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

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by mrfeedback
Got any web references for that, or more details ?.

Sure.

The electrons interact with lattice vibrations (phonons) in such a way that their absolute directions remain randomized and the signal is represented by their net drift in the direction determined by the signal.

In other words, the electrons are kept moving randomly in all directions which decorrelates the quantization error from the signal, but statistically, you still have the appropriate number of electrons passing a given point resulting in the appropriate electrical current representing the signal.

se

[mrfeedback]

However I do have some wire here that effectively deals with quantization distortion by way of dithering (using a Gaussian PDF) which decorrelates the quantization error from the signal so instead of signal-correlated quantization distortion, you're left with just a bit of quantum level noise.

You mean you're left with standard thermal noise ?.

The electrons interact with lattice vibrations (phonons) in such a way that their absolute directions remain randomized and the signal is represented by their net drift in the direction determined by the signal.

Individual electron drift is as slow as walking speed isn't it ?.

In other words, the electrons are kept moving randomly in all directions which decorrelates the quantization error from the signal, but statistically, you still have the appropriate number of electrons passing a given point resulting in the appropriate electrical current representing the signal.

That just describes standard conduction does it not ?.
So in other words you are just talking about any old piece if wire in standard theory terms, yeah ?.

Eric.

[Christer]

I might have missed it, but I think that so far nobody, in this
thread or any other similar one, has mentioned Rod Elliotts
alternative theory of why cables may sound different. It is
discussed in this article http://sound.westhost.com/highspeed.htm
(note that the article discusses two different topics intermixed).

His idea is based on the fact that most amplifiers have a very
high oputput impedance at RF so the cable might pick up RF
signals which sneak back into the feedback path and cause
distorsion (RF causing distorsion at audio frequencies is not
new per se). Different cables might have different properties
as antennas, picking up different frequencies well. Which cable
sounds best might then depend rather on the RFI spectrum
at a certain location than on the actual audio equipment. As far
as I understand it, this would also mean that other factors than
R, L and C are important, since it is the properties at RF, not
audio frequencies, that are of interest.

Further, Elliott suggests using a Zobel filter also on line level
outputs to prevent this problem. If his theory is correct, adding
a Zobel filter should make the equipment almost insensitive
to the choice of inteconnects.

This is an interesting experiment for those who (claim to) hear
clear differences between different interconnects. Add a Zobel
filter at the output and try the different interconnects again.

It should be noted that Elliott has not himself tested his theory
for lack of RF test equipment and lack of RFI where he lives.

[SY]

So I hope you don't take this the wrong way.

No, not at all. But I would maintain that the absence of evidence in a case like this (i.e., a long standing one, where an industry has been created) is a STRONG indicator of the evidence of absence. My analogy would be homeopathy- despite decades of effort, a lot of money thrown at it by consumers, and many fortunes made, no-one can produce any reliable evidence that it works. In a Popperian sense, it can't be DISproved, but as the null results mount up (and molecules and electrons continue to show exactly the behavior that well-established physics predicts), one can get arbitrarily confident that the null result is the correct one. That's what I (somewhat sloppily) meant by the phrase "overwhelming evidence."

All it takes is one psychic under conditions that eliminate the possibility of cheating to demonstrate that ESP exists. One dowser to demonstrate that it works. One homeopathic treatment to show efficacy beyond placebo. And only one valid listening test to show cable effects beyond connection integrity and impedance. We're waiting...

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa,

I think we have some fundamental problems here, part of this is the "modern" view of "science" and what "engineers" are thought of it.

Modern science promotes extreme specialisation often at the cost of knowing only one narrow area and nothing else. Modern Enginners are generally tought a simplified version of what was accepted by the scientific establishment about a decade or two before the engineer actually attends University.

Now in the "old" scientific tradition (that which "modern" science studiously denies) the various original scientific disciplines (Physick, Alchymie, Astrology, Medicine) where seen as being part, together with the liberal arts as part of that one "Super Science" known as Philosophy (from Philae Sophia - Love of Knowledge), out of which all the others came.

In many ways the "old" view is the more complete and usefull one. What we percieve is personal, subjective and relative (Bishop Berkley, David Hume) and despite Kant, there is NO "thing in itself" percievable by humans.

As a result what we percieve is largely a product of our education, upbringing, cultural background, or in a much shorter term, our Philosophy or worldview.

As someone whose entire value system, worldview etc. is very much informed by the last age of enlightenment, rather than that of the current age of darkness of corporate greed and a science that has removed itself from it's origins, moral responsibilityes and aims and has become a mere tool to the worshippers of Mamon, I find it hard to even have a common language with those who have sold their "soul" to modern science (note, I'm not using the previous terms in a religous way - however in a lot of ways they and the worldview of the Age of Enlightenment are fundamentally religeuos).

Now a sceptic, a TRUE sceptic in Hume's tradition will be sceptical of all things (and must be). It seems however that modern scpetics have forgotten that lesson and choose to be certain (to a degree of fanatical belief) of all things that agree with their philosophy, while they are equally absolutely and irreoncilably "sceptical" of things not immediatly agreeable with their philosophy. They will never mistrust their own perceptions, but will readily mistrust the perceptions of those whose perception dioffers from theirs.

I find this state of affairs most delorable.

