| millwood |
this is a NYT article from way back and I thought it might be of use for our cable discussion. Enjoy.
A few highlights:
"experts are in agreement that most cables that claim to improve the sound of audio equipment don't. Even cables costing thousands of dollars per foot are often little more than sonic snake oil, experts say. "
"Polk Audio, a well respected manufacturer of loudspeakers in Baltimore, no longer makes cables but declined an invitation to set up a listening test in its laboratories. One reason it gave was that the test could affect relationships with audio stores. "We would be hearing from every retailer in the country," said Paul Dicomo, communications director for Polk Audio. "
"What we do is kind of dirty and stinky," he said. "We say we are starting with a 12 WAG zip cord, and we position a technician behind each speaker to change the cables out."
The technicians hold up fancy-looking cables before they disappear behind the speakers. The critics debate the sound characteristics of each wire.
"They describe huge changes and they say, 'Oh my God, John, tell me you can hear that difference,'" Mr. Dunlavy said. The trick is the technicians never actually change the cables, he said, adding, "It's the placebo effect."
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech...les/23down.html |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
No homeopathy for you either then, just plain placebos?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| SY |
Who does the NYT consider an "expert"?
I sympathize with the thought, and I think there's a lot of truth here, but there's a lot of nuance missed. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Just a bunch of 'amusing anecdotes' without proofs.
Eric. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | "experts are in agreement that most cables that claim to improve the sound of audio equipment don't. Even cables costing thousands of dollars per foot are often little more than sonic snake oil, experts say. " |
Now, they do phrase it nicely, don't they? They already assume it has to cost you before it can improve things...
IDIOTS.
| quote: | | "Polk Audio, a well respected manufacturer of loudspeakers in Baltimore, no longer makes cables but declined an invitation to set up a listening test in its laboratories. |
POLK Audio hardly makes their own speakers units, let alone cables...Please??????????????
IDIOTS.
| quote: | | The trick is the technicians never actually change the cables, he said, adding, "It's the placebo effect." |
IDIOTS.
They must be sooo proud of themselves....
And NO, I am not going to prove anything to anyone, get a life and enjoy it.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Just a bunch of 'amusing anecdotes' without proofs. |
Absolutely. I see you're finally starting to recognize them now. Good for you.
se |
|
|
| cowanrg |
i just dont understand how people can say that cables dont make a difference. i have done SO many swaps on cables and they do make a difference... even when i have forgotten what cables i had in my system, i knew something sounded off, and was adjusting, tweaking and messing with things, until i realized, "oh yeah, i changed the cables last week". then i change them back and its like i remember.
im not even saying i have a golden ear, its sometimes hard for me to tell the difference between sources and amp (of HIGH end), but cables are like night and day to me! |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
"And NO, I am not going to prove anything to anyone, get a life and enjoy it."
Don't you mean get some cables that you like and enjoy them !!!. ;)
Eric. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | i just dont understand how people can say that cables dont make a difference. |
Neither do I...How do you prove what you experience ?
Mind you, I design quite a few cables but I'm still at a loss why they make a difference...
Is it due to input/output capacitance?
Is it just because I see through ideal mathemathical models ?
Am I that bright?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Absolutely. I see you're finally starting to recognize them now. Good for you.
se |
Steve do you hear differences between cables or do you not hear differences according to cables. ?
Eric. |
|
|
| cowanrg |
as some of you may know, i sell this **** to pay rent... we just recently got in the new audioquest powered cables. they are amazing! since these came out, i have vowed to not even TRY to understand why cables sound good or bad. they took a normal cable, ran a couple more wires in it, added a battery pack, and OMG, it sounds a LOT better...
i WISH i didnt hear the difference, but i do. so, my next upgrade is going to be almost $1,500 in cables :hot: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | WISH i didnt hear the difference, but i do. so, my next upgrade is going to be almost $1,500 in cables |
Ah, money...Again.
O.K....I am that lucky bloke that can get anything he like manufactured to his liking and vice versa...
Would I part with 1500 USD for a set of cables? No way, Jose!
Why?
Well, I think I can have the same performance from a 15 USD/m
wire that's why.
(15USD a single run of wire on a per meter basis)
In fact it would be a major surprise to me if I couldn't...
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | Steve do you hear differences between cables or do you not hear differences according to cables. ? |
With all due respect, I think you make the same error as the NYT writer- looking at this as a simple black and white issue. It isn't. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Originally posted by fdegrove
Neither do I...How do you prove what you experience ?
You can only state or describe your experience.
Things get interesting however when multiple independant listeners describe their experiences in the same ways.
Mind you, I design quite a few cables but I'm still at a loss why they make a difference...
Is it due to input/output capacitance?
Partly, but that is not the whole story - I can make just about any cable sound good (verified by independant listeners).
It is not just the conductor, or just the geometry, or just the insulations..............or even just all of those.
Is it just because I see through ideal mathemathical models
Ideal models are exactly that, and we all know that models are not the real thing.
Am I that bright?
Of course you are. ;) |
|
|
| cowanrg |
I am the lucky bloke who gets his stuff for free (or near free). the interconnects (6 channel analog plus some others) im getting for next to nothing thanks to sony and a few other people. but would i ever spend that on cables? NO! but will i own them and probably stare at them every night before i goto bed, yes :)
i wish i could make everything i wanted, but i cant. im still very much a novice at this DIY stuff. plus, i just dont have that kinda time. my amps are taking long enough as it is.
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
Ah, money...Again.
O.K....I am that lucky bloke that can get anything he like manufactured to his liking and vice versa...
Would I part with 1500 USD for a set of cables? No way, Jose!
Why?
Well, I think I can have the same performance from a 15 USD/m
wire that's why.
(15USD a single run of wire on a per meter basis)
In fact it would be a major surprise to me if I couldn't...
Cheers,;) |
|
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
With all due respect, I think you make the same error as the NYT writer- looking at this as a simple black and white issue. It isn't. |
Ummm, change only the cables and get a different resultant sound - I don't see the grey in that.
Eric. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | i WISH i didnt hear the difference, but i do. so, my next upgrade is going to be almost $1,500 in cables |
I think we had a thread here some time ago about building active cables. My memory is that it may have been an extension of the Fred/Harry passive preamp thread. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Steve do you hear differences between cables or do you not hear differences according to cables. ? |
I perceive differences. But I've no idea whether the differences I perceive are due to any actual audible effects. I do know that it has been well established that we humans may perceive differences even when there are no physical differences. So to that end I don't make huge leaps of illogic and insist that cables cause actual audible differences. Nor do I insist that they don't or they can't.
