Psychology Lecture.........
Steve,
Regarding frozen photos, I believe (because I have not personally tried it) that this has a purely psychological basis, and I have no problem with this - IOW I regard this as a belief system driven effect.
More than 15 years ago directionality was demonstrated to me in a pair of interconnects by a dealer friend.
I was only a couple of years out of my apprenticeship, and still filled with textbook learning, so of couse I objected that this cannot be possible according to the theory that I had been taught.
When Chris reversed ONE interconnect, I clearly heard the difference, and confirmed it by further A/B comparisons.
At the end of I this I could only comment 'This cannot be' and 'How is this possible !' etc.
All of a sudden my belief system (drummed into me by rort learning) was in conflict with what I had just heard.
This changed my view of the world really, and ever since I have habitually questioned new propositions or assertions, and more particularly some long held ones too.
All of this means that I am open to new ideas, and do not reject them without further thought or examination or experiment.
From this I draw my own solid conclusions, which may or may not be in agreement with the proposition or assertion, but I will always have a reason for my conclusion.
Hopefully you now understand that I do not chase phantoms.
Eric.
Ummmm, because you are not hidden in the freezer ?.Steve Eddy said:
Steve,
Regarding frozen photos, I believe (because I have not personally tried it) that this has a purely psychological basis, and I have no problem with this - IOW I regard this as a belief system driven effect.
More than 15 years ago directionality was demonstrated to me in a pair of interconnects by a dealer friend.
I was only a couple of years out of my apprenticeship, and still filled with textbook learning, so of couse I objected that this cannot be possible according to the theory that I had been taught.
When Chris reversed ONE interconnect, I clearly heard the difference, and confirmed it by further A/B comparisons.
At the end of I this I could only comment 'This cannot be' and 'How is this possible !' etc.
All of a sudden my belief system (drummed into me by rort learning) was in conflict with what I had just heard.
This changed my view of the world really, and ever since I have habitually questioned new propositions or assertions, and more particularly some long held ones too.
All of this means that I am open to new ideas, and do not reject them without further thought or examination or experiment.
From this I draw my own solid conclusions, which may or may not be in agreement with the proposition or assertion, but I will always have a reason for my conclusion.
Hopefully you now understand that I do not chase phantoms.
Eric.
Intelligent Conversation Lesson....
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Yes, electron drift velocity is slower than the propagation velocity of the wave. But what the drift velocity is depends on what model you use.
Differing models ?.
Does this mean that the theories are imprecise ?.
More like a disturbance on top of a disturbance. At least under realworld conditions, i.e. those above absolute zero. It's not as if the electrons are just sitting around doing nothing until a signal is applied. They're being randomly jostled around all over the place due to the thermal energy in the conductor.
Sure everything above absolute zero is in an agitated state, and the electrons are not in a static state.
Different materials have different spectral responses (absorbtive and re-transmissive), so is it true that acording to the material that the material induced noise is not 'white' or purely random, and carries a spectral or phase signature ?.
Yes, the mean free path that an electron can travel before banging into the lattice is a function of phonon behavior seeing as the phonon is the quanta of lattice vibration. But just as the electrons are being randomly jostled about due to the thermal energy in the conductor, so is the lattice being jostled about.
Ok, so we have two mechanisms interacting ?.
Are they both purely random ?.
If you want to get an idea of what your phonons are up to, just listen to the thermal noise in a length of wire.
Ok, I would like to do that actually.
Any idea of how to go about it ?.
Mmmm. I can see where the dielectric would have an influence on the electric field. But I don't see how it would have any direct influence on lattice vibrations.
Electric field influence could affect/effect electron movement or randomness, yeah ?.
Sure. But I don't see how they would do so in any unidirectional way. And of course there's quantum tunneling so you're going to have electrons which behave as if the barrier isn't even there.
Transparent crystal materials exhibit spectral changes, and directional radiative characteristiscs in the optical domain,.
Does this also apply in the conductive domain for electrically conductive materials ?.
Does that mean that some electrons tunnel through and some don't ?.
If this is the case, this difference would correlate out as a non randomness wouldn't it ?.
