I don't agree with any cable comparison I have heard of to date. Look, we only have LC&R. There are no other variables. Of these, L is likely to be the least variable. So now we have two.
For R you have either the same quality of copper and different sizes, or differing quality of copper and the same size. Both will alter the R. In transformers the difference between 4 nines (US std) and 0 nines (Chinese non military std) is 1 1/2 AWG wire size for the same length and same resistance.
For C, the dielectric constant for modern materials that could be used to cover a cable can range from 2.2 to 9, and the one that is 9 can range from 5 to 9. In a broad sense this determines how many electrons you can have per sq cm of copper for an electrostatic moment. There are however, issues with charge threshold, triboelectric conditioning, charge time for differing charge values and the whole issue of release and losses in information during release to current flow. This is too complex to have as a variable, when you are just trying to discover if any change in C is both audible and measurable.
I make most of my current living selling guitar amplifier outputs to both top boutique mfg's and DIY individuals. I have 5 "voices" that for players are very important. For you and me (I do not play) they are noticeable, but not too big a deal. All five voices have stacked dielectrics and it is the dielectric stack that changes the entire character of the OPT. The difference between a Fender and a Marshall "voice" is due to three pieces of plastic film.
So, while I am sure that the R is going to be important for efficiency considerations, I do not see it as any big deal for any of the subjective categories. In my business, losses due to deliberately compromised coupling of the antenna event in the coil and dielectrics are the mother of all musical value. And the Fender and Marshall have zero difference in coupling factors, core material or DCR. Some of you know just how different it is to play these two voices, either original amps or ones with my voices in them.
Because of all of the above and my usual desire to only explore one variable at a time and to magnify the factors that comprise the variable, I think we should limit the test to three cable sets and have a pretty extreme difference in their amount of the same dielectric, to the surface area of the wire. If we can find differences here, that are both audible and measurable, then we have a set of data points to explore from. The "this one is better than that one in five nebulous categories" sort of test is what has gotten this whole investigation in trouble in the first place.
I can make the cables very difficult to tell apart. They will only have a tiny amount of color on one end and all of the rest will be natural cotton or bleached cotton, woven tube, which ever one I have enough of at the time. It will be possible to discover which color has which amount of dielectric, but perhaps we can trust one another here and just have a red, green and blue pair.
Bud
For R you have either the same quality of copper and different sizes, or differing quality of copper and the same size. Both will alter the R. In transformers the difference between 4 nines (US std) and 0 nines (Chinese non military std) is 1 1/2 AWG wire size for the same length and same resistance.
For C, the dielectric constant for modern materials that could be used to cover a cable can range from 2.2 to 9, and the one that is 9 can range from 5 to 9. In a broad sense this determines how many electrons you can have per sq cm of copper for an electrostatic moment. There are however, issues with charge threshold, triboelectric conditioning, charge time for differing charge values and the whole issue of release and losses in information during release to current flow. This is too complex to have as a variable, when you are just trying to discover if any change in C is both audible and measurable.
I make most of my current living selling guitar amplifier outputs to both top boutique mfg's and DIY individuals. I have 5 "voices" that for players are very important. For you and me (I do not play) they are noticeable, but not too big a deal. All five voices have stacked dielectrics and it is the dielectric stack that changes the entire character of the OPT. The difference between a Fender and a Marshall "voice" is due to three pieces of plastic film.
So, while I am sure that the R is going to be important for efficiency considerations, I do not see it as any big deal for any of the subjective categories. In my business, losses due to deliberately compromised coupling of the antenna event in the coil and dielectrics are the mother of all musical value. And the Fender and Marshall have zero difference in coupling factors, core material or DCR. Some of you know just how different it is to play these two voices, either original amps or ones with my voices in them.
Because of all of the above and my usual desire to only explore one variable at a time and to magnify the factors that comprise the variable, I think we should limit the test to three cable sets and have a pretty extreme difference in their amount of the same dielectric, to the surface area of the wire. If we can find differences here, that are both audible and measurable, then we have a set of data points to explore from. The "this one is better than that one in five nebulous categories" sort of test is what has gotten this whole investigation in trouble in the first place.
I can make the cables very difficult to tell apart. They will only have a tiny amount of color on one end and all of the rest will be natural cotton or bleached cotton, woven tube, which ever one I have enough of at the time. It will be possible to discover which color has which amount of dielectric, but perhaps we can trust one another here and just have a red, green and blue pair.
Bud
If they get different ratings then it doesn't prove anything. As people on this board have been pointing out you can't prove a negative.
If they score the same it is beyond chance at that proves audibility. And objectivists say the burden of proof is on the subjectivists.
Drug companies test the real drug against placebos and they tell the patient this will help. They use placebos because believes have a powerful affect on us. And so they have to rule out the placebo effect to prove a drug is really effective.
