Hi,
That's ferroelectrics in the first place and shows that DH can take place in ferromagnetic materials.
Now, where's does this come up in filmcaps or cables?
Cables and filmcaps do have DA but where's the DH?
You just keep on dragging in proof of what I keep claiming.
Cheers,😉
That's ferroelectrics in the first place and shows that DH can take place in ferromagnetic materials.
Now, where's does this come up in filmcaps or cables?
Cables and filmcaps do have DA but where's the DH?
You just keep on dragging in proof of what I keep claiming.
Cheers,😉
Please can someone throw in a fresh bone in here?
It would be interesting if someone can repeat the distortion profile of a cable as showed by John, preferable completely independent. Up to then quibbling about DH/DA/hysteresis looks pretty valueless with regard to cables.
If nobody can, what is this whole discussion about 😕
Cheers
It would be interesting if someone can repeat the distortion profile of a cable as showed by John, preferable completely independent. Up to then quibbling about DH/DA/hysteresis looks pretty valueless with regard to cables.
If nobody can, what is this whole discussion about 😕
Cheers
Pjotr said:
This is a discussion about possible distorting elements in cables. It started out with cable microdiodes: fact or fiction? And turned into: capacitance dielectric hysteresis something other than dielectric absorption?
Unless someone provides supporting material, I don't expect we'll learn anything about cables until we see results of the directionality test.
Thus far, SE has cleared the unsupporting material.
JF
fdegrove said:
Where's the DH? There is no separate DH. DA is hysteretic. So where you have DA, you have hysteresis. Unless you'd care to give me an instance where you have DA but no hysteretic behavior. I've asked you that three times now.
se
johnferrier said:
We're just killing time until I get all the cables sent off to John and Bruno. 🙂
se
Pjotr said:
I dunno. I find some value in discussing physical aspects even if they may not be of any direct consequence to audiophilia. Hell, even if the distortion John's measuring isn't due to his equipment, it's so far down it's arguably inconsequential in itself.
And we are discussing all this in the "Everything Else" forum you know. 🙂
se
Well, since we are killing time and someone asks for a new bone...
The closest documentation I've seen to something like conductor microdiodes (or cable directionality) is the Vishay marketing document for their bulk metal foil resistors.
http://www.texascomponents.com/7 reasons/Reason 5.pdf
I suppose the arrows in the two diagrams make me think about possible diodes within the conductive element. The idea of multiple paths is interesting. A bit like how parallel active devices have lower noise. Of course for cables, the gauge is usually large enough to minimize such noise. This may be different for the standard resistor manufacturing prosses (as Vishay attempts to indicate).
Anyway, it is marketing material and not deep, but at least something to look at, until a real bone comes along...
* EDIT *
A Google search on "intergranular boundary" is a bit interesting.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="intergranular+boundary"&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?q="inter-granular+boundary"&num=100
Figure 2 is a depiction of a "microvaristor" caused by the "intergranular boundary".
http://home.hetnet.nl/~pasopd/pdfs/varistor.pdf
JF
The closest documentation I've seen to something like conductor microdiodes (or cable directionality) is the Vishay marketing document for their bulk metal foil resistors.
http://www.texascomponents.com/7 reasons/Reason 5.pdf
I suppose the arrows in the two diagrams make me think about possible diodes within the conductive element. The idea of multiple paths is interesting. A bit like how parallel active devices have lower noise. Of course for cables, the gauge is usually large enough to minimize such noise. This may be different for the standard resistor manufacturing prosses (as Vishay attempts to indicate).
Anyway, it is marketing material and not deep, but at least something to look at, until a real bone comes along...
* EDIT *
A Google search on "intergranular boundary" is a bit interesting.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="intergranular+boundary"&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?q="inter-granular+boundary"&num=100
Figure 2 is a depiction of a "microvaristor" caused by the "intergranular boundary".
http://home.hetnet.nl/~pasopd/pdfs/varistor.pdf
JF
johnferrier said:
The problem isn't that it's marketing material but that it's apples and oranges.
They're talking about noise in such things as carbon composition and thick film resistors.
With carbon comps, you've got carbon particles that are mixed with a non-conductive binder to hold them together. So you just have a bunch of separate particles grouped together.