Anyway, seems to me that whatever effect may be occurring, would be buried in the thermal noise of the conductor itself. Which unless you've got some REALLY long runs of cable or some REALLY thin speaker wires, will be even further below the thermal noise of the wires in your voicecoils.
Sure these levels may be below the average noise level of the system.
I have read that conduction is not purely random and exhibits quantisation.
Consider dithering - this is used to conceal non randomness in a quantised sytem, and cause another non-random product that is less detectable to the ear.
Can it be that mixtures of materials can spectrally skew signal conduction characteristics.
Can it also be that mixtures of materials can skew conduction characteristis according to direction of energy transfer ?.
But you might also just be chasing a phantom.
Nah.
I'd just suggest putting the horse in front of the cart instead of the other way around and instead of speculating on what the physical cause may be, work toward establishing that there's actually something your subjective perceptions.
I trust my subjective observations after repeated A/B comparisons in differing situations, and usually reinforced by third parties.
From this I conclude observations, and then go looking for proper explanations.
How 'bout a test? Let's say I make up oh, 20 pairs of interconnects or speaker cables, whichever you feel would give the most pronounced difference. Each pair would be made up unidirectionally or bidirectionally at random. I'd send you the 20 pairs and you can listen to them at your leisure and sort out which are which.
You wouldn't have to actually say which was which. Just which ones are the same and which ones are different. I could also make up two reference pairs, one unidirectional and one bidirectional so you could make comparisons to known entities.
At the end of the test, we'd check your results against the master list. If after several trials we get some significant results, then we're on to something and can do some further research and see if we can't get to the bottom of it.
There's also several standing offers of cash out there (one is $4,000) for anyone who can demonstrate audible differences in cables and if you come up with something significant, I'd be happy to do anything I can to help you claim those offers.
se
I think Fred already has claim on that.
Eric.
Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Yes, electron drift velocity is slower than the propagation velocity of the wave. But what the drift velocity is depends on what model you use.
Differing models ?.
Does this mean that the theories are imprecise ?.
More like a disturbance on top of a disturbance. At least under realworld conditions, i.e. those above absolute zero. It's not as if the electrons are just sitting around doing nothing until a signal is applied. They're being randomly jostled around all over the place due to the thermal energy in the conductor.
Sure everything above absolute zero is in an agitated state, and the electrons are not in a static state.
Different materials have different spectral responses (absorbtive and re-transmissive), so is it true that acording to the material that the material induced noise is not 'white' or purely random, and carries a spectral or phase signature ?.
Yes, the mean free path that an electron can travel before banging into the lattice is a function of phonon behavior seeing as the phonon is the quanta of lattice vibration. But just as the electrons are being randomly jostled about due to the thermal energy in the conductor, so is the lattice being jostled about.
Ok, so we have two mechanisms interacting ?.
Are they both purely random ?.
If you want to get an idea of what your phonons are up to, just listen to the thermal noise in a length of wire.
Ok, I would like to do that actually.
Any idea of how to go about it ?.
Mmmm. I can see where the dielectric would have an influence on the electric field. But I don't see how it would have any direct influence on lattice vibrations.
Electric field influence could affect/effect electron movement or randomness, yeah ?.
Sure. But I don't see how they would do so in any unidirectional way. And of course there's quantum tunneling so you're going to have electrons which behave as if the barrier isn't even there.
Transparent crystal materials exhibit spectral changes, and directional radiative characteristiscs in the optical domain,.
Does this also apply in the conductive domain for electrically conductive materials ?.
Does that mean that some electrons tunnel through and some don't ?.
If this is the case, this difference would correlate out as a non randomness wouldn't it ?.
Anyway, seems to me that whatever effect may be occurring, would be buried in the thermal noise of the conductor itself. Which unless you've got some REALLY long runs of cable or some REALLY thin speaker wires, will be even further below the thermal noise of the wires in your voicecoils.
Sure these levels may be below the average noise level of the system.
I have read that conduction is not purely random and exhibits quantisation.
Consider dithering - this is used to conceal non randomness in a quantised sytem, and cause another non-random product that is less detectable to the ear.
Can it be that mixtures of materials can spectrally skew signal conduction characteristics.
Can it also be that mixtures of materials can skew conduction characteristis according to direction of energy transfer ?.
But you might also just be chasing a phantom.
Nah.
