where I worked (long ago in former East Germany) to make a microphone cable I needed that evening because another was severely damaged. The new cable (PTFE insulation, silverplated copper conductor, silverplated copper screen and silicon rubber outer sheath) sounded very different from the cable usually employed (PVC insulation stranded copper, basically generic twinax mike cable).

It SHOULD by all I knew about electronics have sounded the same. Yet it consistently and annoyingly so refused to do what theory told the cable it should have done. Maybe it is a shame cables are not required to read electronic textbooks before they start conducting. I'm sure my cable would have been very chastised and down about putting so many eminent academics in the wrong and would probably not have misbehaved....

Sayonara

[Jennice]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang


The problem is that there isn't one I'd care to advance. I have heard a number of arguments, to me non of them hold water.

That's an interesting start...

I did a prett well blinded test once with someone who INSISTED that "all cables sound the same".

That was not my claim, if you please!

As mentioned earlier in the thread (it is polite to read a thread through before jumping in), I have empirically evaluated the problem and found that to my satisfaction the Effect exists.

I DID actually read the entire thread... very interesting stuff. (Otherwise, I wouldn't have subscribed to it).

So, if I concocted a sufficiently "scientific" Bull (most scientific theories are revealed by time as exactly that) that is hard enough to disproof that I can always insist on it's reality you would have been prepared to believe me.

No, but you have convinced me that not all bull is scientific...
Meanwhile, I'll continue living happily ever after, with inductances, capacitances, and resistances, as far as passive components are concerned.

Yet given that I am merely an empiricist who observes something and is content to accept reality, to accept his limitation of knowledge and to avoid theorising of the cuff I have become a Woodoo (actually VouDoun is a better spelling - it's a very interesting system that I am more than a little familiar with, as an aside) High Priest.

All of a sudden, things are becoming clearer to me.... Not that I like what I see, but it's becoming clearer nonetheless.

Funny how in modern times the "scientific" methode has shifted from the laboratory to the armchair. Well, your approach certain explains something about the state of the cable industry.

Are the folks in the cable industry really rotten? It seems to me that they're just employing the smartest sales guys. After all, they've sold the most expensive zobel networks I know.
(And no... I don't work with a cable company)

I better go away and concoct some scientific bull about quantum physics, electrostatic fields and sound transmission if I want to sell some of my cables I guess....

Some would probably buy your cables then... I wouldn't. You could also consider applying for a job as technical writer at some of the existing companies.

While it may REACH 2.8V peak on occasion, CD's are usually matered with 14db headroom, so the AVERAGE level in LOUD passages will be 14db lower and much below 1.2V.

In my world, that depends on the gain- and buffer stages throughout the system. After all, not all CD players have the same output level...

Now let's just assume that for arguments sake the experimenter has already considered the obvious and the amplifier is capable of driving any load and that no electrstatic field exists (it may have been eliminated with commercial antistatic spray), yet the difference in sound persists. What do you do then?

I would conclude that it's super-natural, and call a priest. I know where to find one...

I had an eyeopening experience once (nearly 20 years ago) when I had to liberate some sensor cable where I worked (long ago in former East Germany) to make a microphone cable I needed that evening because another was severely damaged. The new cable (PTFE insulation, silverplated copper conductor, silverplated copper screen and silicon rubber outer sheath) sounded very different from the cable usually employed (PVC insulation stranded copper, basically generic twinax mike cable).

It SHOULD by all I knew about electronics have sounded the same. Yet it consistently and annoyingly so refused to do what theory told the cable it should have done. Maybe it is a shame cables are not required to read electronic textbooks before they start conducting. I'm sure my cable would have been very chastised and down about putting so many eminent academics in the wrong and would probably not have misbehaved....

...and I suppose that you measured it for L, C and R over the audio bandwidth, and compare it to the previously used cable, before using the replacement? Oh, of course.. being a practical guy who doesn't like armchair science, you naturally did, no doubt.
Again... I have never claimed that all cables sound the same.

I rest my case... otherwise I'll just end up with the Pope putting a spell on me.

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

Originally posted by Jennice
Meanwhile, I'll continue living happily ever after, with inductances, capacitances, and resistances, as far as passive components are concerned.

Which is fine with me. I am not trying to convince/convert people. I merely tend to keep a more open mind than many, tend to try more and have no qualms to share what I experience. It provides some datapoints to those interested. How you use them is your call and not much of interrest to me. To me it matters to share the experience and hope that others do the same, giving me datapoints too that I can use, interpret and apply as I like.

Originally posted by Jennice
All of a sudden, things are becoming clearer to me.... Not that I like what I see, but it's becoming clearer nonetheless.

My scholarship is rather heterodox. It does indeed include esothric items from many disciplines and areas. It does prevent mental sklerosis from setting and broadens ones outlook. I recommend it. No point being a prisoner of your own prejudices and ides in your own head when you can be free....

Originally posted by Jennice
Are the folks in the cable industry really rotten?

As always, some are, some are not. One company makes high tech cables which require a huge fabrication system and use very advanced cosntruction methodes to make cables that electrically behave more closely to the ideal than anything that came before. Another company uses the cheapest genric cable printed with their name and hooks some tone control networks into fancy boxes which compensate for bad design in electronics.

