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

[scott wurcer]

Originally posted by SY
Jan, in reality, you'd have to delve into quantum mechanics to get an accurate picture of charge propagation in superconductors- "skin effect" is only a gross model and largely inapplicable outside of classical E&M.

None of this, of course, has any relevance to hooking up your speakers.

You would do well to look at quantum mechanics for conductivity in general.

[Steve Dunlap]

Well, I know that Darwin waited some 20-30 years to publish his theories and findings about natures selectivity And even then got into serious trouble

Darwin investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838.[7] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[8] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[9]

Only, somehow you remind me of the religious people who "forced" Darwin to keep his findings a secret all his life

His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolutionary descent with modification as the scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[3]

Well, I know that Darwin waited some 20-30 years to publish his theories and findings about natures selectivity And even then got into serious trouble

In recognition of Darwin’s pre-eminence, he was one of only five 19th-century UK non-royal personages to be honoured by a state funeral,[11] and was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.[12]

[BudP]

Sy, you wrote

Jan, in reality, you'd have to delve into quantum mechanics to get an accurate picture of charge propagation in superconductors- "skin effect" is only a gross model and largely inapplicable outside of classical E&M.

Would you expand your comment a bit please? If nothing else, what is classical E&M? S&M I get already.

Bud

[Pano]

Originally posted by SY
Why? If he can now hear them (as opposed to Clever Hans), blind listening won't affect that.

Exactly. Once you see it - or hear it - it often becomes obvious. I used to see that in fine art printing all the time. We would have a match print and a proof up on the board for evaluation. Customers would come in the shop and say "they look exactly alike to me." But as soon as we pointed out the little differences, they had no trouble seeing them. The original artist rarely had trouble, either.

If differences do exist in cables, knowing what they are should really help in any A/B test. The differences should be much easier to reliably detect. If they don't exist, well - they don't exist.

Originally posted by fdegrove
I for one am not confused by what he wrote.

That's good. For me Bud is like William Faulkner. I read Faulkner once and get only the words. It takes a second reading to get the meaning. With Bud it takes me even longer. =)

[rdf]

Originally posted by panomaniac
Exactly. Once you see it - or hear it - it often becomes obvious.

Otherwise known as training?

[janneman]

Originally posted by panomaniac
Exactly. Once you see it - or hear it - it often becomes obvious. I used to see that in fine art printing all the time. We would have a match print and a proof up on the board for evaluation. Customers would come in the shop and say "they look exactly alike to me." But as soon as we pointed out the little differences, they had no trouble seeing them. The original artist rarely had trouble, either.

If differences do exist in cables, knowing what they are should really help in any A/B test. The differences should be much easier to reliably detect. If they don't exist, well - they don't exist.
[snip]

That seems an interesting variant on DB testing. First take enough time until you are sure you can hear the differences between cables, after they are pointed out and agreed.
Then go to a blind controlled test and see if the differences can still be heard by sound alone.

jd

[auplater]

Originally posted by janneman



That seems an interesting variant on DB testing. First take enough time until you are sure you can hear the differences between cables, after they are pointed out and agreed.
Then go to a blind controlled test and see if the differences can still be heard by sound alone.

jd

seems to me this should be part of the experimental design phase (often ignored in naive testing) wherein you perform prescreening tests to discern what variables you're attempting to control, then set criteria for accepting the null or alternative, test the criteria, then proceed with final trials (as defined by the design level and confidence interval)

The lay public (those who've never been educated in experimental design, value analysis, multivariate techniques, etc.) don't have the knowledge or resources to actually determine validity of hypotheses (like competently built cables sound different, for instance) so all of the pages in this thread are simply opinions based on individual anecdotal evidence at best, or pure speculation...

maybe someone should do a meta-analysis of all the USENET threads, forum threads, etc. over the decades on this subject and see what comes out, eh??


John L.

[SY]

Would you expand your comment a bit please? If nothing else, what is classical E&M? S&M I get already.

I've been more on the M side in this thread.

"Classical E&M" is the familiar stuff of Maxwell's equations. It takes no notice of exotic creatures like Cooper pairs, solitons, polarons, Brillouin zones, and all the other stuff of modern physics. However, it is more than capable of handling the issues of connecting a pair of speakers.

OT question, perhaps best asked elsewhere: are you familiar with fractal antennas? I suspect you know why i would ask that...

[BudP]

OT question, perhaps best asked elsewhere: are you familiar with fractal antennas? I suspect you know why i would ask that...

mmmhmmm, know of any documents aimed at the woolly minded?
Google Sam Purvine at your leisure. My son. His take on that subject was pretty interesting, thought it might show indeterminacy being influenced by a macro "viewer" that provided a lower loss, stable storage.

Just wanted to make sure I was up to speed on the new pre-value for M, thanks

Bud

[SY]

I have a copy of an excellent review paper. I'll send you a reference when I get home tonight. Heavy slogging, but there's some interesting clues in there, and even an amateur like me was able to extract the basic points.