Beliefs have a powerful effect on how we hear too. And if you don't believe cables have differences, then you most likely you won't hear a difference or won't trust any difference you do hear. It's not all black and white.
Bud, only just remembered about your 'speed' thing (related to amount of sensory data we are exposed to)
can you explain just a little bit more clearly? I responded to it earlier I just remembered...I must have been way off as it elicited no response.
can you explain just a little bit more clearly? I responded to it earlier I just remembered...I must have been way off as it elicited no response.
TerryJ
Well, not really, though some part of a key is in the "pace" of a musical program.
First here are the relevant posts to refresh your memory with.
page 919
post #9181
post #9186
post #9187
post #9188
page 923
post #9221
page 924
post #9234
My thought here is that we do not have an infinite data uptake rate, as a 150 cps vastly parallel processor, bio device. That there might even be a "sweet spot" for data uptake and processing into an intelligible illusion of the surrounding world. That the "balance" that Curly repeatedly points to might just be that sweet spot for him. And, that having recognized this "balance point" he utilized it to provide other people with useful information on how to choose various pieces of equipment. Being an intelligent man, I am sure he had a set of systems he would have potential customers listen too, while he analyzed where they would find their "sweet spot", by listening to their responses to systems balanced for "sweet spots" of different data uptake requirements.
In the usual audio pile terms, some folks would have preferred one system balance over another and spoken of the disliked one as "thin, sharp and hollow sounding. Where a younger person might have thought that same balance to be "tight, revealing and exciting" and preferred it to one that suited a person with a slower data uptake rate.
To go a bit further in speculation, Jan offers a potential for us to need to limit what we actually pay attention to when we are being excited with multiple streams of data, by showing that our consciously perceived information is vastly less than what our "equipment " can provide us.
It seems likely that most everyone will have a similar data uptake for information that provides clues in the construction of the illusions of spatial placement and speed of movement within that illusion. To add support to this notion, think about our ancestors, perhaps standing next to a boa tree, in 6 foot tall elephant grass, listening to all of the sounds and creating illusions in there minds, to go along with those sounds. Those who's data uptake was too slow were lunch. Those that had too fast a data uptake rate, might get either too bored or to confident and move too soon, also becoming lunch.
So, I think there ought to be a bell curve for this particular set of illusory phenomena. But the range of subtlety within the top of the curve could be just great enough, that differing cables would bring a particular audio system into "balance", where other cables might not.
I am not at all sure how to grade this subtle range. Nor am I sure we can find objective data we can point to with confidence, as heralding some specific point in this range of "speed". But I think we might get a set of data points from my post #9321. I would certainly set one of those cable pairs at what I find to be my personal "sweet spot" for information comprehension and skew the others off to either side of it, relatively far, just so we might actually notice some characteristic of them in an objective test and be able to begin to link subjective data points to objective ones.
Just a thought experiment at the moment and completely open to reconstruction.
Bud
Well, not really, though some part of a key is in the "pace" of a musical program.
First here are the relevant posts to refresh your memory with.
page 919
post #9181
post #9186
post #9187
post #9188
page 923
post #9221
page 924
post #9234
My thought here is that we do not have an infinite data uptake rate, as a 150 cps vastly parallel processor, bio device. That there might even be a "sweet spot" for data uptake and processing into an intelligible illusion of the surrounding world. That the "balance" that Curly repeatedly points to might just be that sweet spot for him. And, that having recognized this "balance point" he utilized it to provide other people with useful information on how to choose various pieces of equipment. Being an intelligent man, I am sure he had a set of systems he would have potential customers listen too, while he analyzed where they would find their "sweet spot", by listening to their responses to systems balanced for "sweet spots" of different data uptake requirements.
In the usual audio pile terms, some folks would have preferred one system balance over another and spoken of the disliked one as "thin, sharp and hollow sounding. Where a younger person might have thought that same balance to be "tight, revealing and exciting" and preferred it to one that suited a person with a slower data uptake rate.
To go a bit further in speculation, Jan offers a potential for us to need to limit what we actually pay attention to when we are being excited with multiple streams of data, by showing that our consciously perceived information is vastly less than what our "equipment " can provide us.
It seems likely that most everyone will have a similar data uptake for information that provides clues in the construction of the illusions of spatial placement and speed of movement within that illusion. To add support to this notion, think about our ancestors, perhaps standing next to a boa tree, in 6 foot tall elephant grass, listening to all of the sounds and creating illusions in there minds, to go along with those sounds. Those who's data uptake was too slow were lunch. Those that had too fast a data uptake rate, might get either too bored or to confident and move too soon, also becoming lunch.
