One hundred and fifteen years ago, physics and engineering PROVED that X-rays could not exist. They were wrong. Does everyone know this story? I would hope so, if you are to understand the actual history of science. This incident was just one important part. It is not a matter of intelligence, education, math or working models. It is a matter of 'reality' and how to account for it, when theory and measurements fail.
Last edited:
1 First measurements were done in a Faraday cage! Improvements in instrument design greatly reduced the need. I actually like to see the 60Hz contamination it is a QC datum.
2 Transversal filter oscillator feeds a COMPARATOR the difference between what goes into the cable and what comes out is the data of interest. Wheatstone was probably the first to use a balancing technique for low level measurements.
3 Repeating runs shows same results even in front of other well educated folks! AP does not do SD nicely, instead I just unplug and replug cables, then compare saved traces. There is some noise but it is well below the signal.
4 Control is the thermal noise of the 80 ohm source and reciprocity to a degree.
5 Look at the article, repeat the tests yourself, that is why I published on how to build the analyzer.
For someone else's view on the project
Interesting cable blurb in Audio eXpress... - 2 Channel Debate - All things HiFI and AV - HiFi WigWam - HiFi Forum
John,
I have enjoyed your Blowtorch thread, reminded me of a lot of almost forgotten stuff and actually a few new tips. However I travel my own road, so we may only go a short way together.
That post is pasted from JJ's original thread in the Stereophile forum here.
Ed, which audioXpress issue is your article in? I don't have a subscription, and it doesn't look like it's in the current issue (December). If I look for back issues at their site, the most recent one is 2008. So I'm unable to figure it out from the info on the audioXpress web site.
I agree with the laws against selling **. Even then it is the consumer's responsibility, at least as far as something like cables are concerned, to do their own homework before paying big money for cables. I just can't believe anybody is foolish enough to pay big money for cables that they haven't tried first, nobody is forced to buy them either.
It is highly unlikely that anyone buying cabling over say $200.00 a pair is ever expected to buy without hearing them with some sort of trial period. I doubt that anyone would ever shell out the cash if they do not have a certain amount of audition time. At least I never recall anyone taking my word on how any set of cables ever sounded before in over 20+ years of selling cabling 🙂
To "What started all this was your assertion that the only valid claims for testing were those of very obvious differences." you replied:
So you're not testing if cables can make a obvious audible difference, you're testing if claims that cables make a obvious audible difference are valid, which appears to me to require testing if cables make a obvious audible difference. Again, the post that started it all:
That seems to contradict:
which allows for any audible difference. Not that it matters, this is a consumer protection debate and not about science. In a hypothetical court trial to decide the matter in with solid evidence that cables make an audible difference is presented, just not one as dramatic as advertising copy implies, what judge would rule against the manufacturer? It becomes a value judgment.
Re: the test protocols employed in cable tests to date, I've already spent far too much time dismantling what I see as their very obvious flaws and asking for solid academic examples to rehash all that.
So you're not testing if cables can make a obvious audible difference, you're testing if claims that cables make a obvious audible difference are valid, which appears to me to require testing if cables make a obvious audible difference. Again, the post that started it all:
That seems to contradict:
which allows for any audible difference. Not that it matters, this is a consumer protection debate and not about science. In a hypothetical court trial to decide the matter in with solid evidence that cables make an audible difference is presented, just not one as dramatic as advertising copy implies, what judge would rule against the manufacturer? It becomes a value judgment.
Re: the test protocols employed in cable tests to date, I've already spent far too much time dismantling what I see as their very obvious flaws and asking for solid academic examples to rehash all that.
In building the guts of the analyzer I tried copper wire, copper ribbon and silver wire. The final version uses two matched silver wires from the cable under test to the differential inputs. The silver wire I tried has less distortion than the copper ones.
I did not try silver connectors as I had none.
Simon 7000, unfortunately I have to wait for a Nov copy to arrive or else buy it off the shelf at a bookstore. I have been getting it forever, BUT my pro mailing address has been changed, and even phone calls to the mag have not gotten me a copy. Keep up the good work.