Unlike many others, I've no ego to stroke or anything else to prove with regard to the differences I perceive. I just take them at face value because at the end of the day, I don't give a rat's sphincter why I may be perceiving the differences.
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Great....
| quote: | Am I that bright? Of course you are. QUOTE]
Okie Dokie....
That's all I need to hear before I reach for that piece of rope...:D
[QUOTE]Ideal models are exactly that, and we all know that models are not the real thing. |
NO...You know that...The rest of the fraternity prefers to forget that...
Having a good laugh...;) |
|
|
| cowanrg |
nope, that was me...
i was asking what synergistic research is doing with their power cords. we sell thos puppies like they were $19.99. basically, we tell a customer, "try it out. bring it home for free, plug it in, see what you think".
the next day we get a call back, they want like 5 of them... they sell themselves at $425 each! i still havent brough one home yet, but i have to, just to see why people will drop that much on a power cable.
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
I think we had a thread here some time ago about building active cables. My memory is that it may have been an extension of the Fred/Harry passive preamp thread. |
|
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Ummm, change only the cables and get a different resultant sound - I don't see the grey in that. |
The gray is that changing only the cables and getting a different resultant sound doesn't establish that the different sound (or more accurately, perception) was due to anything that's actually audible.
At least if your changing of the cables was done under sighted/uncontrolled conditions.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Things get interesting however when multiple independant listeners describe their experiences in the same ways. |
But it's still just... interesting. It doesn't in itself establish actual audiblity. Just as multiple, independent individuals claiming to have seen Elvis establishes that Evlis is still alive.
se |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
I used to refer to a paunchy old custodian with mutton chops and cigarettes rolled up in his sleeve as Elvis. A friend came in one day a little agitated because they had just had an altercation. I asked him what had happened. He said he didn’t know, all he had said was, "Hi Elvis!"
Turns out the guys name was Johny and he didn’t like people making fun of he way he looked. I had never actually told anyone that it was his name, it was just an easy way to make people understand who I was talking about.
Elvis is alive and well and sweeping a parking lot in Arlington Virginia. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | But it's still just... interesting. |
Interesting is also that you use off the shelf resistors, caps, wire and xformers, etc...Or don't you?
You know where this is going, right?
Funny thing is, I won't spend a penny I can't possibly justify on my system...
Different people but so much alike?
Nobody's asking for proof here, Steve...:smash:
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| ......just a few weeks ago he was on a blues club riverboat cruise afternoon, and drinking Perth beer with me...... |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
This is one reference I was thinking of to battery-biased cables. |
Battery-biased cables are also known as "condenser microphones." :)
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| .......and my friends...... |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | Battery-biased cables are also known as "condenser microphones." |
A Nueman U-9451? Cables are after all Tube-U-lar |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
"All I've said is that no one has yet established actual audible differences under blind/controlled conditions."
There have been plenty of discussions about the validity of blind testing.
So far you state that blind tests indicate negative results, but have you searched for formal blind tests that have indicated positive results ?.
Perhaps the time is ripe for a formal test with a known revealling system, with experienced subjects in a familiar environment - IOW give the test every chance to show positive results and avoid the pitfalls of the negative tests referred to.
Perhaps this could be a DIYaudio project.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
There have been plenty of discussions about the validity of blind testing. |
So? Just because one makes arguments that the tests are invalid still doesn't establish actual audibility.
| quote: | | So far you state that blind tests indicate negative results, but have you searched for formal blind tests that have indicated positive results ?. |
Sure have.
| quote: | | Perhaps the time is ripe for a formal test with a known revealling system, with experienced subjects in a familiar environment - IOW give the test every chance to show positive results and avoid the pitfalls of the negative tests referred to. |
There have been a number of tests done under just such conditions by Tom Noisaine where the tests were done in the listener's own home, with their own systems, over periods as long as months.
The results were null.
| quote: | | Perhaps this could be a DIYaudio project. |
Um, hello? What were those wires I made up and sent out all about?
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
A Nueman U-9451? Cables are after all Tube-U-lar |
Hehehe. 'Cept those that are Rectang-U-lar. Or Ov-U-lar. :)
se |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | So to that end I don't make huge leaps of illogic and insist that cables cause actual audible differences. Nor do I insist that they don't or they can't. |
Let me give you a logical example, though admittedly a reductio ad absurdem. Back in the Stoned Ages (late '70s), the first "high end" cables appeared. They had extremely high capacitance. When substituting these cables for the heavy zip cord most of us used back then, many amps went into full-blown oscillation and self-destructed, often taking speakers down with them. I think even the most hardened skeptic like me would grant that substituting cables made an audible difference. I'll insist on that one ;)
| quote: | | Seeing as I don't smoke pot |
Me neither. Gets in the way of the heroin.
| quote: | | Um, hello? What were those wires I made up and sent out all about? |
My fault. The ones for Eric were sent out late. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring is at the cleaners. |
Oval-tine
(but that has nothing to do with tube-condensor microphones or obcure refrenses to Beldon wire) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Let me give you a logical example, though admittedly a reductio ad absurdem. Back in the Stoned Ages (late '70s), the first "high end" cables appeared. They had extremely high capacitance. When substituting these cables for the heavy zip cord most of us used back then, many amps went into full-blown oscillation and self-destructed, often taking speakers down with them. I think even the most hardened skeptic like me would grant that substituting cables made an audible difference. I'll insist on that one ;) |
Hehehe. And not only an audible difference, but an olfactory difference as well. :)
se
| quote: | | Me neither. Gets in the way of the heroin. |
I quit doing heroin. Gets in the way of the Oxycontin and vodka.
| quote: | | My fault. The ones for Eric were sent out late. |
But Frank's had his for weeks now and haven't heard a word from him about it.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
Oval-tine |
Hehehe. Another Christmas Story fan, eh?
| quote: | | (but that has nothing to do with tube-condensor microphones or obcure refrenses to Beldon wire) |
Nope. But what the hay. Let's throw a little caution to the wind.
se |
|
|
| angel |
First off, I would like to respectfully request that both Eric and Steve stick to the matter at hand, responding to the actual issue in a factual and constructive manner, rather than resorting to invalidation by person attack. Whether or not any of you have, or still do, use or abuse narcotic substances is of absolutely no relevance to the matter at hand, nor is it of any interest to me as a reader.
Let's try not to start any flame wars by straying off topic. The topic of cables is flammable enough by itself, and needs no encouragement. This forum survives by virtue of its high signal to noise ratio.
