measuring magnetostriction in cables
Sure, in many cases it could be measured, just like the plating example I gave earlier. Unless you deliberately design a cable to show the effect of magnetostriction, it's a pretty sophisticated measurement and I seriously doubt that it has any audible consequence with real-world wire, speakers, and ears. But I'm open to changing my mind if someone credibly demonstrates audibility.
Sure, in many cases it could be measured, just like the plating example I gave earlier. Unless you deliberately design a cable to show the effect of magnetostriction, it's a pretty sophisticated measurement and I seriously doubt that it has any audible consequence with real-world wire, speakers, and ears. But I'm open to changing my mind if someone credibly demonstrates audibility.
Re: Oops!
Konnichiwa,
This will depend heavily upon the construction of the cable. How rigid is what holds the two conductors in place, how wide apart are they spaced (BTW, here another one - widely spaced cables reduce eddy current losses for AC, as the signal travels along the conductor as EM Wave, to which the conductor on the opposite side accts as "eddy current brake") and so on. In some cables the manitude may be small, in others large.
Yes. Certainly with a few specific commercial cables I could think of.
If it effects the signal it MUST BY DEFINITION effect the driver to a proportional degree.
Do I beleive it is audible?
In some cases yes. A simple experiement is to make my FFRC DIY Cable based on Cat5 and to make one pair loosely braiding the cables and the other twisting the cables tightly and enclosing them in heatshrink sleeving or techflex, pulled very tight .
Comparing the two constructions under blind conditions with a "highly accurate" but "low sensitivity" speaker in a WELL IMPLEMENTED and previously CALIBRATED blind test should reveal the result.
So, are we in agreement that magnetstriction is a REAL effect that applies to Speaker cables and may or may not be audible but is measurable in at least some cases (and IMHO one of reasons for the measured deviations in the HFN Article I keep bringing up)?
Again, I could do that from A to Y before coming to Z but given how hard you have been fighting to even claim that basic physics don't apply (assuming you know them - as you should) I simply do not have the time, impetus and patience.
It is obvious and clear that you wish to ferverently wish to believe that cables cannot make audible differences (except perhaps in Z) and many other items of Engineer Lore (just as some others wish equally ferverently to believe that expensive cables sound better than well designed cheap ones), which is your constitutional right.
However, at least admit that it is all PURE and UNSUBSTANTIATED belief (just as your comments about the mike that is "better" than the ear), not supproted by material empirical evidence that can withstand a reasonbale questioning, which I am sad to say, the vast majority of published DB Tests emaneting from the ABX Quango over in the US do NOT provide.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Christopher said:
This will depend heavily upon the construction of the cable. How rigid is what holds the two conductors in place, how wide apart are they spaced (BTW, here another one - widely spaced cables reduce eddy current losses for AC, as the signal travels along the conductor as EM Wave, to which the conductor on the opposite side accts as "eddy current brake") and so on. In some cables the manitude may be small, in others large.
Christopher said:
Yes. Certainly with a few specific commercial cables I could think of.
Christopher said:
If it effects the signal it MUST BY DEFINITION effect the driver to a proportional degree.
Do I beleive it is audible?
In some cases yes. A simple experiement is to make my FFRC DIY Cable based on Cat5 and to make one pair loosely braiding the cables and the other twisting the cables tightly and enclosing them in heatshrink sleeving or techflex, pulled very tight .
Comparing the two constructions under blind conditions with a "highly accurate" but "low sensitivity" speaker in a WELL IMPLEMENTED and previously CALIBRATED blind test should reveal the result.
So, are we in agreement that magnetstriction is a REAL effect that applies to Speaker cables and may or may not be audible but is measurable in at least some cases (and IMHO one of reasons for the measured deviations in the HFN Article I keep bringing up)?
Again, I could do that from A to Y before coming to Z but given how hard you have been fighting to even claim that basic physics don't apply (assuming you know them - as you should) I simply do not have the time, impetus and patience.
It is obvious and clear that you wish to ferverently wish to believe that cables cannot make audible differences (except perhaps in Z) and many other items of Engineer Lore (just as some others wish equally ferverently to believe that expensive cables sound better than well designed cheap ones), which is your constitutional right.
However, at least admit that it is all PURE and UNSUBSTANTIATED belief (just as your comments about the mike that is "better" than the ear), not supproted by material empirical evidence that can withstand a reasonbale questioning, which I am sad to say, the vast majority of published DB Tests emaneting from the ABX Quango over in the US do NOT provide.
