Re: Possible "Most Retarded Member Ever".............
And maybe we all have a good laugh.
se
mrfeedback said:
And maybe we all have a good laugh.
se
Some Progress................
Ok, so you mean that you are a cheapskate then. 🙂
I am interested to try copper wire with these kinds of claims - I made up a pair of Kimber cables and I reckon they sound rotten.
I'll have more think about what the sample set should be - at this stage I still reckon we should run with a single channel reference cable to compare to a bunch of single channel randomly marked cables.
Frank suggests that the one reference channel will settle in and lose it's directionality - I am no sure about this.
Eric.
Steve Eddy said:
Ok, so you mean that you are a cheapskate then. 🙂
I have never wondered about cable pricing - I just shake my head.
I am interested to try copper wire with these kinds of claims - I made up a pair of Kimber cables and I reckon they sound rotten.
Yes, actually doing something would be a refreshing change.
I'll have more think about what the sample set should be - at this stage I still reckon we should run with a single channel reference cable to compare to a bunch of single channel randomly marked cables.
Frank suggests that the one reference channel will settle in and lose it's directionality - I am no sure about this.
Eric.
Hi,
If we refer to plain wire directionality, then, yes, it's my experience that after break in it will...
If it wouldn't everyone would hear image shifts from their systems and nothing would actually ever sound kosher, would it??
BTW, are you left or right handed?
Cheers,😉
If we refer to plain wire directionality, then, yes, it's my experience that after break in it will...
If it wouldn't everyone would hear image shifts from their systems and nothing would actually ever sound kosher, would it??
BTW, are you left or right handed?
Cheers,😉
Cable directionality? Oh yes, you must watch out for that. When connecting a copper cable, to audio equipment you should connect the + terminal to the copper end, not to the other copper end. Copper is especially directional, that's why diodes are made out of it. 
Solid Snake said:Copper is especially directional, that's why diodes are made out of it.
Actually, there are diodes made out of copper.
se
Hi,
If it makes you feel any better...Steve's trying hard to poke through loopholes in the patent office here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=265019#post265019
I already know the direction of that one....
Cold Cathode Frank and Litz Wire Willie,😉
If it makes you feel any better...Steve's trying hard to poke through loopholes in the patent office here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=265019#post265019
I already know the direction of that one....
Cold Cathode Frank and Litz Wire Willie,😉
Solid Snake said:
Not entirely, no. Part of it is pure copper the other part is copper oxide.
se
fdegrove said:
Your link dunna work. Here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=265019#post265019
And what loopholes? Ya can't patent that which has already been patented or for which there is prior art. Well, obviously you CAN seeing as the patent office HAS granted such patents, but... 🙂
se
Hi,
It's the "but" that's interesting....
Thought ya's the only smart fella aroun', huh?
Which you don't mind having on the surface of your wires IIRC?
Catch 22?
Cheers,😉
It's the "but" that's interesting....
Thought ya's the only smart fella aroun', huh?
Which you don't mind having on the surface of your wires IIRC?
Catch 22?
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
The "but..." means it's not an enforceable patent. By the way, I was told by someone at MSC that they'd contacted Kimber about their patent and that Kimber said they were going to withdraw it.
Nope.
Nope.
Last I looked, my wires weren't conducting from their surface into the surrounding atmosphere. And besides, you ultimately need some conductor OTHER than copper on the other side of the copper oxide before it'll behave as a diode. Copper oxide dioes typically use lead for this.
se
Hi,
Not surprisingly...
Yep...but you know I was only pulling your chain, weren't you?
Cheers,😉
P.S. Too bad you couldn't send the Vampires out for Halloween...
Not surprisingly...
Yep...but you know I was only pulling your chain, weren't you?
Cheers,😉
P.S. Too bad you couldn't send the Vampires out for Halloween...
Re: To Steve............
Not yet. But I ordered it from Michael Percy and it's not unusual for it to take a week or two to get orders shipped. I'll post here as soon as they show up.
se
mrfeedback said:
Not yet. But I ordered it from Michael Percy and it's not unusual for it to take a week or two to get orders shipped. I'll post here as soon as they show up.
se
Steve, I'll be back in the US around the 8th or 9th of December and can pick them up from you then.
Steve,
I'd like to make a couple of humble suggetions here. I think for all parties involved, a bunch of null results would be entirely dissapointing (if not unexpected), since it would leave things in the state they are currently in... i.e., no one agrees on anything. I have my opinions as to how this test will likely turn out, but in all honesty I'd be much more excited to be wrong, and get a couple of positive results.
For that reason, and I think you've expressed this opinion in the past, it would be to everyone's advantage to give Eric and fdegrove the best chance possible of successfully identifying the cables correctly.
To that end, here are my suggestions:
(1) Stick with the multiple pairs idea, to remove break-in as a variable.