Oh, and, we have an ignore feature that is employed by those with more wisdom than patience.
The cable thing has been discussed to death and back countless times, but rarely does anyone come up with anything new or useful. It would be much more useful to all of us if we could have a serious discussion about why cables might have an effect. (And, to forestall the pro-cables crowd, yes, I perceive a difference, but like Steve tried to point out, I allow for the possibility that this may be my imagination.)
I would prefer even unsubstantiated theories to endless reviews of cables, with attendant arguments over whether or not the conditions of the experience give grounds to determine anything.
So, to put my money where my mouth is, I'll come up with a few points that we can actually try to do something constructive with. Bear in mind that I am going out on a limb with some of these, just for the sake of coming up with 'something' we can examine..
(A) Connectors. This point has been made by Nelson Pass in the past, pointing out that he found the effects of improper termination or improper connection (too lose, not clean, etc.), to be easily audible, while I seem to recall that he was rather vague and inconclusive as to the actual cables themselves. This corresponds with my own experiences, where corroded conductors audibly reduce the quality, while there are mostly subtle differences between the cables themselves. Your mileage may vary, and I would point out that this is in reference to speaker cables, not signal cables- I lack sufficient experience with those to comment.
(B) Microphonics. I have talked with the man behind Renaissance Audio, who emphasises mechanical stability in his cables, and to good effect, subjectively speaking. I have experienced problems with microphonics in certain other high-end cables (about USD 4k per cable, IIRC) when playing at semi-loud levels with the Avantgarde Duo system, which, at 102dB/2.83V/1m, is arguably rather sensitive. The amplifier was a single ended valve construction that I seem to recall having a low damping factor, which is not necessarily a problem for the horns, but might be a problem as far as microphony is concerned.
(C) Dielectric absorption/memory. This is, unless I am mistaken, what the batteries are supposed to try to eliminate. By adding a third conductor, held at a high DC potential, relative to the ground conductor, one hopes to swamp the imperfections of the dielectric by introducing a strong charge between the third conductor and ground. Depending on the characteristics of the dielectric, specifically the hysteresis in the region surrounding the DC offset, this can have an effect. It is kind of like picking the operating point for a valve. You find the most linear point on the curve that falls within the requirements (voltage, etc.) that you can live with. Many components are rather nonlinear near zero potential/power/insert-appropriate-measurement-here. In fact, I believe this may be a large part of why single ended triode amplifiers are lauded, since they typically operate with the core at the most linear point on its magnetization curve. For Lundahl transformers, this would be 0.9 tesla.
(D) Linear capacitance. Any conductors with a positive area and finite distance to each other, will exhibit a certain level of linear capacitance, and the existance of a dielectric raises this capacitance. Nordost Valhalla uses teflon monofilament. Gore-Tex would seem to be a great choice, since it should give a lower dielectric constant than teflon. This criterion is measurable.
(E) Nonlinear capacitance. Semiconductors, which some argue that certain crystal junctions in a cable might be considered to be, have a capacitance which varies with signal. This characteristic is also exhibited by different capacitors, etc.. It can be caused by a number of things, but many of the factors that are relevant to capacitors (e.g. motion due to coloumb forces, leading to a different distance (a second order component to the equation) than the nominal one), are not relevant to cables. It should be possible to get a good overview of what nonlinear capacitances exist.
(F) Inductance. Any signal current induces a magnetic field, which in turn affects the rest of the signal at a different time. When conductors lie inside this magnetic field, a current is induced in them. This is basically the same thing; a magnetic field producing a time-delayed effect on an electron mass, whether in motion or not. These principles are beneficial in a inductor or transformer, but not so in a speaker cable.
(G) Resistance. Should be too small to affect anything.
(H) Harmonic or intermodulation distortion. I am not familiar with mechanisms that should give rise to such distortion in a cable, but then again, neither am I familiar with the mechanism for distortion in a resistor, and I seem to recall that Lars Clausen has measured several kinds of resistors, and found a varying degree of harmonic distortion in them. It figures cables could have nonlinear transfer characteristics as well.
(I) Shielding. This obviously effects the ability to emit or pick up noise from the environment. There are ongoing debates about whether the benefits of shutting noise out are worth the cost of keeping noise in.
(J) Geometry. Fancy geometries bring us beyond the point of simple transmission line models. Myself, I am rather partial to the idea of using solid-core silver or copper, with air, teflon or Gore-Tex dielectric, and no braiding. The cable must of course be cast in its intended shape, not bent, to avoid discontinuities within the cable. Then again, I am also partial to simple circuits.
(K) Reflections. These may be caused by imperfections in the material, discontinuities in the dielectric (causing a part of the cable to have a different capacitance than the rest of the cable), geometry (varying inductive and capacitive relation between conductors/strands). If you have the necessary equipment for time-domain reflectometry, you can easily see the effects of e.g. bending the cable.
(L) Velocity of propagation. No cable acheives the speed of light. Telephone wires range between 60% and 72%, special purpose scientific/measurement wires range between 70% and 95%, network wire ranges between 60% and 90%. All these numbers are from a technical surveilance countermeasures site, in their section on time-domain reflectometry. This particular issue, I seem to recall, is the foundation upon which the Borbely Quantum Purifiers are based. Supposedly, they align the motion of the electrons a bit, with a piece of wire that has a higher velocity of propagation than the rest, effectively ramming the electrons through the remainder of the cable more efficiently, by initially allowing a higher velocity. Mind you, I am not claiming to know anything about the Quantum Purifiers, how they work, and if they work.
(M) Skin effect.
(N) Amplifier feedback loop and other unintended signal paths. One of the most obvious sources of cable differences, would be interactions with the feedback loop of an amplifier employing global negative feedback. The cable provides a nice antenna, and the previously mentioned reflections also enter into the amplifier through this path. And unlike the high frequency noise (which can cause slew limiting, etc.), the reflections cannot be as easily filtered. In fact, a low impedance without time delay is the most sensible way to deal with them. Something you get by using a massive idle current.
(O) Interactions with crossover network. While the parasitics of the cable should be limited, compared to the crossover, it might be possible that certain cables could provide just that extra nudge that gets a deviation of phase to become annoying, or whatever.
I'm sure someone more creative than me can come up with others, and that someone more knowledgeable can provide the first constructive reply.
Keep going. =) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
"The cable thing has been discussed to death and back countless times, but rarely does anyone come up with anything new or useful. It would be much more useful to all of us if we could have a serious discussion about why cables might have an effect. (And, to forestall the pro-cables crowd, yes, I perceive a difference, but like Steve tried to point out, I allow for the possibility that this may be my imagination.)"