With thick film resistors, you have something of a similar situation. The resistive material (usually ruthenium oxide) is also in a granular form which is placed in a binder and then screened onto the substrate. It's then placed in a kiln to evaporate the binder. But the resistive material doesn't actually melt. It's sintered.
Quite different situations than you have with copper wire where the copper is melted and then crystalized so you don't have the same "granular" effect you have with carbon comp and thick film resistors.
Again, these deal with granular effects. Copper wire isn't granular.
Interesting reading just the same though. Thanks!
se
By the way, I just made up a pair of cables using some Manhattan/CDT M4214 coaxial cable.
This is an RG 174/U which has a stranded (7/34) center conductor made of bare copper covered steel. Dielectric is polyethylene (PE) with a braided tinned copper shield and a PVC jacket.
So, I should be able to have all the cables sent off to John and Bruno this coming week.
se
This is an RG 174/U which has a stranded (7/34) center conductor made of bare copper covered steel. Dielectric is polyethylene (PE) with a braided tinned copper shield and a PVC jacket.
So, I should be able to have all the cables sent off to John and Bruno this coming week.
se
Hi,
You still have the same kind of granular effect with copper wire when it's molten.
You stil have this crystalline structure and you still face intercrystal boundary effects.
Cheers,😉
You still have the same kind of granular effect with copper wire when it's molten.
You stil have this crystalline structure and you still face intercrystal boundary effects.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
No, it's a valuable amount of data as we use a considerable amount of wire. Be that as hook-up wire, I/C, L/S or whatever.
When you look at all this wire being in series with the signal path it may contribute to what we hear in the end.
Cheers,😉
No, it's a valuable amount of data as we use a considerable amount of wire. Be that as hook-up wire, I/C, L/S or whatever.
When you look at all this wire being in series with the signal path it may contribute to what we hear in the end.
Cheers,😉
Yes, conductor material and insulation material both contribute sonic characters.
Even dyes/pigments add sonic character.
Eric.
Even dyes/pigments add sonic character.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
There's virtually nothing which doesn't contribute to sonic character for at least some number of people. Not even frozen photographs ranks as "too absurd."
se
Maths lesson coming up...
Me: "Linear distortion", or whatever it is you want to call it, only has effects which are measurable using continuous sinewaves.
SE:How do you figure?
This is a basic consequence of Fourier's theorem.
The theorem states that any waveform can be mathematically shown to be the equivalent of a number of sinewaves (of various amplitudes and phases) superimposed on each other.
To illustrate: the contents any CD in your collection is just a big list of numbers. You can perform a Fourier transform on this list and get a list of sinewave amplitude and phases. Now, you can perform an inverse Fourier transform and recreate exactly the contents of the CD given no information other than this second list.
Now, suppose you process the signal from the CD in some way, and supposing this processing is linear. This means, in layman's terms, that the 'superposition' principle applies. If it does, it doesn't matter whether you process the whole signal in one go, or process the equivalent sinewave components and combine the results (*).
Going one stage further, you don't actually need to process the sinewave components for your particular signal to know the output. The processing can be measured for a standard sinewave (of a given frequency), and the output can simply be scaled in amplitude and phase-shifted as required. (This is a consequence of being linear and time-invariant).
Hence, measuring the output of a linear, time-invariant system for sine-wave input is enough to predict its output for any input.
Hope you were paying attention - there'll be a test at the end of the week
Cheers
IH
* - (Technically, there's an additional requirement that the processing is "time-invariant"; in a nutshell, if the processing applied depends on the phase of the moon, this argument doesn't apply).
Me: "Linear distortion", or whatever it is you want to call it, only has effects which are measurable using continuous sinewaves.
SE:How do you figure?
This is a basic consequence of Fourier's theorem.
The theorem states that any waveform can be mathematically shown to be the equivalent of a number of sinewaves (of various amplitudes and phases) superimposed on each other.
To illustrate: the contents any CD in your collection is just a big list of numbers. You can perform a Fourier transform on this list and get a list of sinewave amplitude and phases. Now, you can perform an inverse Fourier transform and recreate exactly the contents of the CD given no information other than this second list.