(2) Label the "reference" pair correctly wrt the actual cable direction - allow the two listeners to choose which should be the "correct" source and load ends.
(3) Choose one channel for each of the 20 pairs to also serve as a "reference" (i.e., always make the left channel "correct" wrt the cable direction and its marking). This implies that each channel is also correctly and consistently marked "right" and "left."
(4) Stick with the flipping-the-coin method for determining which of the 20 pairs will have matched channels and which will not, but only apply that random element to one channel consistently (e.g., to the right channel using my choice of left for the reference). It will still have a directionality marking, and it will either be consistent with or opposite that of the reference channel.
Suggestion (2) is important in that the cables are listened to in the same manner as the initial reference pairs were, that is, the two listeners can choose themselves whether to go with or against the raw cable directionality for the "correct" orientation. If you leave this up to your own convention (i.e., you mark one end consistently, but don't denote how that correlates with the raw cable direction) then you aren't giving them as much control over the experiment as is possible (which is always the desired way to do blind testing... to make them as comfortable as possible with the way the components are set up and used, and to have them "know" as much as possible about the system configuration - the key is to isolate that one variable).
Suggestion (3) is very important to me. Otherwise, it complicates their task by having the "image shifting" possible to either the right or the left. If they know before hand, using the reference cables, just what a swapped right channel sounds like, then they only have to listen for that one effect. If they are listening for either a swapped left or right channel, the chances of correctly identifying the cables is somewhat reduced. Again, the goal should be to give them as much knowledge as possible about what to listen for, and to isolate the variable tested for as specifically as possible.
So, in summary, you want the listeners to know that only one channel (the same channel for each pair) could possibly be swapped, and you want them to know the true directionality of the reference channel. That gives them the best chance of returning positive results, and though a null result is still just a null result, you have at least eliminated a few more possible variables for why a null result was returned.
Hope these suggestions help.
I'd like to make a couple of humble suggetions here. I think for all parties involved, a bunch of null results would be entirely dissapointing (if not unexpected), since it would leave things in the state they are currently in... i.e., no one agrees on anything. I have my opinions as to how this test will likely turn out, but in all honesty I'd be much more excited to be wrong, and get a couple of positive results.
For that reason, and I think you've expressed this opinion in the past, it would be to everyone's advantage to give Eric and fdegrove the best chance possible of successfully identifying the cables correctly.
To that end, here are my suggestions:
(1) Stick with the multiple pairs idea, to remove break-in as a variable.
(2) Label the "reference" pair correctly wrt the actual cable direction - allow the two listeners to choose which should be the "correct" source and load ends.
(3) Choose one channel for each of the 20 pairs to also serve as a "reference" (i.e., always make the left channel "correct" wrt the cable direction and its marking). This implies that each channel is also correctly and consistently marked "right" and "left."
(4) Stick with the flipping-the-coin method for determining which of the 20 pairs will have matched channels and which will not, but only apply that random element to one channel consistently (e.g., to the right channel using my choice of left for the reference). It will still have a directionality marking, and it will either be consistent with or opposite that of the reference channel.
Suggestion (2) is important in that the cables are listened to in the same manner as the initial reference pairs were, that is, the two listeners can choose themselves whether to go with or against the raw cable directionality for the "correct" orientation. If you leave this up to your own convention (i.e., you mark one end consistently, but don't denote how that correlates with the raw cable direction) then you aren't giving them as much control over the experiment as is possible (which is always the desired way to do blind testing... to make them as comfortable as possible with the way the components are set up and used, and to have them "know" as much as possible about the system configuration - the key is to isolate that one variable).
Suggestion (3) is very important to me. Otherwise, it complicates their task by having the "image shifting" possible to either the right or the left. If they know before hand, using the reference cables, just what a swapped right channel sounds like, then they only have to listen for that one effect. If they are listening for either a swapped left or right channel, the chances of correctly identifying the cables is somewhat reduced. Again, the goal should be to give them as much knowledge as possible about what to listen for, and to isolate the variable tested for as specifically as possible.
So, in summary, you want the listeners to know that only one channel (the same channel for each pair) could possibly be swapped, and you want them to know the true directionality of the reference channel. That gives them the best chance of returning positive results, and though a null result is still just a null result, you have at least eliminated a few more possible variables for why a null result was returned.
Hope these suggestions help.
Thanks, RHosch!
I think your suggestions are very good and will help prevent any null results even in the event there should be actual audible differences.
If none of the others involved have any objections, I see no reason not to adopt them.
Just gotta get the bloody wire! 🙂
se
I think your suggestions are very good and will help prevent any null results even in the event there should be actual audible differences.
If none of the others involved have any objections, I see no reason not to adopt them.
Just gotta get the bloody wire! 🙂
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.