There are plenty of us here who have done enough comparisons to eliminate imagination effects.
When one first does cable A/B experiments, the results can well be self delusion or self doubt, however with much practice, one learns to clearly and reliably differentiate changes.
This is a product of learning how to listen I have found.
I have made comment several times in the past about listening for subtle patterns in the reproduced sound - these are one of the clues to listen out for in addition to other variables.
In my experience it is perfectly possible to 100% reliably detect which of five interconnects was in use in blind testing with my flatmate doing the cable swaps, and I dare say that I am not the only one here with this ability.
As I see it, the task is to provide suitable experimental conditions that allow this high level of discrimination, and previous blind tests fall short of this - what are all the conditions of the Tom Noisanne tests ?.
Angel, I fully agree with all the points that you raise - given this spread of cable parameters I would be very surprised if all cables did sound the same to my ear.
One very large but usually ignored point in this discussion is that NO interconnect drive or recieving circuits, or amplifier outputs are perfectly ideal, so I see it, it is to be expected that cables will cause second order effects that are audible.
The task is to flesh out the degree and nature of the effects of the individual physical causes.
SY and JC are hopefully working on this regarding cable distortion.
Frank and I are subjects in a directionality test when I get the cables concerned - Stuart, thanks for sending them but they are not here quite yet.
So far any threads attempting to determine proper answers have been derailed by derisive mention of frozen photographs, and dismissal of clear and unequivocal observations as 'amusing anecdotes'.
This time I feel that heed should be taken of listener experiences in order to find correlations, and further hence the individual physical reasons and mechanisms.
Eric / - I have no troubles hearing cable differences - hell I can even audibly change cables on the fly. :bigeyes: |
|
|
| angel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Oh go suck a cod. You're no fun! ;)
|
:bawling:
Seriously, though. This topic really is flammable enough already. I realize the two of you might have a friendship offboard, and be joking with eachother. However, to me, or any other reader with no context, it could easily be viewed as insulting. Which, in turn, could get someone else's hackles up, causing them to post in defence of one person or the other, and then we're all set for another flamewar. Bear in mind that not everyone on this forum has English as their native tongue (I, for one, do not), nor does everyone on this forum have the cultural context to read the nuances that distinguish a joking tone from biting sarcasm or outright hostility.
:o I'll get off my soapbox now, if you don't mind.
BTW, what is a cod? As noted, I'm not a native speaker. And, in case I mucked up the tone of my reply, offense obviously not taken. :cool:
| quote: | Quite a long list you've got. Before responding to any of them, in what respect exactly were you considering "examining" them?
|
By the list, I intended to throw out some ideas as to topics for debate in the context of the potential audibility of cables. It is much more interesting to develop a coherent theory that might actually aid people in developing cables and matching them to equipment, than to discuss who thinks they've heard what.
By 'examining' them, I am referring to people coming up with theses (or at least rudimentary ideas) pertaining to the potential effects of some aspect of the cable that can be reasoned about, and then having others pick their thesis to bits with a blowtorch, er,, I mean, constructively debate the merits of said thesis. :D
Hopefully, such debate could culminate in at least some light being shed on the topic, and maybe even some consensus being reached on some of the mechanisms are involved; whether they are real, how significant they are, and possibly even what their mechanics are, and how these relate to the perceived sound.
People get touchy when placebo is suggested, even though it is arguably a larger factor than any other in most setups, provided there are no gross defects, like corroded or loose contacts.
Therefore, debating the merit of potential mechanisms by which a cable might influence the sound, by itself or in concert with the attached amp and speaker, would seem a viable approach to uncovering knowledge without needing to sift through the asbestos dust remaining after the flame war which, inevitably, results when one tries to take the shortcut of suggesting that someone perform a double-blind test of subjective parameters in a familiar environment (which would settle the if of the matter to my mind, provided we could all agree on who should do the actual test).
So, to sum up, what I am hoping, is that you, and others, will come up with ideas that might help some enterprising soul devise measurable criteria, or at least semiplausible theories, that correlate with subjective experience.
Hope I'm not boring you to death with overly long posts. |
|
|
| angel |
There are plenty of us here who have done enough comparisons to eliminate imagination effects.
I consider myself one such, however, as far as actually getting both camps to work together on uncovering truth that can be agreed upon, I would say that we cannot leave it at that. We must treat it as potentially real differences, and use these perceived differences as clues to induce a working theory of what does and does not affect the sound, if anything.
To reiterate, I am sold on the idea that cables, counting second order effects, can have a subtle but real impact on the sound, but not everyone agrees on this, and for the sake of going somewhere, rather than having people camp on their own side on the fence, we need to throw the absoluteness of any such assertions out the window.
This is a product of learning how to listen I have found.
I agree. Learning how to listen is one of the fundamentals of becoming an audiophile. Note that I am not necessarily referring to critical listening, I'm far to fond of music to analyze it on a regular basis, but rather the appreciation of what is there. All of it.
Angel, I fully agree with all the points that you raise - given this spread of cable parameters I would be very surprised if all cables did sound the same to my ear.
I would point out that I did not argue all those points as valid. I merely pointed out the things that I could think of that might conceivably have some effects, whether first order or not. In fact, I mixed explicitly second order effects into the list.
A large part of the work is going to involve determining which points are valid, and which are not. Then one must move on to establishing models that describe the relation between objective and subjective performance.
One very large but usually ignored point in this discussion is that NO interconnect drive or recieving circuits, or amplifier outputs are perfectly ideal, so I see it, it is to be expected that cables will cause second order effects that are audible.
My personal theory is that first order effects of cable characteristics are virtually inaudible, as long as none of the parameters are way out there.
The task is to flesh out the degree and nature of the effects of the individual physical causes.
Exactly. And I am eagerly awaiting the results of the mentioned tests. One test I have not seen mentioned, however, which I think has been overlooked for too long, is comparing the time-domain reflectometry results.
So far any threads attempting to determine proper answers have been derailed by derisive mention of frozen photographs, and dismissal of clear and unequivocal observations as 'amusing anecdotes'.
Hence my perhaps somewhat dry and exacting comments about staying on track, rather than bringing more fuel to the fire. :hot:
This time I feel that heed should be taken of listener experiences in order to find correlations, and further hence the individual physical reasons and mechanisms.