Exactly, make me wonder sometimes why some feel the need to protect all the intelligence deprived people with too much money 🙄 from wasting their money on cables. 🙂
R67 of Figure 1 isn't labeled as to value. Are the values of R62 and R63 correct?
not authoritative by a long shot
Reading the Stereophile forums referenced... gawd.. what a bunch of hooey! Lots of bad information there... oxidized gold, shiney vs. dull... without a lick of understanding about the process... but noooo. does that stop statements paraded as factual by experts as to alloy properties and such?
Reader beware... this is tripe masquerading as fact by those who should know better... but I guess it does sell magazines (and cables)
Reading the Stereophile forums referenced... gawd.. what a bunch of hooey! Lots of bad information there... oxidized gold, shiney vs. dull... without a lick of understanding about the process... but noooo. does that stop statements paraded as factual by experts as to alloy properties and such?
Reader beware... this is tripe masquerading as fact by those who should know better... but I guess it does sell magazines (and cables)
Disclaimer: My having linked to that post does not imply that I agree with the contents or think it is authoritative. My only reason for linking it was that Ed Simon linked to another post that consisted only of a copy and paste of the one in the Stereophile forum.
Void where prohibited. May cause harmful side effects including, but not limited to, vomiting 😀. etc. etc.
That being said, auplater, I'd be interested in your take as to which plating techniques and materials one should look for and which one should avoid.
duh...
Are you really, really John... all kidding aside, do you really agree that gold oxidiizes spontaneously, and that this causes junction failure and mischief, as factually stated by kbk et als vociferously. And all the nonsense about microdiodes, micro-essence, micro-anything superimposed on the audible signal.
i respect your knowledge of amplification devices and circuit topology; you've got a long heritage of praise there... however, when you seemingly lend credence to nonsensical claims as above, one cannot help but wonder as to the veracity of your claims outside of your fields of expetise..
There are litterally hundreds of near 24 carat gold plating processes available. Some produce pure gold from cyanide solutions, some from cyanide containing acid solutions (gold cyanide is uniquely stable down to pH 2 or so)... these are dull as deposited at anything greater than 1/4 micron or so (10 millonths of an inch) and are never seen on commercial equipment. Unfortunately, EE's tend to think if it ain't shiney, it's not as good as if it is. I would routinely try to provide pure gold vs. 23+ carat gold microwave bolometer and mixer parts, operated at near absolute zero as microwave detectors vs. 23.7 carat brite gold (with small amounts of nickel, arsenic, or cobalt to produce micro-levelling as the plate built up) aand, inevitably, the dull but pure parts would be returned as inferior (except when wire bonding to GaAs and Si diode structures, wire/ultrasonic bonding is unforgiving of impurities in gold surfaces, it simply doesn't work).
Gold plating does not "oxidize" as the thermodynamic stability of its oxides is lower than that of the free element. However, gold plating as practiced in the audio industry is almost always porous (anything less than 2 1/2 microns thick, .0001"), whether dull or brite. Since at the current price of gold, this would amount to maybe $20 or so of gold on a typical connector, you can guess what manufacturers do. 😉
All gold plated over any copper alloy needs an intermediate layer of nickel, palladium, or some other metal to prevent diffusion of copper through the plating. Unfortunately, I doubt many vendors do this (or even know the problem exists, otherwise they'd use it in ad copy)
The best way to clean suspect gold connectors would be an alkaline soak (think dishwasher detergent) followed by a rinse with acetone or other polar organic solvent. This would remove ALL of the organic muck from handling, airborne crud, etc.. Then perhaps coat them with cramolin or your favorite contact enhancer to prevent other contamination.
So, I would try to find heavily gold plated connectors with guarenteed spec's as to coating thickness, process, etc. Good luck with that.
Or, as I've done, use decent gold plated interconnects and replace them when they don't work anymore. I used to overplate them with my own gold, but it got to be laborious, and, frankly,I didn't hear or see any difference. Crappy interconnects were still lousy, usually due to inferior mechanical construction.