Sayonara
anechoc chamber stuff
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will be things we can measure that we cannot hear. There will be things that we think that we can hear that will dissapear in a controled listening environment. It would be handy to first establish if even highly sensitive gear can hear a difference, in an a.c. and then do controlled listening tests to correlate the two. With my somewhat limited knowlege of the actual values at hand, I believe that there may not even be a change measureable in an a.c. between your average high zoot cable and lamp cord. Ergo, if it can't be measured, it most certainly cannot be percieved. As I said earlier I think it's overkill, but it would give the audible difference camp a real and audible difference if it could be measured in an a.c.
I would never advocate the use of an a.c in the design of anything until you were sure you could hear something yet it did not show up in regular signal measurements. Then away you go to the chamber, if the mic can hear any difference, then you need to re access your measurement criteria.
I'm just trying to cover all the bases. I personally think that things like magnetostriction and DA are so small that they could not under real mathematical scrutiny hold any water at all. Since I am however too lazy to look this up and do the math, I figure practical analysis is a good way to examine the ideas put forth. Thus the a.c argument.
Simply saying you can hear the difference between any two anythings is of no value unless you really do know why it is. Else wise I just end up repainting the airplane in order to get the autopilot working.
Does that help?
Chris
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will be things we can measure that we cannot hear. There will be things that we think that we can hear that will dissapear in a controled listening environment. It would be handy to first establish if even highly sensitive gear can hear a difference, in an a.c. and then do controlled listening tests to correlate the two. With my somewhat limited knowlege of the actual values at hand, I believe that there may not even be a change measureable in an a.c. between your average high zoot cable and lamp cord. Ergo, if it can't be measured, it most certainly cannot be percieved. As I said earlier I think it's overkill, but it would give the audible difference camp a real and audible difference if it could be measured in an a.c.
I would never advocate the use of an a.c in the design of anything until you were sure you could hear something yet it did not show up in regular signal measurements. Then away you go to the chamber, if the mic can hear any difference, then you need to re access your measurement criteria.
I'm just trying to cover all the bases. I personally think that things like magnetostriction and DA are so small that they could not under real mathematical scrutiny hold any water at all. Since I am however too lazy to look this up and do the math, I figure practical analysis is a good way to examine the ideas put forth. Thus the a.c argument.
Simply saying you can hear the difference between any two anythings is of no value unless you really do know why it is. Else wise I just end up repainting the airplane in order to get the autopilot working.
Does that help?
Chris
Well yes, but you can’t make a claim to anything approaching audibility until you quantify the effects. Like someone said in the other thread you can connect a phono cartridge to your speaker terminals but you won’t hear anything.
Building two nearly identical cables as you describe will for sure yield different Z’s. If a provable audible difference exists, I’m certain that adjusting the Z’s to be identical would rub out any audible differences. If not, then you could start to look for other reasons. Drawing conclusions of magnetostriction or eddy currents etc. being audible from such data is fundamentally flawed.
What you have said so far is akin to claiming better gas mileage due to the fact that you never carry coins in your pockets when you drive. For sure it takes energy to move those coins, and they have more mass than bills, ergo you must be getting better mileage.
Contrary to what you may think, I have no desire to believe one way or the other. I presently believe that fancy cable construction yields no audible benefits. So far I have seen no argument that would indicate otherwise. But show me some proof and I’m there.
It is silly to call sound engineering practice “lore” when you have no solid evidence to refute it.
So far I cannot agree that magnetostriction is a Real effect at all.
Chris
IanHarvey said:
Of course it will ! If cable A makes speaker louder than cable B (in a DBT), it will invariably be preferred. That's why I asked about DVM and test signals. You have to make sure that voltage applied to speakers is absolutely the same before judging cables.
That is perfectly possible too. But IMHO you have to be malicious to make a cable that will work worse than a typical 18 AWG lampcord (yes, I do think that anything better than that will make absolutely zilch of difference in case of 2m cable driven by low output impedance -16 TO3 BJTs in parallel- overal feedback free amp, terminated by benign mostly resistive 6 Ohm average speaker - as in my case).
And no, I don't use lampcord. I bought a snazzy looking hoselike speaker cable. Purely for looks. It did cost me A$100 (Neotech, so it's cheap), slightly over your $40 figure.
Bratislav
Konnichiwa,
Please (AGAIN for the 1684'th time) simply restrict yourself to what I have ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
I have made no claims for audibility past the common one, namely that some times, in some peripheral conditions cables may cause audible differences. I am even deliriously happy to agree with you that in many cases the reason is down to RLC (Z) parameters or their (in the context relevant) parasitics.
I will however go one further in saying that I have observed audible differences that cannot simply be explained by RLC & Parasitics.