As long as these experiences are to form the basis for hypotheses, not conclusions, I agree. Fumbling in the dark is less productive than fumbling with the lights on. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by angel
Seriously, though. This topic really is flammable enough already. |
Agreed. Many closed minds on both sides of the fence.
| quote: | | I realize the two of you might have a friendship offboard, and be joking with eachother. However, to me, or any other reader with no context, it could easily be viewed as insulting. |
Eric and I aren't friends of any sort. His shin-kicking is purely for insult.
My weakness is that when someone kicks me in the shins, I tend to kick back.
Anyway, I've decided to just go ahead and put him on ignore so I won't even have the temptation. Something I probably should have done long ago.
So, with that out of the way...
| quote: | | BTW, what is a cod? |
It's a fish. Really big in Norway. Don't know what you call it there but it's what you folks typically make lutefisk with.
| quote: | | As noted, I'm not a native speaker. And, in case I mucked up the tone of my reply, offense obviously not taken. :cool: |
Good. None was intended. Just some good-natured ribbing.
| quote: | | By the list, I intended to throw out some ideas as to topics for debate in the context of the potential audibility of cables. It is much more interesting to develop a coherent theory that might actually aid people in developing cables and matching them to equipment, than to discuss who thinks they've heard what. |
Understood. Though until actual audibility of the various possible effects can be established, such an exercise won't really advance anything along objective lines.
| quote: | By 'examining' them, I am referring to people coming up with theses (or at least rudimentary ideas) pertaining to the potential effects of some aspect of the cable that can be reasoned about, and then having others pick their thesis to bits with a blowtorch, er,, I mean, constructively debate the merits of said thesis. :D
Hopefully, such debate could culminate in at least some light being shed on the topic, and maybe even some consensus being reached on some of the mechanisms are involved; whether they are real, how significant they are, and possibly even what their mechanics are, and how these relate to the perceived sound. |
Mmmmm. Ok. But if you're just relating them to the perceived sound, we're still ultimately left in the dark as to whether they have any actual audible effect.
| quote: | | People get touchy when placebo is suggested, even though it is arguably a larger factor than any other in most setups, provided there are no gross defects, like corroded or loose contacts. |
Yes. Some people have trouble coming to grips with their being mortal beings and subject to the same mortal weaknesses as others. They seem to think if their egos are large enough they can somehow overcome their own mortality.
| quote: | | Therefore, debating the merit of potential mechanisms by which a cable might influence the sound, by itself or in concert with the attached amp and speaker, would seem a viable approach to uncovering knowledge without needing to sift through the asbestos dust remaining after the flame war which, inevitably, results when one tries to take the shortcut of suggesting that someone perform a double-blind test of subjective parameters in a familiar environment (which would settle the if of the matter to my mind, provided we could all agree on who should do the actual test). |
I don't have any problem discussing these issues in their own right, outside the context of whether or not they may or may not actually be audible.
| quote: | | So, to sum up, what I am hoping, is that you, and others, will come up with ideas that might help some enterprising soul devise measurable criteria, or at least semiplausible theories, that correlate with subjective experience. |
Well the problem with that is that not everyone necessarily has the same subjective experience of a given objective situation.
John Atkinson has been doing a routine suite of measurements in Stereophile for years now and even in cases where there are gross errors or nonlinearities, there doesn't seem to be much correlation to the reviewer's subjective experience.
So even if those things which produce gross and trivially measureable differences don't seem to correlate with any consistency, I don't know that there's much hope with regard to these much more microscopic issues you mention in your list.
But as I said, I'd be happy to discuss them on their own.
| quote: | | Hope I'm not boring you to death with overly long posts. |
Not at all. You seem to be honest, respectful, open-minded, fair and have a desire to try and get at the truth wherever it may lay. I never find such things boring.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by angel
Exactly. And I am eagerly awaiting the results of the mentioned tests. One test I have not seen mentioned, however, which I think has been overlooked for too long, is comparing the time-domain reflectometry results. |
Mmmmm. What do you think a TDR would reveal which would be of much relevance in the audio band?
| quote: | | Fumbling in the dark is less productive than fumbling with the lights on. |
That all depends on who you're fumbling in the dark with. :devilr:
se |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| Arhhhhhhhhhhh...... :D |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr
Arhhhhhhhhhhh...... :D |
Hehehehe. Where'd you find that one?
That reminds me, haven't seen Jam around lately. Anyone know if he's ok?
se |
|
|
| angel |
Eric and I aren't friends of any sort. His shin-kicking is purely for insult.
My weakness is that when someone kicks me in the shins, I tend to kick back.
Anyway, I've decided to just go ahead and put him on ignore so I won't even have the temptation. Something I probably should have done long ago.
While I realize the two of you may have a history, I would point out that, unless I misread your post about recognizing anecdotes, you were making a sarcastic comment at his expense. That would be the first such entry in this thread. I see the second one, which I don't remember who posted, the one where it started going downhill, was deleted. Anyway, I'm not partial, and the ignore will hopefully assure that things don't go downhill again.
Just remember that returning kicks tends to be counterproductive. While I enjoy roasting someone thoroughly just as much as the next person, I do my utmost not to indulge in the practice. Dealing with the topic at hand in a factual manner does more to discredit a verbal assailant than any nonfactual response.
Oh, by the way, the Elvis bit might be a bit off track, but yours was the smallest contribution to that diversion. ;)
It's a fish. Really big in Norway. Don't know what you call it there but it's what you folks typically make lutefisk with.
Ah. Right. I don't particularly enjoy the idea of jelly that used to be fish before being bathed in lye for an extended period of time, so it's not very big with me, but now I at least know the fish you were referring to. :)
Understood. Though until actual audibility of the various possible effects can be established, such an exercise won't really advance anything along objective lines.
The idea is to start off with discussing the potential mechanisms on their own merits, and then progress to trying to establish audibility, once certain clues are in place, and people have gotten used to thinking about it, rather than arguing over it. At that point, egoes are usually subdued, curiosity aroused, and people are more ready to put their money where their mouth has been, and actually start doing tests based on sound methodology.
Yes. Some people have trouble coming to grips with their being mortal beings and subject to the same mortal weaknesses as others. They seem to think if their egos are large enough they can somehow overcome their own mortality.
I would substitute the word "mortal" with "fallible" or, better yet, "human". Audio is, contrary to popular belief, not a matter that is intrinsically concerned with death, flaming or otherwise ;)
I don't have any problem discussing these issues in their own right, outside the context of whether or not they may or may not actually be audible.
