I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by fdegrove
Ah, and you think it works like that?

Sure do.

Sorry to say so but going for a thicker wire gauge isn't going to be any good at all.

Please re-read what I wrote.

I said that in the context of losing a bit of wire diameter due to some of the copper atoms at the surface having combined with oxygen, resulting in an effectively smaller (though only microscopically smaller) wire diameter.

Electron penetration depth is said to be frequency dependent.
Most of them travel at the surface of the conductor.

Said by cable marketing literature you mean.

The greater transport current density nearer the surface of the conductor (skin effect) isn't the result of the electrons all migrating toward the surface (i.e. not penetrating the depth of the conductor). It's because more of the electrons toward the center of the conductor are tied up spinning around in eddy currents and not contributing to transport current.

So as I said, there are electrons throughout the conductor. Just that as you get toward the center of the conductor, fewer of the electrons there are contributing the transport current.

Than there is other phenomenon that occurs called current bunching as well...

And "current bunching" is right out of Analysis Plus' marketing literature. So is your entire understanding of the physics of conduction in wires based on cable company marketing literature?

"Current bunching" is more commonly known as "proximity effect." Its cause is the same as for skin effect. Eddy currents induced by time-varying magnetic fields. The two effects (skin effect and proximity effect) are basically one and the same. Skin effect is from the perspective of a single conductor and priximity effect is from the perspective of multiple conductors in close proximity to each other.

But so what? The copper oxide on the surface of the wire isn't participating to any degree in terms of conduction and transport curent anyway so what exactly is the problem?

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Circlotron

Seems there's nothing new under the sun.
This is how they solved the problem in the old days.

Hahahaha! Good one!

Yeah, can't get much more direct than that. Acoustical to mechcanical and back to acoustical.

Like Lars used to say, "Look! No watts per channel!"

Well, no electrical watts anyway.

se

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Said by cable marketing literature you mean.

Not at all.
If you care to wrestle through Dr. Malcolm Hawfords work you'll notice alot of what most cable manufacturers do is based on that.

So, assuming I read you correctly we could all expect a range of cable from you that can be as oxidized as possibly imaginable?

You're probably going for a PVC or other chloride rich insulator since that doesn't matter anymore either...

I wonder what geometry you'll adopt but I'm sure that with sufficient marketing clout and appropriate amounts of hype they're going to beat the hell out of all competitors, right?

BTW, some vulgarised resume of Dr.Hawkfords work was published in Hi-Fi News back in 1988 already under the title "The Essex Echo".

And "current bunching" is right out of Analysis Plus' marketing literature. So is your entire understanding of the physics of conduction in wires based on cable company marketing literature?

Never heard of that company but I'll have a look later on.

"Current bunching" is more commonly known as "proximity effect."

That's all I needed to hear.

So, would it be safe to conclude that you don't think crystal boundary effects, contaminants and whatever else is out there is just a load of salestalk?

Cheers,

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by mcp
What is this, an AES forum? A Law Institution? Medicine, where lives are at stake?

Nope.

But I would like to think that even here most would expect that which is being presented as factual actually be factual and that those things which are presented as factual should be open to questioning.

When is sharing an opinion in a diy forum making a claim of fact.

When the opinion is presented as a claim of fact rather than an opinion.

And when is something that has not been scientifically proven must therefore be false.

Never. And I have never said or implied otherwise.

What I have said is that that which has not been scientifically proven should not be passed off as fact. To do so is just as irrational and misleading as saying that that which has not been scientifically proven must therefore be false.

And just as irrational as your PRESUMPTION that because I say something hasn't been scientifically proven that I am saying it must be false.

Before Newton formulated the laws of gravity, does it mean gravity does not exist. And since I cannot show God to anyone, does it mean there is no God. There are millions of devotees world-wide, from Christians to Hindus to Buddhist, to name a few, who have not have the grace to met their diety or Maker. Am I to say they are wrong?

Nope.

But where was all this logic and reason you exemplify above when you judged me based not on anything I've actually said, but on your own presumptions? Isn't that the very definition of prejudice?

For your information, we do freeze photograph. Check with Eastman Kodak on "The Preservation of Color Prints and Transparencies for Archiving".

For my information, please tell me when I've ever said that we don't freeze photographs.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by fdegrove
Not at all.
If you care to wrestle through Dr. Malcolm Hawfords work you'll notice alot of what most cable manufacturers do is based on that.

It's Hawksford, not Hawkfords.

And cable manufacturers were addressing skin effect before Hawksford wrote the Essex Echo series in HFN&RR. And while it's been quite a few years since I read that series, I don't recall Hawksford claiming that there is a dearth of electrons in the center of the conductor.

So, assuming I read you correctly we could all expect a range of cable from you that can be as oxidized as possibly imaginable?

Don't have any plans of entering the cable business.

But suffice to say that in situations where I don't actually need any insulation on the wire, I don't use any. It's a bit difficult though to make interconnects and speaker cables without any insulation.