All this talk about surface problems with interconnects is anecdotal at best. I've yet to see anyone do any sort of ANOVA , screening, or any other experimental design using interconnects processed thru cleaning and insertion trials, post results along with conditions and evaluation criteria. All we ever see is "I heard a difference, so this must be the cause".
I've chased surface electronics for decades, had to provide superior bonding and longevity with chromium, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, iridium, rhodium, alloys, etc... so I have done similar work. Anecdotes such as "I'm sure it was better because it sounded different" wouldn't metaphorically pass muster on sattelites, rocket engine combustors, chemical laser chambers, etc. So engineering fact trumps subjective appraisal in the real world outside of high end audio any day of the week.
John L.
Are you really, really John... all kidding aside, do you really agree that gold oxidiizes spontaneously, and that this causes junction failure and mischief, as factually stated by kbk et als vociferously. And all the nonsense about microdiodes, micro-essence, micro-anything superimposed on the audible signal.
i respect your knowledge of amplification devices and circuit topology; you've got a long heritage of praise there... however, when you seemingly lend credence to nonsensical claims as above, one cannot help but wonder as to the veracity of your claims outside of your fields of expetise..
andy_c said:
There are litterally hundreds of near 24 carat gold plating processes available. Some produce pure gold from cyanide solutions, some from cyanide containing acid solutions (gold cyanide is uniquely stable down to pH 2 or so)... these are dull as deposited at anything greater than 1/4 micron or so (10 millonths of an inch) and are never seen on commercial equipment. Unfortunately, EE's tend to think if it ain't shiney, it's not as good as if it is. I would routinely try to provide pure gold vs. 23+ carat gold microwave bolometer and mixer parts, operated at near absolute zero as microwave detectors vs. 23.7 carat brite gold (with small amounts of nickel, arsenic, or cobalt to produce micro-levelling as the plate built up) aand, inevitably, the dull but pure parts would be returned as inferior (except when wire bonding to GaAs and Si diode structures, wire/ultrasonic bonding is unforgiving of impurities in gold surfaces, it simply doesn't work).
Gold plating does not "oxidize" as the thermodynamic stability of its oxides is lower than that of the free element. However, gold plating as practiced in the audio industry is almost always porous (anything less than 2 1/2 microns thick, .0001"), whether dull or brite. Since at the current price of gold, this would amount to maybe $20 or so of gold on a typical connector, you can guess what manufacturers do. 😉
All gold plated over any copper alloy needs an intermediate layer of nickel, palladium, or some other metal to prevent diffusion of copper through the plating. Unfortunately, I doubt many vendors do this (or even know the problem exists, otherwise they'd use it in ad copy)
The best way to clean suspect gold connectors would be an alkaline soak (think dishwasher detergent) followed by a rinse with acetone or other polar organic solvent. This would remove ALL of the organic muck from handling, airborne crud, etc.. Then perhaps coat them with cramolin or your favorite contact enhancer to prevent other contamination.
So, I would try to find heavily gold plated connectors with guarenteed spec's as to coating thickness, process, etc. Good luck with that.
Or, as I've done, use decent gold plated interconnects and replace them when they don't work anymore. I used to overplate them with my own gold, but it got to be laborious, and, frankly,I didn't hear or see any difference. Crappy interconnects were still lousy, usually due to inferior mechanical construction.
All this talk about surface problems with interconnects is anecdotal at best. I've yet to see anyone do any sort of ANOVA , screening, or any other experimental design using interconnects processed thru cleaning and insertion trials, post results along with conditions and evaluation criteria. All we ever see is "I heard a difference, so this must be the cause".
I've chased surface electronics for decades, had to provide superior bonding and longevity with chromium, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, iridium, rhodium, alloys, etc... so I have done similar work. Anecdotes such as "I'm sure it was better because it sounded different" wouldn't metaphorically pass muster on sattelites, rocket engine combustors, chemical laser chambers, etc. So engineering fact trumps subjective appraisal in the real world outside of high end audio any day of the week.
John L.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.