I'd just suggest putting the horse in front of the cart instead of the other way around and instead of speculating on what the physical cause may be, work toward establishing that there's actually something your subjective perceptions.
I trust my subjective observations after repeated A/B comparisons in differing situations, and usually reinforced by third parties.
From this I conclude observations, and then go looking for proper explanations.
How 'bout a test? Let's say I make up oh, 20 pairs of interconnects or speaker cables, whichever you feel would give the most pronounced difference. Each pair would be made up unidirectionally or bidirectionally at random. I'd send you the 20 pairs and you can listen to them at your leisure and sort out which are which.
You wouldn't have to actually say which was which. Just which ones are the same and which ones are different. I could also make up two reference pairs, one unidirectional and one bidirectional so you could make comparisons to known entities.
At the end of the test, we'd check your results against the master list. If after several trials we get some significant results, then we're on to something and can do some further research and see if we can't get to the bottom of it.
There's also several standing offers of cash out there (one is $4,000) for anyone who can demonstrate audible differences in cables and if you come up with something significant, I'd be happy to do anything I can to help you claim those offers.
se
I think Fred already has claim on that.
Eric.
Re: Psychology Lecture.........
I only mention the frozen photos as a convenient example of how perceived differences can be brought about purely by psychology. There is also decades and decades of research which has shown over and over again that our perceptions can be influenced by that which has no actual direct effect on them.
But in the past I have been able to elicit similar responses in those with the same sort of belief system but where nothing had actually changed.
Just because one has a belief system which tells them that certain things are not or should not be possible does not make them immune to perceiving differences even when none exist. Many of those who have tried the various Peter Belt tweaks which do nothing to the audio system itself have initially approached them from the same point of view. That the tweaks cannot have any effect. Yet they end up perceiving differences just the same.
Ok, then how 'bout we try the experiment I suggested?
Since your experiences have been under sighted conditions, I fail to see how you can rule out phantoms. Are you as open to new ideas as you say? If so, let's see what happens under blind conditions. If there is indeed something to directionality that produces an actual audible difference, then you shouldn't have to know exactly what it is you're listening to in order to discern those differences.
So are you willing to give it a go?
se
mrfeedback said:
I only mention the frozen photos as a convenient example of how perceived differences can be brought about purely by psychology. There is also decades and decades of research which has shown over and over again that our perceptions can be influenced by that which has no actual direct effect on them.
But in the past I have been able to elicit similar responses in those with the same sort of belief system but where nothing had actually changed.
Just because one has a belief system which tells them that certain things are not or should not be possible does not make them immune to perceiving differences even when none exist. Many of those who have tried the various Peter Belt tweaks which do nothing to the audio system itself have initially approached them from the same point of view. That the tweaks cannot have any effect. Yet they end up perceiving differences just the same.
Ok, then how 'bout we try the experiment I suggested?
Since your experiences have been under sighted conditions, I fail to see how you can rule out phantoms. Are you as open to new ideas as you say? If so, let's see what happens under blind conditions. If there is indeed something to directionality that produces an actual audible difference, then you shouldn't have to know exactly what it is you're listening to in order to discern those differences.
So are you willing to give it a go?
se
Hi,
I haven't read through all of this thread yet...However, here are my thoughts...
If a cable cannot perform equally well in both directions (ignoring any shielding connections at any particular end), then it will degrade audio signals. Full stop. Where does it end - is someone going to tell me that I have to turn a circuit board in a particular direction, or make sure the hook up wire must be orientated in the correct manner...Please!
However, Kimber Kables claim to have made a sensitive piece of equipment to measure directionality...I suggest they redesign their cables to not have such a trait if they have the capability to measure it. Anyone can build a random logic circuit that'll choose one end of a cable over another - reproducable results would be more interesting...Finally, I wonder what test criteria is used to test such a trait...Imagination I would think...
Anyway - just my 2p worth...
Gaz
I haven't read through all of this thread yet...However, here are my thoughts...
If a cable cannot perform equally well in both directions (ignoring any shielding connections at any particular end), then it will degrade audio signals. Full stop. Where does it end - is someone going to tell me that I have to turn a circuit board in a particular direction, or make sure the hook up wire must be orientated in the correct manner...Please!