I would find that an interesting exercise by itself, too. My point was, though, that such an 'interesting exercise' can lead to stuff that people actually try, and, hence, real discovery as to whether particular issues audibly impact the sound.
Well the problem with that is that not everyone necessarily has the same subjective experience of a given objective situation.
That is correct. This is why methodology is important, and why having sound theories upfront is critical. The combination allows you to adapt facts to theory, er, I mean, verify or disprove a theory and/or its audibility. :angel:
John Atkinson has been doing a routine suite of measurements in Stereophile for years now and even in cases where there are gross errors or nonlinearities, there doesn't seem to be much correlation to the reviewer's subjective experience.
I would point out that the human mind is more sensitive to some things than others. The greater the complexity of an anomaly, the higher level of consciousness tends to process it. Thus, complex anomalies tend to end up where the enjoyable experience was supposed to be.
As one radical example with regards to sensitivity, I would point out that the Martin Logan Statement system, an electrostatic panel with dynamic bass and subwoofer (price is in the six digits USD range), which most consider excellent in pretty much all disciplines, has a frequency response which has peak-to-peak deviations of as much as 20dB. This is effectively inaudible. While I have no personal experience with the Statement, I have been an avid user of electrostatic headphones for some years, and both the Stax systems I have used, had gross anomalies in their frequency response curves (though the Signature 4040 is getting better), but in neither case could I detect any significant tonal imbalance, compared to dynamic speakers with a relatively flat curve. At least not without searching for the flaw, and doing so in the middle of a listening experience where you do not detect anything right off, is arguably stupid. :) Our ears are quite simply not very sensitive to anomalies in the frequency-amplitude domain. They are a lot more sensitive to anomalies in the time domain. Especially as far as stereo goes, where we vainly try to fool the binaural system.
consistency, I don't know that there's much hope with regard to these much more microscopic issues you mention in your list.
From experience, I would say that, at the very least, contact quality and microphonics, are very real, and not particularly microscopic, though I tend to agree on many of the other points. However, my experience counts for naught as far as objective proof goes. Hence, trying to work out a theory that might explain these experiences would seem a sensible place to start.
Not at all. You seem to be honest, respectful, open-minded, fair and have a desire to try and get at the truth wherever it may lay. I never find such things boring.
Thank you. I do try. Besides, my sensei would probably pound me if I were to discard the proper posture of heart in a public forum. :dead: |
|
|
| angel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Mmmmm. What do you think a TDR would reveal which would be of much relevance in the audio band?
|
Disregard the audio band. I'm largely convinced that, apart from termination and microphonics, the majority of potentially audible effects, are second order (id est those who result from interaction with other components, mainly the amplifier).
It is well known that airborne noise can cause amplifiers to clip or distort. Especially if there is any flaw in the grounding scheme. High frequencies, outside the audio band, can cause the circuit to hit slew limits, or in some cases, modulate the audio signal, with the attendant result that the transistors end up reproducing the audio signal while constantly varying their effective operating point, and not necessarily near their linear region.
| quote: |
That all depends on who you're fumbling in the dark with. :devilr:
|
True. I'm the lights-on kind of guy myself, anyway, though. |
|
|
| Pjotr |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Hehehehe. Where'd you find that one?
That reminds me, haven't seen Jam around lately. Anyone know if he's ok?
se |
;)
http://www.acr-muenchen.de/html/groove.htm
Although completely off-topic, this is my favourite one: |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Angel,
Glad to have sensible discussion here.
My mention of input and output stages not being perfect was to illistrate that a particular cable can have different magnitude and nature of effect according to the equipment used.
Sure, I have struck equipment where different cables make relatively little sonic difference, but difference they do make.
Likewise, I have met equipment where cables can make a very strong sonic difference.
Presumably balanced systems should exhibit less sensitivity to cables than unbalanced systems, but nevertheless I do hear differences in balanced system line level cables.
You mention a list of possible factors -
Connectors - No arguments from me - cable connector connections need to good (clean etc) or they will sonically reveal themselves.
Microphonics - Yes most cerainly this is a factor.
This manifests as a form of acoustic feedback effect in my experience.
Dielectric absorption/memory - I think there are multiple sonic effects here.
I think there is a zero-crossing hysterisis causing a crossover distortion effect with some insulators.
Also a delayed return of energy that changes the nature of envelope decay
Add to this a further sort of spectral filtering characteristic on both attacks and delays that may be different.
Linear capacitance - sort of mixed in with the above observations in that, ime/imo insulators have a characteristic sonic fingerprint, reasonably regardless of the cable construction.
Less dielectric caused capacitance magnification is better I suppose, but insulators still have an audible footprint/signature.
Nonlinear capacitance - In speaker cables I would not discount the motor action modulation effect quite so quickly.
This combined with the mechanical resiliance of the insulation and you may have a mechanically/electrically resonant cable, excited by speaker currents, acoustic feedback and NFB resonances.
Inductance - Inductance implies loop areas and lack of cancelling.
These non cancelled stray fields are ripe to react with other nearby objects or materials, each with their own set of characteristics causing further modulations.
Resistance - Yeah on an ideal system, but on lesser setups may start to change stage/stage interactions (lowering Q of resonances etc).
Reasonably safe to say that the effect is minor in most circumstances at the typical source and load resistances used - shield/neutral wire resistance can become significant in unbalanced systems.
Harmonic or intermodulation distortion - I understand the explanation for resistor distortion is modulation of the resistance according to the instantaneous current.
Presumably heating effects are not relevant here with typical wire guages.
However all the above related factors may conspire to cause harmonic and im distortions that vary according to signal level and frequency and the attached equipment.
Shielding - Yeah, keeps junk out but also causes a 'loading' and a character according to the metal shield conductor used.
Geometry - I reckon a transmission line is still the most correct solution - braided etc cables can add a 'confusion', but also 'averaging' and 'emphasis' functions
The best interconnects that I have ever had were dead straight with the connectors soldered at right angles, and air-spaced.
Reflections - Should not be a problem to audio signals, but RF out of cdp's and from external sources may well cause this to be of concern.
Velocity of propagation - Yes, different dielectrics cause differing propagation velocities.
This ought to change spectrums of resonances including NFB induced resonances.
Skin effect - Perhaps not intrinsically damaging, but it does mean that the conductance of a wire is changed according to frequency.
Amplifier feedback loop and other unintended signal paths - Yes, a loop NFB amplifier can become a reverb generator according to loading, and cables are part of this loading.
Interactions with crossover network - Amplifier/cable/speaker is a system full of possible interactions and resonances.
Yes class-a is a good way of dealing with this.