Now, suppose you process the signal from the CD in some way, and supposing this processing is linear. This means, in layman's terms, that the 'superposition' principle applies. If it does, it doesn't matter whether you process the whole signal in one go, or process the equivalent sinewave components and combine the results (*).
Going one stage further, you don't actually need to process the sinewave components for your particular signal to know the output. The processing can be measured for a standard sinewave (of a given frequency), and the output can simply be scaled in amplitude and phase-shifted as required. (This is a consequence of being linear and time-invariant).
Hence, measuring the output of a linear, time-invariant system for sine-wave input is enough to predict its output for any input.
Hope you were paying attention - there'll be a test at the end of the week
Cheers
IH
* - (Technically, there's an additional requirement that the processing is "time-invariant"; in a nutshell, if the processing applied depends on the phase of the moon, this argument doesn't apply).
Ian,
I think I follow you.
Could you comment on what happens with non-linear distortion?
From what you wrote, it seems that you indicate that linear distortion is something that easily transposes back and forth. However, non-linear distortion would be very difficult to transpose. Non-linear distortion is very complex to reverse. Am I following this correctly?
JF
I think I follow you.
Could you comment on what happens with non-linear distortion?
From what you wrote, it seems that you indicate that linear distortion is something that easily transposes back and forth. However, non-linear distortion would be very difficult to transpose. Non-linear distortion is very complex to reverse. Am I following this correctly?
JF
Re: Maths lesson coming up...
Yes, I understand that.
What I took your comment to mean, where you said that it (linear distortion) "only has effects which are measurable using continuous sinewaves," is that only a continuois sinewave would show any evidence of linear distortion. In other words, a sinewave would, but a squarewave wouldn't.
My apologies if I mistook your meaning here. Keep in mind however that it was said amongst other comments such as John's about DA running and hiding whenever sinewaves are present. 🙂
se
IanHarvey said:
Yes, I understand that.
What I took your comment to mean, where you said that it (linear distortion) "only has effects which are measurable using continuous sinewaves," is that only a continuois sinewave would show any evidence of linear distortion. In other words, a sinewave would, but a squarewave wouldn't.
My apologies if I mistook your meaning here. Keep in mind however that it was said amongst other comments such as John's about DA running and hiding whenever sinewaves are present. 🙂
se
Different losses for different insulation materials is an influence.Steve Eddy said:
Nothing to do with photographs.
Eric.
Folks, what is being discussed here? All that I see here is general badmouthing and half baked understanding of measured effects.
I point out at one point that you can simulate the effects of DA with a differential subtraction between two caps, using a variety of input sources, including music. Did anyone here actually TRY a simulation? If no, why not? Are you too non-technical? Do you lack the program to do it? Most likely, the most argumentative of you, just didn't bother.
And you accuse me of not following the scientific method? I know the results, as I did plots of various inputs in a differential test more than 15 years ago. I had interaction about the same results with Dr. Lipshitz and other scoffers of component differences. Even Dr. Lipshitz could find nothing wrong with my math or measurements. Today, even you 10th grade dropouts feel free to attack my measurements, yet you can't even bother to do a computer simulation, much less a real measurement.
If any of you really want to understand anything outside your past experience, you have to: Either try something, measure something, emulate something on a computer, or listen up when others, with more experience than you, give you some input about it.
The dialogue here falls short of this.
I point out at one point that you can simulate the effects of DA with a differential subtraction between two caps, using a variety of input sources, including music. Did anyone here actually TRY a simulation? If no, why not? Are you too non-technical? Do you lack the program to do it? Most likely, the most argumentative of you, just didn't bother.
And you accuse me of not following the scientific method? I know the results, as I did plots of various inputs in a differential test more than 15 years ago. I had interaction about the same results with Dr. Lipshitz and other scoffers of component differences. Even Dr. Lipshitz could find nothing wrong with my math or measurements. Today, even you 10th grade dropouts feel free to attack my measurements, yet you can't even bother to do a computer simulation, much less a real measurement.
If any of you really want to understand anything outside your past experience, you have to: Either try something, measure something, emulate something on a computer, or listen up when others, with more experience than you, give you some input about it.
The dialogue here falls short of this.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.