You're probably going for a PVC or other chloride rich insulator since that doesn't matter anymore either...

If I were to fret over objective performance, I'd worry more about the PVC itself than a thin film of copper oxide on the wire.

I wonder what geometry you'll adopt but I'm sure that with sufficient marketing clout and appropriate amounts of hype they're going to beat the hell out of all competitors, right?

A braided quad works for me.

BTW, some vulgarised resume of Dr.Hawkfords work was published in Hi-Fi News back in 1988 already under the title "The Essex Echo".

What do you mean a "vulgarized resume"? Hawksford himself wrote those articles. And as far as I'm aware, his bit about skin effect never made it into any professional journal, which seems rather odd given that he's not at all shy about it and has nearly 200 papers in articles published in such journals.

Why would he leave such a piece of work to be published only in a consumer audio magazine?

So, would it be safe to conclude that you don't think crystal boundary effects, contaminants and whatever else is out there is just a load of salestalk?

What it would be safe to conclude is that I have seen many claims for which I have not been able to find any substantiation of.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Brett
Atheism is merely another beleif system.

Exactly. Atheism requires the same leap of blind faith that theism requires. Both are closed-minded, dogmatic, and divisive.

se

[fdegrove]

Hi,

It's Hawksford, not Hawkfords.

Sorry, I really suck when it comes to typing.

And cable manufacturers were addressing skin effect before Hawksford wrote the Essex Echo series in HFN&RR.

Sure enough, but you seem to say that it doesn't matter...your electrons seems to circumvent that problem as if they were on steroids...

Don't have any plans of entering the cable business.

That's a relief.

But suffice to say that in situations where I don't actually need any insulation on the wire, I don't use any. It's a bit difficult though to make interconnects and speaker cables without any insulation.

Glad you realise that.

If I were to fret over objective performance, I'd worry more about the PVC itself than a thin film of copper oxide on the wire.

Fair enough, as long as you understand why I mentioned it.

A braided quad works for me.

Fine, and many other less labour intensive configurations could do as well...
Yours is going to be highly capacitive though.
Like anything else, it's a compromise.

What do you mean a "vulgarized resume"? Hawksford himself wrote those articles.

As in written for a broad public, not meant for fellow scientists.

And as far as I'm aware, his bit about skin effect never made it into any professional journal, which seems rather odd given that he's not at all shy about it and has nearly 200 papers in articles published in such journals.

Not odd at all, he just brought the effects to the attention of a broader audience through the mag.
After all skin effect is nothing new, although maybe new to you...
RF engineers countered it quite nicely by using hollow conductors around WW2.

Why would he leave such a piece of work to be published only in a consumer audio magazine?

Because it was there already.

What it would be safe to conclude is that I have seen many claims for which I have not been able to find any substantiation of.

You can just as well add your own here...
Not that I believe everything I read, far from it.............

So, if you don't mind me asking, where is it you want all of this to go?

Cheers,

[Nappylady]

Hollow conductors? Like copper pipe, perhaps? (silver pipe if you're picky?) Would this work well as an audio conductor?

I picked up a copy of Audiophile magazine a while back and read a few articles, including a comparison of 4 cables that were, if I remember, 3m long each... or some shortish length... anyway, they were all >$450 per, and, AFAICT, just different combinations of insulations and ends...

It seemed to me, that selection of driver materials, crossover frequencies, and box design would make orders of magnitude more difference than the cable...

I also thought it was interesting that there was no AB or ABX testing in the article; they just plugged in one, listened, then the next, listened, perhaps did some back and forth, but did nothing to even address placebo effect. I guess it just bothered me that people who spend so much time and money tweaking every last part of their stereo systems, are unwilling to accept any scientific testing at all. If it were me with the $100K setup, I'm sure it would rack my brain to no end that perhaps I was wrong in my selection of cable A over cable B, or the amp, or the CD player, DAC, or box design. Doesn't that eat away at anyone else? Could I take this as proof that it really is just a money thing, and there isn't any difference of any importance between my $0.50 cables and your $500 cables?

*sigh* Why did I ever subscribe to this thread?!? *unsubscribes*

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Hollow conductors? Like copper pipe, perhaps? (silver pipe if you're picky?) Would this work well as an audio conductor?

And why wouldn't it?

Fashionable variations on the theme nowadays are foil conductors and oval conductors...
And yes, they claim to have invented the wheel...

A hollow conductor does all of that and more...

It seemed to me, that selection of driver materials, crossover frequencies, and box design would make orders of magnitude more difference than the cable...

So, what do you do to improve your system when you have all of the above figured out?

Doesn't that eat away at anyone else?

Sure, and that's how most sales are made...a lot of people can't decide..so they take the "safe way out" and go for the most expensive stuff, hoping it's the best money can buy.

Little do they know, but can you blame them?

[analog_sa]

If it can't be empirically measured, then it doesn't physically work.

poppycock. plain and simple.