These are some of my thoughts and observations without going into further depth for now.
Given the reactiveness of typical amplifier and line stages, I fully expect them to sound different according to cable type, and this is what I find.
Well regarded and reviewed equipment intentionally or accidentally adresses at least some types of dependency issues.
With good equipment the degree of change is usually less than that on 'bad' equipment, but interestingly the nature of change can be even more evident.
Ideally cables should not significantly influence, but in my experience cables can be very effective 'tone controls'.
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
Couldn't resist posting this after all the discussion on how
flammable this topic is.
There is an alloy (I have forgot its name, and I think there
are several ones) that melts just slightly above room
temperature. I read once over at AA about someone who had
a dream of doing a practical joke, making a pair of speaker
cables out of this alloy. He would then lend them to a friend
and ask him to try out his new fantastic cables (not saying
what they were) and then wait to hear this friend raving about
how he could now play so loud that the cables melted. :) |
|
|
| Christer |
Sorry for another diversion, but I just realized Steve is probably
misinformed and thus made angel misinformed.
Unless norwegian lutefisk is different from swedish lutfisk, it
is not made from cod. Cod is what we in sweden call
torsk. I don't remember if you have the same name in norway,
but I think it is close enough to understand. Lutfisk (at least
the swedish one) is made from ling or coalfish, although I
suppose you could just as well make it from cod or haddock or
whatever similar fish. I do share angels aversion against
this type of "food" although it is very popular for Christmas
here in Sweden. Now please don't bring up the swedish
surströmming. :) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
"While I realize the two of you may have a history, I would point out that, unless I misread your post about recognizing anecdotes, you were making a sarcastic comment at his expense."
Angel, you have read correctly.
I have no issue with SE , but he has taken it upon himself to seemingly take sarcastic pleasure at making issue with myself, and many other members who should dare to make subjective comments.
Se makes no comment about his own subjective observations except to say that he is not sure if he is hearing them or imagining them, but still is careful in not stating what he is not sure of.
Whenever a subjective concept is attempted to be discussed, out come his intrusive and derailling comments about negative blind test results, photographs in freezers and others including blatantly rude communication modes.
Indeed soon after joining this forum he attacked me for NO reason by private email in disgusting language that is not allowed on this forum or in any polite company.
There is a long history of SE badgering and hounding members of at least two internet audio forums, and this has beeen discussed and complained about numerous times.
I really do wish that he would adopt a more co-operative and productive approach, and a more socially friendly tone, and his involvement, and this forum would be all the better for it.
Eric. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | There is an alloy (I have forgot its name, and I think there |
Wood's metal. It's really fun stuff for practical jokers and magicians. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Wood's metal. It's really fun stuff for practical jokers and magicians. |
Yes, that sounds familiar. I remember looking it up in a book
and learnt there was a whole group of alloys with similar
phase-transition behaviour for some reason I have also
forgotten (no need to remind me, I'll probably forget it again :) ). |
|
|
| millwood |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Angel, you have read correctly.
I have no issue with SE , but he has taken it upon himself to seemingly take sarcastic pleasure at making issue with myself, and many other members who should dare to make subjective comments.
Eric. |
from my vintage point of view, it is more with your approaches (or lack of) than with you the person.
a lot of the times, people do want to think in a logic fashion and get upset if their views are challenged and take it personally.
No need for that, I would suggest. We are talking about your lack of a scientific and consistent approach and not you Eric being a bad person.
hope you take it in that perspecive. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Millwood, perhaps you misunderstand me also.
My outlook is actually completely scientific even if I do relate subjective observations and without providing measurements and blind test etc results.
You can be completely sure when I say that for example inserting only a power extension lead into a system caused widows to rattle, that this is true and correct and experimentally proven (in this particular case 8 trials were conducted).
I know that statements that I have made like the above are anecdotes, but this does not make them untrue, and know well that I never relate such findings if measures have not been taken to confirm such a result as the one above.
My anecdotes are expression of real occurrences, and to my mind food for thought, and inspiration for investigation, and certainly not for automatic discrediting.
Please be patient and in time I will be able to show you formal blind test results and measurement results of some interesting things.
Trust me, I do adhere to science, and my questions are born of real experiences and are actually seeking scientific explanations.
I am also practised at and careful to eliminate psychological factors, and you can easily learn this too if you don't have it already.
Remember psychological factors includes beliefs and preconceptions, and to truly listen these beliefs have to be set aside.
You can learn this skill too if you have not done so already.
Regards, Eric. |
|
|
| millwood |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
I know that statements that I have made like the above are anecdotes, but this does not make them untrue,
Regards, Eric. |
no one ever said that statements like the above are untrue: I am sure you did what you did. The question is on what you can conclude from those statements.
To me, it is unscientific to establish the conclusion based on those statements alone. Otherwise, we should just throw science out and say that "I heard it" and it must be true.
I am not saying you are lying. Instead, I am objecting the way you had concluded based on the anecdotes.
Is that clear? |
|
|
| johnferrier |
And at the same time, there is no scientific validity in the NYT stating: "experts are in agreement that most cables that claim to improve the sound of audio equipment don't. Even cables costing thousands of dollars per foot are often little more than sonic snake oil, experts say. " The "experts" could all be wrong...again.
And yet, you (Millwood) found value in posting this. Sure, it's kind of interesting, and I'm glad that it started another thread with now some new ideas (at least to me) from Angel, but still what of substance do you find in the NYT article? And, of course, I think we are all trying to find something of substance here (though perhaps some people have given up).
JF |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Originally posted by millwood
no one ever said that statements like the above are untrue: I am sure you did what you did. The question is on what you can conclude from those statements.
The conclusion is that there is some kind of change in electrical interactions going on that will have some kind of physics explanation, even if this explanation is not immediately apparent that is changing acoustic output of the particular system.
To me, it is unscientific to establish the conclusion based on those statements alone. Otherwise, we should just throw science out and say that "I heard it" and it must be true.
Very clearly I was speaking of a specific case, and I also perfectly clearly stated that the fact of the window rattling loudly or not ratttling was unequivocally apparent, and related 100% occurence of windows rattling with the lead in place, and 100% occurence of windows not rattling without the lead in place over 8 trials, and involving two listeners and both of us 'truly' heard it.
I am not saying you are lying. Instead, I am objecting the way you had concluded based on the anecdotes.
Ok, I formed a conclusion from 8 trials in this experiment.
Sure, I could do this experiment 100 times and come to the exact same results of 100% correlation.