So, I think there ought to be a bell curve for this particular set of illusory phenomena. But the range of subtlety within the top of the curve could be just great enough, that differing cables would bring a particular audio system into "balance", where other cables might not.
I am not at all sure how to grade this subtle range. Nor am I sure we can find objective data we can point to with confidence, as heralding some specific point in this range of "speed". But I think we might get a set of data points from my post #9321. I would certainly set one of those cable pairs at what I find to be my personal "sweet spot" for information comprehension and skew the others off to either side of it, relatively far, just so we might actually notice some characteristic of them in an objective test and be able to begin to link subjective data points to objective ones.
Just a thought experiment at the moment and completely open to reconstruction.
Bud
Well, I went and had a look thinking I must have missed something...nope.
WTF are you talking about bud??
Well, at least that is a promising thought. Heck, keep this up and next you'll be telling me that painting dots on drivers will help audio reproduction or something equally silly.🙂
Let's go back to the 'beginning', post 9181.
Wow, that is an insight limited to curly?? You mean the stereo event leads to the mental formation of positions in space etc of instruments??
Ok, let's not get toooo mystical, stereo can be a magic experience, but it is NOT magic!
Yep, two different signals from two speakers seperated in space and GUESS WHAT!!
Ok, so curly points out something anyone who listens to stereo experienes to a greater or lesser degree..ok...
but to go from THAT to THIS!!
WHY!!!
I mean, why??? WHY?
So we hear things in stereo, and suddenly differences in perception of stereo is down to information uptake abilities????
Bloody hell Bud.
Where is the link? Nothing to do with individual ears, cochlea, anything else we have studied for decades, no it is down too this new thing about information rate??
I don't quite know what to say...are you sure it is not due to PH balance in the blood?
I will admit I did misunderstand you initially, now I read it again.
It gets worse the second time thru tho...
What does that mean?? Too fast? You mean on one system it plays back faster than another and so is described as thin hard and sharp?
Oh well, no wonder the vinyl guys think they have a superior playback than cd, they have wow and flutter on their side!
Sorry Bud, I wasted too much time on that.
Not goldilocks, more like gobbledegook.
Nothing in there but a crazy half baked idea.
Hmmm, maybe I've been not too clear. What I meant was that the effect of limited data processing capability and/or data 'exformation/compression/integration' on its way from ear to concious perception is a good model to explain why sighted tests come up with perceived differences that disappear in blind tests. Didn't mean to say that this support a 'data rate difference' model to explain different perceptions, sorry if it came over that way.
ABTW The processes I mentioned are NOT speculation, this is all established fact.
jd
Good attitude for making sure you never learn anything new. 😉
Although I'm battling to understand some of the things BudP are talking about, his theory are at least consistent with what some of us claim to hear. He might just be up to something there.
What are you talking about? I read it..twice. I rejected it as useless twaddle. How does that make sure I never learn anything new??
Oh, I get it, no matter what is written you must accept it as that means you have learnt something new..is that it?
So, just to make sure we are on the same page about Buds 'theory'...curly says something about listening and centre image etc etc...phew.
Bud then says maybe that is due to the way we process amounts of information...
WTF?
I thought it had to do with ears.... call me simple, I don't mind.
Anyway, you admit that you too did not understand buds ramblings?? Heck, if I don't understand i say so (and am not too proud to say so)...you just go wow, I don't understand so it must be deep.
Get the difference?
Nope, the reason we both don't get it is because there is nothing to get.
I get that, you don't.
Something I've learned is to never have a certain opinion of something you don't understand until at least you have tested it. I've been surprised many times.
@SY (& Cal) ....... Third generation Irish on male line....Prussian antecedents via Switzerland and Alsace, Norman Irish (FitzMaurice) on maternal line with a lot of Hugenot and even a bit of English Settler thrown in!! Born in Ireland, left when 32!! Now in Scotland... Now that is a true International Mix 🙂))
Regarding the fact that agreement cannot yet be found as to the methodology of any proposed cable testing it would appear to me to be yet another case of a camel being a horse designed by a committee.😉
CAL:
Back in the 1960sI knew some Weldons in Dublin when I was a student.
In closing this thread you are actually showing little understanding of the fact that you will be dispossessing many of their natural home. 😀😀
Top o' the morning Lads,
Brian
Regarding the fact that agreement cannot yet be found as to the methodology of any proposed cable testing it would appear to me to be yet another case of a camel being a horse designed by a committee.😉
CAL:
Back in the 1960sI knew some Weldons in Dublin when I was a student.