Either companies cables fetch similar amounts. I may be forgiven for not thinking much of one of them.... ;-)

Originally posted by Jennice
Some would probably buy your cables then...

They already do, simply based on listening.

Originally posted by Jennice
I wouldn't.

You know, I could concoct some really convincing scientific bull, much better than most cable makers (arguably, I also have more of technology in the cables anyway than most....).

Originally posted by Jennice
You could also consider applying for a job as technical writer at some of the existing companies.

Nah, I prefer doing my own thang.

Originally posted by Jennice
In my world, that depends on the gain- and buffer stages throughout the system. After all, not all CD players have the same output level...

Absolutely. Actually, my commercial cable includes a supply that is adjustable between 1.2V and 12V. Different voltages do lead to notable, if subtle difference.

Originally posted by Jennice
I would conclude that it's super-natural, and call a priest. I know where to find one...

I need an old priest and a young priest. The power of Christ compells you. Nice one, excorcising cables. And you think I'm the nutcase.

Originally posted by Jennice
...and I suppose that you measured it for L, C and R over the audio bandwidth, and compare it to the previously used cable, before using the replacement? Oh, of course.. being a practical guy who doesn't like armchair science, you naturally did, no doubt.

Actually, both where twisted pairs with about the same crossection and general construction. The RLCG parameters MAY have varied a little, but by far not enough to cause an audible change to a Vocal Mike (Shure SM58) hooked to a PA system.

One of the things that do come to mind is that due to it's application (sensor cable in a moving, hot envoironment) the cable had been constructed to minimise microphonics and to withstand high temperatures which gave better dielectric parameters, usually not piced up by RLC Measurements. These two may have contributed to the better sounding "microphone cable". I also must admit that I later managed to finagle to buy a large reel of the cable at "scrap" prices from work and changed all microphone cables over to this.

Originally posted by Jennice
I rest my case... otherwise I'll just end up with the Pope putting a spell on me.

What case?

The case that you do not accept that applying a voltage across a dielectricum can cause audible differences? Or that you you fail to see any theoretical foundation for it? Or that you wish to avoid practicing VouDoun to avoid excomminucation by the pope? Or that you simply dislike my approach to reality?

Sayonara

(PS, the pope is constrained from practicing magic by the catholic churches interpretation of the scriptures, so don't worry)

[SY]

No expert in the field here, but isn't DC voltage usually used to polarize something? Wouldn't it be hard to polaize something using AC voltage, since it keeps reversing itself?

You do polarize dielectrics with AC- it's just that the polarization changes with the signal. Let's consider a polymer dielectric. As you apply an electric potential across it (which is equivalent to saying that you're impressing an electrical field across it, with the field being the gradient of the potential), the electron cloud of the polymer chain slightly shifts its probability density in the direction of the positive side of the field. As the field reverses, the cloud gets pushed a bit the other way. The stonger the field, the more the push.

As the cloud gets pushed, it induces a dipole moment in the direction of the push. How much it's pushed for a given field and how much dipole moment gets induced is reflected in materails parameters like dielectric constant and polarizability. The more the push, the greater the induced dipole moment. And as the field goes to zero, the cloud returns to its equilibrium position. It's a bit like a spring in this fashion. And, like a spring, its most linear response is for small deviations away from the equilibrium position.

And, lest anyone misunderstand, the response of the electron cloud to a polarizing field for normal dielectric polymers is VERY fast. I mean unbelievably fast.

[Gunders]

What about a TP cable that will boost your internetspeed?

[kelticwizard]

Originally posted by SY

And, lest anyone misunderstand, the response of the electron cloud to a polarizing field for normal dielectric polymers is VERY fast. I mean unbelievably fast.

Thanks, SY. I guess what I had in mind was a more permanent type of polarization, one which lasts, in one direction, after the electrical signal has ceased. From what you wrote and some google searches, that permanent effect does not seem to occur,

[AuroraB]

Ho-ho----- Hold your horses guys...

One thing that has amused me for over 30 years now, is the fact that the lesser the knowledge of even basic electronics and even worse for advanced transmission theory, - the stronger the beleifs in metaphysics. This seems to adhere specifically to magazine reviewers, and is probably the main reason I stopped buying mag's like Stereophile and the likes many years ago.

This is definately not to advocate a standpoint that there is nothing between heaven and earth that engineers don't know, - but it is increasingly more strange that most of these phenomena cannot be backed up by conclusive measurements. Human hearing is a rather strange thing, and it is an absolutely undisputed fact that e.g. trained musicians, amateur or pro, will hear things in music that most people don't notice, - but by virtue of training. Thus I absolutely condone the fact that also music lovers can hear things that "ordinary people" cannot, - but reading and hearing all the mumbo jumbo one sometimes comes across, could lead us to beleive that all engineers must have lost this ability, - by traing??? I don't think so! Metaphysics rules,- for a lot of self appointed beleivers.

It is also an undisputed fact that various dielectrics play an important role, - at megaherts freq!.

Sorry! Must dash--- more to follow!!