My conclusion would be that inserting the power lead into a particular system causes changes in the acoustic output of the system of sufficient nature and magnitude to cause perfectly audible excitation of windows that does not occur when the lead is not in circuit for a particular musical passage.
Also, I made no claims or theories regarding the mechanisms involved.
So, if these were your test results what could be your conclusion ?
Is that clear?
Is that clear?
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
Sorry for another diversion, but I just realized Steve is probably
misinformed and thus made angel misinformed.
Unless norwegian lutefisk is different from swedish lutfisk, it
is not made from cod. Cod is what we in sweden call
torsk. I don't remember if you have the same name in norway,
but I think it is close enough to understand. Lutfisk (at least
the swedish one) is made from ling or coalfish, although I
suppose you could just as well make it from cod or haddock or
whatever similar fish. I do share angels aversion against
this type of "food" although it is very popular for Christmas
here in Sweden. Now please don't bring up the swedish
surströmming. :) |
If I was misinformed, I was misinformed by the numerous references I found when I Googled it.
For example, the Vesterheim Norwegian-American Museum sells a book titled "The Last Word on Lutefisk: Tales of Cod and Tradition" by Gary Legwold.
Some more quotes:
"The Scandinavian delicacy known as lutefisk - which means, literally, "cod soaked in plutonium"- dates to the Viking era."
"Many readers wrote in to share their hopes and fears about lutefisk, the appalling lye-soaked cod I have often warned against, most recently in a column..."
"The easiest way to make lutefisk is from fresh cod, which is easily available in most seafood markets. If you want to be a purist, you also can make it from dried cod, which can be difficult to find."
"David Danubio slices through some of the 1,600 pounds of cod used to make lutefisk at the Sons of Norway Lodge in Bothell."
"Lutefisk is instead pretty much what you'd expect of jellied cod; it is a foul and odiferous goo, whose gelatinous texture and rancid oily taste are locked in..."
"Lye-ing Sack of Cod. If memory serves - next Saturday should
be the big Christmas lutefisk dinner at the Sons of Norway Hall in Ballard."
"THE COD: Dry cod, or stockfish, from which lutefisk is processed, is as rich in history as it is flavorful and nutritious."
"Lutefisk, originally cod caught in the cold waters off northern Norway, is dry-preserved in rock-hard slabs called stock fish."
"But it was lutefisk that set this bet apart. Even by PETA's standards the protest letter seemed weird. Lutefisk may be cruelty to humans. But to cod?"
"Lutefisk starts out as plain old cod, swimming in the cold waters off Norway."
"In much of Norway, it's an "acquired taste" thing called Lutefisk,
described by some as "gelatinous white-lyed cod"."
"lutefisk; lutfisk [LOO-tuh-FIHSK] A Scandinavian specialty made with unsalted dried COD."
"Lutefisk. Traditional dish. Lye-soaked cod, dried first. Served with
potatoes, bacon, stewed peas, mustard etc. etc."
se |
|
|
| Christer |
OK Steve, maybe the norwegians make it from cod then.
The swedish lutfisk is not, according to my dictionary, and I
have never heard of it being made from cod, although I see no
reason why it couldn't be. I don't eat it anyway, it is just an
ancient bad preservation method for fish. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by angel
Disregard the audio band. I'm largely convinced that, apart from termination and microphonics, the majority of potentially audible effects, are second order (id est those who result from interaction with other components, mainly the amplifier).
It is well known that airborne noise can cause amplifiers to clip or distort. Especially if there is any flaw in the grounding scheme. High frequencies, outside the audio band, can cause the circuit to hit slew limits, or in some cases, modulate the audio signal, with the attendant result that the transistors end up reproducing the audio signal while constantly varying their effective operating point, and not necessarily near their linear region. |
Sure. RF can cause a number of problems with some amplifiers. But what would pinging a cable with a TDR tell you in this regard?
| quote: | | True. I'm the lights-on kind of guy myself, anyway, though. |
Hehehe. Well I guess that too would depends on who you're fumbling around with. You've heard of "coyote ugly"? :yikes:
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
OK Steve, maybe the norwegians make it from cod then.
The swedish lutfisk is not, according to my dictionary, and I
have never heard of it being made from cod, although I see no
reason why it couldn't be. I don't eat it anyway, it is just an
ancient bad preservation method for fish. |
Yes. But seeing as angel is from Norway, and he was the one asking what cod was, when I started searching, I started out with "cod" and "Norway." Which led to lutefisk.
se |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Yes. But seeing as angel is from Norway, and he was the one asking what cod was, when I started searching, I started out with "cod" and "Norway." Which led to lutefisk.
se |
Sure, I understand. I just thought that maybe you had got
wrong infomation, so he wouldn't learn about cod anyway.
I guess he understand the swedish name of cod that I
told him, though. Besides, since some of the info you found
claimed to be about all scandinavia, not only Norway, it
seems not entirely correct after all. On the other hand, it
must be true, you found it on the internet! :) |
|
|
| sully |
| quote: | Originally posted by angel
(F) Inductance. Any signal current induces a magnetic field, which in turn affects the rest of the signal at a different time. |
Inductive storage will be history independent, and superposition applies..the rest of the signal deals with the inductance independently of history. The only straying from this involves hysteresis.| quote: | | When conductors lie inside this magnetic field, a current is induced in them. |
A DC current will produce a circular mag field within the conductor. The current density profile will still be absolutely uniform. THE CONDUCTOR, on the other hand, will attempt to constrict. This is called the pinch effect.
| quote: | | This is basically the same thing; a magnetic field producing a time-delayed effect on an electron mass, whether in motion or not. |
An electron not in motion will not be affected, unless you consider the procession of it's spin, which will not happen below Ghz frequencies unless the magnetic field is over 20 plus tesla.
And the magnetic fields we are capable of producing do not have a time delaying affect on an electron mass.. I assume that will change with the recent megatesla experiments.
| quote: | | (L)Supposedly, they align the motion of the electrons a bit, with a piece of wire that has a higher velocity of propagation than the rest, effectively ramming the electrons through the remainder of the cable more efficiently, by initially allowing a higher velocity. |
Hmmm..guess the cherenkov radiation cone also comes into play??
What's that?;)
| quote: | | (N) The cable provides a nice antenna, and the previously mentioned reflections also enter into the amplifier through this path. And unlike the high frequency noise (which can cause slew limiting, etc.), the reflections cannot be as easily filtered. |
You seem to be combining Mhz/Ghz topologies with audio..It doesn't exactly work that way
Cheers, John |
|
|
|