However, Kimber Kables claim to have made a sensitive piece of equipment to measure directionality...I suggest they redesign their cables to not have such a trait if they have the capability to measure it. Anyone can build a random logic circuit that'll choose one end of a cable over another - reproducable results would be more interesting...Finally, I wonder what test criteria is used to test such a trait...Imagination I would think...
Anyway - just my 2p worth...
Gaz
I would like to point out that real physics of materials shows that there is much more to a strip of metal, than just its gross characteristics. Usually these subtle effects first became apparent at very low temperatures when the S/N is improved by quieting lattice vibration, but they can also be seen, in many cases at room temperature. I have noted several references on other websites in the past, and SE is aware of this.
Here is one in particular that gives me better understanding of metal properties: The book is 'ELECTRON MICROSCOPY OF INTERFACES IN METALS AND ALLOYS' CT FORWOOD, LM CLAREBROUGH ISBN 0-7503-0116-3
pp 314... "6.4.1. Faulted Defects Generated by the Movement of Boundaries in Electron Microscope Specimens
A striking property of high-angle grain boundaries of pure polycrystalline copper (99.999%Cu) is that they are moblile in thin-foil electron microscope specimens at room temperature and rotate during observation, preferentially at the surface intersections, to become more steeply inclined to the plane of the specimen surfaces. ... " (the electron microscope is turned off when not viewing and the boundries can be seen to drift with time, usually a day or more)
How about that? Sound like electronics 1A or any other engineering course that most of you have taken? This is the REAL WORLD folks, not the simple approximations that we often use to calculate what we must to get a job done.
Here is one in particular that gives me better understanding of metal properties: The book is 'ELECTRON MICROSCOPY OF INTERFACES IN METALS AND ALLOYS' CT FORWOOD, LM CLAREBROUGH ISBN 0-7503-0116-3
pp 314... "6.4.1. Faulted Defects Generated by the Movement of Boundaries in Electron Microscope Specimens
A striking property of high-angle grain boundaries of pure polycrystalline copper (99.999%Cu) is that they are moblile in thin-foil electron microscope specimens at room temperature and rotate during observation, preferentially at the surface intersections, to become more steeply inclined to the plane of the specimen surfaces. ... " (the electron microscope is turned off when not viewing and the boundries can be seen to drift with time, usually a day or more)
How about that? Sound like electronics 1A or any other engineering course that most of you have taken? This is the REAL WORLD folks, not the simple approximations that we often use to calculate what we must to get a job done.
Hi,
That's probably why no difference is heard one way or the other.
When a piece of wire is viewed at microscopic levels the crystal lattices become visible showing the boundaries and the "holes" between them.
Good audio wire should have a smooth surface and this is best obtained in the direction the cable was drawn.
That's one plausible explanation as to why such cables will exhibit directional behaviour.
In some topnotch cables these "holes" are filled by the addition of an amount of gold to silver.
This results in a better alloy that approaches the ideal: one very long single crystal.
I agree and this works just the same for a simple twisted pair.
Cheers,
That's probably why no difference is heard one way or the other.
When a piece of wire is viewed at microscopic levels the crystal lattices become visible showing the boundaries and the "holes" between them.
Good audio wire should have a smooth surface and this is best obtained in the direction the cable was drawn.
That's one plausible explanation as to why such cables will exhibit directional behaviour.
In some topnotch cables these "holes" are filled by the addition of an amount of gold to silver.
This results in a better alloy that approaches the ideal: one very long single crystal.
I agree and this works just the same for a simple twisted pair.
Cheers,
AES-EBU directionnal jitter?
Hey Fred,
Whats this about jitter measurements and directional tendencies in AES EBU audio cables?
I thought I remembered Jocko once saying something about his displeasure with the format.
Did you do any correlations for transformer and direct-coupled interfaces? How bout 75 ohm coax vs 110-ohm rs 422 cables?
Im guessing that the measured jitter would have something to do with clockwise vs counter clock wise orientation of the twist with respect to the transmitter and receiver.
- Dave
Hey Fred,
Whats this about jitter measurements and directional tendencies in AES EBU audio cables?
I thought I remembered Jocko once saying something about his displeasure with the format.