In closing this thread you are actually showing little understanding of the fact that you will be dispossessing many of their natural home. 😀😀
Top o' the morning Lads,
Brian
Last edited:
Who is to say that our understanding of even these three parameters is complete? DO we in fact fully understand the combining of these three factors in a single unit adequately enough to have the total faith in their unchangeability with regard to cable performance? Capacitance is discussed as being an end to end property of cables. Do we even consider the whole business of stray capacitance and the effect of dielectrics upon sound or indeed the basic end to end capacitance of cable whilst in use?
At the moment no one, I suspect, knows for certain the whole truth. Answers will be found but until then we are at best looking in a mirror darkly and finding reflected no more than what we - with limited knowledge - want to see.😉
Last edited:
Obvious because Andre said so??? Or were you present for all of them?
And if you subsequently discovered that some of you "good" recordings were actually made with "bad" equipment, including "bad", cables and internal wiring, the "good" explanation for this would be..??
I'll bite. maybe no-one else will.
full explanation please of exactly how you will test something you do not understand?
alternatively, as you still seem 'upset' (forget the exact word used ok?) that I have rejected buds 'hypothesis', and have admitted that maybe I do not understand it, perhaps you can explain it to me in a more comprehensible manner??
that way maybe I CAN understand it, and may change my mind about it's worth.
No. We both agree that you can "hear" different cables.
What we don't know, is what did you (or Curly) do to prevent uncontrolled variables (level, etc.) or the imagination, from being the reason?
(OT)
Terry,
Your opinions of others and their abilities, without knowing them, tells me that you know everything there is to know about life, the world and the way that you feel that everything should be.
Thankfully this is not the truth, but your subjective opinion on how things should be, according to Terry. The world is a marvelous place and people are all unique in their abilities. Maybe if you would open your mind to possibilities outside of your understanding, you might find out that there is another side to life, as you know it. It might be fun to enjoy those people and what they might bring in a new sense of learning, understanding and that the world is not, according to Terry, but unique and diverse. I am thankful that not everyone is the same or sees things the same. It has allowed us to grow and prosper in all phases of our lives. Thankfully too, not everything about us or the world that we live in is known yet and there are still many, many things to be discovered.
You can debate all aspects about why things can not be, but you will never be able to prove any of it, regardless of any tests that are conducted. It is simply not possible to prove anything about human abilities to a perfect degree where there will never be doubt.
I prefer, as do other like me, to allow each to have their own opinions and beliefs, as they are personal and not something that we can influence or debate, as we do not know what the other knows and never will. Science is a great thing and i have never said otherwise. I just will not stand behind it as the final judgement as to what any human being can or can not do in life. It is just not something that fits into any equations that I seen in my lifetime.
Cheers and best of luck 🙂
It's like Reformed Egyptian, where a slight amount of interpretation may be necessary.
Over time level differences will average out as I use different volume levels all the time during my testing. I am not one to sit down with a vise on my skull, a test robot, with ancillary equipment to prove what I hear in my own system. I go to great lengths to provide myself with ample time to compare with a great variety of music (though I use the same music collection for all testing). Over time I can average out the gross differences and get a good idea if any as to what I hear.
I understand that many of you find fault in this, but it is about the most realistic test procedure that I have found and have many others. We are not trying to "test" anything, we are listening to our systems which hopefully we have an intimate understanding of its sound after a period of time and looking for differences in how the music is affected by system changes.
I will not enter into any DBT testing as I have no horse in this race. I am no longer employed by any audio related companies and no longer derive an income from anything audio related.
Ok, so you did nothing to control any variables, including the imagination, but you insist it's the cables themselves causing physical changes to the soundwaves that you perceive as "better".
Fair enough.
No need to apologize, we understand.
It's not necessary to understand something before you can test it, the test itself may even help to give direction as to try and understand what happen. If Bud can change the perceived sound with certain amounts of dielectrics, it will show at least that what happen outside the conductor is just as important as inside.
Sorry Terry I'm not upset, I'm still smiling.
I've said that I also battle to understand some of it, perhaps Bud will draw us some pictures. 🙂
This were quite interesting to me, Ive never thought cable purity can have such a large effect.
This is the part where the pictures are needed, my guess is understanding exactly what is happening there may just explain loss of detail and focus.
This is also a very interesting remark.
So sorry I can't be of much help, I hope Bud will.
The only thing I could see when I was listening to the cables were my speakers.The differences I have detected had to do with an annoying upper mid from one of the cables,and reduced harmonics compared to the other one.Both points I find extremely important for me to accept and use in my system,and something I cannot miss.What you say about level,I find a bit funny.Explain to me HOW two cables will have the same sound but different level.If on the other hand they have different sound at what part of the FR will you match the two cables so as to eliminate their differences?You simply can't,unless when you say "level"you mean EQ'ing them
If we ever meet,I will demonstrate you how I can detect the differences of two identical interconnects with same connectors,even solder,by changing their direction.Both unshielded,so where the shield is connected will not bother us.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.