I am readily admiting that I do not know for certain what causes sonic differences that extend past the RLC parameters, though I have my theories. Nevertheless, I percieve these differences with good reliability (yes, I questioned my own perception too) and thus will not accept to be told I am hallucinating.

I note that there are plenty of people who have never really tried a fair and statistically defensible comparison under adequate conditions insist on the inaudibility of these "esotheric" effects, based purely on second and third hand information and a basic philosophy.

I would also note that the effect which may lead "believers" to hear a difference where there is non (a well documented phenomenae) will lead staunch non-believers not to hear a blindingly obviously audible difference.

If you do not believe - set up a basic nice DBT Test. Then invite known "Believers" and known "Unbelievers" to a test which you claim will be the audibility of cables.

HOWEVER, instead of actually swpping cables, you will introduce a number of changes to the system that should be blatantly audible, such as wiring one channel out of polarity with the other, a lowpass (1st Order) with a 20KHz Corner frequency, large amounts of added even order harmonic distortion and so on. Then note the scoring.

You will most often find that those who believe that there should be an audible difference will have a lot more accurate identification than those who believe that they are listening to something for which no audible difference exists. You would be quite amused by just how much these "unbelievers" start fuming when you tell them that you tricked them and that they where not at all testing the audibility of cable changes, but simply the validity of carying out such a test in the manner and fashion it is often applied in Audio. And of course, when the same people know that they are listening for changes they know should be audible, their scoring will improve.

Untill the whole subject remains a dug in trench warfare between factions that cannot accept to see their fundamental philosophy questioned and are thus irreconcilable no progress is going to be made. I will call again for a reasonable discussion, an openminded approach to such subjects as DBT's (on both sides) and a general willingness to admit that we know in a scientific sense very few things with any degree of certainty, be this applied to our own perception or that of others.

Sayonara

PS, no fire - no smoke. And I see plenty of smoke - so should we not try to find the fire, instead of arguing if the smoke is smoke and if it is real smoke or imagined smoke and the nature of the smoke? Once we have penetrated through the smoke to the source, much will become clear.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by mrfeedback
You mean you're left with standard thermal noise ?.

Ultimately, yes. Though seeing as copper (as well as silver) isn't superconductive at any temperature, the random element will be there even at 0 degrees Kelvin.

Individual electron drift is as slow as walking speed isn't it ?.

Depends which model you use. If you use the classical Drude model, yes. If you use the QM model, no. In the QM model, only those electrons very near the Fermi level actually participate in conduction as a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle as it relates to the solid state. With fewer electrons participating in conduction, their drift velocity will be greater than what the Drude model predicts.

That just describes standard conduction does it not ?.

Yes.

So in other words you are just talking about any old piece if wire in standard theory terms, yeah ?.

Yes. But don't tell anybody and I'll cut you in on a share of the profits.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by SY
No, not at all. But I would maintain that the absence of evidence in a case like this (i.e., a long standing one, where an industry has been created) is a STRONG indicator of the evidence of absence. My analogy would be homeopathy- despite decades of effort, a lot of money thrown at it by consumers, and many fortunes made, no-one can produce any reliable evidence that it works. In a Popperian sense, it can't be DISproved, but as the null results mount up (and molecules and electrons continue to show exactly the behavior that well-established physics predicts), one can get arbitrarily confident that the null result is the correct one. That's what I (somewhat sloppily) meant by the phrase "overwhelming evidence."

Fair enough. To each their own. For myself I simply prefer to say that there is a lack of evidence in support of the claims.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Untill the whole subject remains a dug in trench warfare between factions that cannot accept to see their fundamental philosophy questioned and are thus irreconcilable no progress is going to be made.

I agree completely.

As I said elsewhere, my fascination with this centers around why people tend to factionalize themselves and cling dogmatically to blind leaps of faith similar to those you find in religion as well as politics.

Because I haven't any particular beliefs in this matter and have no vested interest in any particular outcome, these contrasts stand out like a sore thumb to me.

I will call again for a reasonable discussion, an openminded approach to such subjects as DBT's (on both sides) and a general willingness to admit that we know in a scientific sense very few things with any degree of certainty, be this applied to our own perception or that of others.

Sure. But by the same token, there must also be a general willingless to admit to that which we DO KNOW. And the biggest blind spot in high end audio is the near complete denial of the well-established fact that our subjective perceptions are prone to influences other than actual audible stimulus.

In this regard, high end audio is much like Igor from the film Young Frankenstein.

"Hump? What hump?"

se

[mrfeedback]

Ultimately, yes. Though seeing as copper (as well as silver) isn't superconductive at any temperature, the random element will be there even at 0 degrees Kelvin.

Is this straight randomness ?
IOW, due to mutual interactions of differing numbers of electrons in electron shells, is there not a likelyhood that the thermal noise spectrum is different according to the conducting element.

With fewer electrons participating in conduction, their drift velocity will be greater than what the Drude model predicts.

This drift is still nowhere as fast as the propagation velocity (near to the speed of light) of the conductor is it ?.

Yes. But don't tell anybody and I'll cut you in on a share of the profits.

Is the text in your first post (...which decorrelates the quantization error from the signal so instead of signal-correlated quantization distortion, you're left with just a bit of quantum level noise....) copyrighted ?.

Eric.

[mrfeedback]

What are the fields extending outside the braid of a shielded, balanced line cable ?. - I have reasons to ask this question.

Eric.