Did you do any correlations for transformer and direct-coupled interfaces? How bout 75 ohm coax vs 110-ohm rs 422 cables?
Im guessing that the measured jitter would have something to do with clockwise vs counter clock wise orientation of the twist with respect to the transmitter and receiver.
- Dave
john curl said:
Apart from confirming that there is more going on in a piece of wire than standard electronic theory suggests, I'm not sure which particular argument this is in support of or whether it sheds any light on the claim that 'directional' cable is good for transferring AC.
If this is what's happening in the cables and has an audible effect what are all the other components in source/amp/speaker chain doing to the sound?
Richard, most of that stuff is very real and very irrelevant to the audio cable problem. I admit that I haven't taken the EE courses that John was talking about (or any other EE courses), but after almost 30 years of dealing professionally with conductive and semiconductive materials, I don't know what the relevance of THAT is, either.
Rarkov, I've told the story before, but briefly, Ray Kimber is not the first guy who has claimed to have a gadget to measure cable "direction." When I was consulting for a wire and cable company (contract manufacturer), they had a Big Name that they were supplying come by with his special meter, so that he could tell them which direction to pull the wire through the coating device to make his product . He impressed the hell out of the GM there, who had no idea that you could measure such a remarkable thing. But when we asked him to "double-check" some wires cut off of a single reel and coded so that we knew the relative directions, he was quite confident in his results- which, of course, were absolutely random. Nice guy that I am, I didn't say anything, since I didn't want the wire company to lose this guy's business.
Rarkov, I've told the story before, but briefly, Ray Kimber is not the first guy who has claimed to have a gadget to measure cable "direction." When I was consulting for a wire and cable company (contract manufacturer), they had a Big Name that they were supplying come by with his special meter, so that he could tell them which direction to pull the wire through the coating device to make his product . He impressed the hell out of the GM there, who had no idea that you could measure such a remarkable thing. But when we asked him to "double-check" some wires cut off of a single reel and coded so that we knew the relative directions, he was quite confident in his results- which, of course, were absolutely random. Nice guy that I am, I didn't say anything, since I didn't want the wire company to lose this guy's business.
Richard C said:
I don't know that it confirms anything about what's going on in a piece of wire. I don't see how the behavior of a bare thin film of copper necessarily relates to the behavior of a far more massive piece of wire such as those typically used for interconnects and speaker cables.
se
Although skeptic I don't want to rule out the possibility that
cables might be directed for som hitherto unknown or
overlooked phenomenon. However, if theyare , it would open up
a really big can of worms. What about the internal wiring in
amps? Are component leads directed? Is the copper on PCBs
directed, so one should determine its orientation before
etching? Do transistors and ICs sound different depending on
the orientation of the mask relative to the wafer during
manufacturing? ...
cables might be directed for som hitherto unknown or
overlooked phenomenon. However, if theyare , it would open up
a really big can of worms. What about the internal wiring in
amps? Are component leads directed? Is the copper on PCBs
directed, so one should determine its orientation before
etching? Do transistors and ICs sound different depending on
the orientation of the mask relative to the wafer during
manufacturing? ...
Richard C said:It may be to late to worry about cable directionality unless of course the recording/mixing studio has taken the trouble to get all of their wires pointing in the right direction... which as we all know they make great efforts to do.
Yes I was thinking of that too, and even if they suddenly started
to worry about it it would make little sense to me, since most
recordings I listen to were made at least 30 years ago.
Richard C said:
Yup. Too often there's a lot of chopping but no chips flying. Of course it's much easier to sit around speculating, spinning theories, and making huge leaps of faith than it is actually getting to the bottom of an issue.
Why is it that the "great minds" who think up all this stuff have yet after several decades to even establish that any of this stuff is even actually audible? It seems to me that that should be the first step before any subsequent speculation or theorizing can take place seeing as the one thing that HAS been firmly established for more than a few decades is that our subjective perceptions are not always the accurate reflection of the physical reality that many seem to believe they are.
And I'm not claiming that there are no nor can be no differences. I don't know to any degree of certainty one way or the other. All I know is that sighted listening, amusing anecdotes, leaps of faith not to mention logic, speculation and spinning theiries do absolutely nothing to estabilish the facts one way or the other.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.