Steve, if you can, get the book, and read the passage, both before my quotations and after. Do that first, then we can discuss fine points.
By the way, I believe it was demonstrated rather conclusively by jneutron over on Audio Asylum some time back that grain boundaries have no effect on electrical conductivity (i.e. they don't effect the electron mean free path). If my memory is serving me correctly, then I fail to see how the movement of grain boundaries is of any relevance to this discussion.
se
se
So it is apparent that you are attempting to explain your observations by quoting passages from advanced texts (which most won't understand and will just accept that you do, a brand of con-game that is beneath you) that "seem" to give a plausible mechanism by which your observations may be correct - but on closer examination don't apply at all. This isn't science. This is merely attempting to justify your belief, when you should be questioning it instead.
Lol I have the exact inverse theory. Once you get to an area where it's good enough that little stuff doesn't matter much. 😀 But I think we are both being very general here.
Eh? What's the difference between a microscopically thin foil and a physically thin foil?
se
Irrelevant to what I have said, which is that no one has shown it to happen in bulk material. Can you point to any post in this thread where someone has shown it to happen in bulk material?
se
No, but I was making a point. I have info at all levels. It is not always easy to understand, even by me. Did SY help me with the definitions? No. Point made.
There ya go. All the proof anyone should ever need. Wire sound theorists: you just got owned.
Very sloppy reasoning Andre. It is neither a theory nor a fact, it is an opinion at most. It becomes a fact when you can show that it is real and repeatable. THEN you can start to think about a theory that could explain it.
jd
Well if no-one shown that it do not happen in 'bulk' material, I would say it is still possible since it is shown to happen in a foil.
It's just that we aren't being specific enough. Because I have contradicted myself and said basically the same thing which is that with more accuracy it is easier to spot blemishes. With my system it is not a theory at this point either. It's just that I am not so sure as to why that is - I have some ideas though! 😛
Do you have any books or links to substantiate this claim? I'd love to see some surplus cryo treated WW1 parts show up on ebay. I think the simpler solution is to cryo treat your ears instead of individual components.
Thanks for the lesson Jan, but if you check, I've talked about our different opinions in the sentence just before the part you quoted. So far on all the systems I've listened to it was repeatable.
BTW, I already have a theory that can explain it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.