To put my position in short and succinct:
1) Cables make differences.
2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither with current technology.
3) Some of these differences may be easy to measure using conventional measurements but are inaudible.
4) Some of these differences may be audible but are not covered by conventional measurements.
5) Many of the differences arise not from the direct (signal transmission) but indirect facors (key factor "pin one problem") in unbalanced interconnections between multiple, mains powered pieces of equipment.
Any of the above is fully defendable even in a court of law (or worse - a peer reviewed journal), as a basically true thesis.
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please specify WHY, taking into account ESPECIALLY the way in wich human perception & hearing differs from technical/mechanical measurements of known quanteties.
As a corollorary on the above, we know how to measure the direction of movement or the speed of a subatomic particle at a given time, but not both at the same time (Heisenbergs uncertainty principle). It is perfectly reasonable to suppose a third factor not covered by conventional measurements, which if revealed and quantified will allow us from itself and either of the other two factors to determine the third, making the relationship CERTAIN, as opposed to UNCERTAIN.
Now, as long as we ave not found X, it would behoove us all rather well to seek X (if we wish to be "scientific" about it) rather than to insist that either only speed or direction are the "true" information and everything else illusion.
I hope by using a Non-Audio (If in the right circles no less controversiol) example I can get "through".
Do your bloody homework kiddo.
Due to the nature of the design(s) the measurable differences (without going past ppt levels) are zip.
(been there, done that)
Except, made as instructed the differences amount to a hill of beans in a twister....
There you go again. Where did I say "Magnetostriction is audible!"? I suggested it MAY be one of the things that MAY lead to observed audible differences, no more.
HOWEVER, the case for magnetostriction would be made considerably stronger, if you afterwards took measures to "rigiditify" the "loose" cable and the audible differenes (which of course you do not beliefe in) are reduced or eliminated....
I think it may beoove you VERY WELL to talk less theoretical ******** based on books written by others third, fourth and anything up to the 1930's RCA Radiotron Manual handdowns and actually get your "feet wet" by attempting some serious resaerch into the topic.
Of course, you may very well continue spouting garbage promoted by others as "doctrine" who in fact promote their own prejudices, but do not be offended if I take you no more serious than when you claim that two opposing 9or inded equal) polarity magnetic fields have no effect.
Do your bloody homework YOURSELF kiddo, or accept that you are a mere follower of a radical religion, with no experience of the matter.
Well, I can ONLY go by the way you present yourself and your arguments and how you react to rebuttals of the fundamentals of your belief. A Branch Davidian gunman at Waco would likely have been less **** sure that he was right than you are and that despite having a bit more direct and personal evidence....
But hell, that's just me.
You may presently believe that the moon is made of green cheese. You have not presented anything that would make your hypothesis perferable to the usual "rock in the sky" theory and untill we actually go to the moon (for real I mean, not in something that can't go through the van allen belt without frying at least your DNA and which has little reality outside propaganda) neither point can be proven beyound a reasonable doubt.
More, even if we eventually "go to the moon" it is perfectly reasonable to hold a doubt about the green cheese or roch nature of the moon untill one oneself has been to some place that is undeniably, incontrovertably the moon.
That is why in all cases where it can possibly be applied recommend to people make their OWN empirical enquiries (I may suggest experiments and setups to give clues - sure), rather than to wholesale subscribe to someone elses theories. Because doing so is by defintion religion, not science.
Actually, as sound engineer (with credits on some obscure LP sleeves) and as degreed EE with a few years pure audio work I can VERY WELL call it lore. YOU cannot, because you are on the outside.... But never equate me with you (it would hurt too much - I do not hit my head repeatedly against walls insisting they don't exist).
Sayonara
PS, there are many components to this thread really, if I find time I will try to establish each (like DBT, Hearing Physiology, Hearing Psychology, Hearing as auditory/psychological process and a few more) as seperate threads, so we can discuss individual fact without being hampered by the need to proof or disproof an issue that is really totally peripheral to the subject.
Christopher said:
Please (AGAIN for the 1684'th time) simply restrict yourself to what I have ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
I have made no claims for audibility past the common one, namely that some times, in some peripheral conditions cables may cause audible differences. I am even deliriously happy to agree with you that in many cases the reason is down to RLC (Z) parameters or their (in the context relevant) parasitics.
I will however go one further in saying that I have observed audible differences that cannot simply be explained by RLC & Parasitics.
To put my position in short and succinct:
1) Cables make differences.
2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither with current technology.
3) Some of these differences may be easy to measure using conventional measurements but are inaudible.
4) Some of these differences may be audible but are not covered by conventional measurements.
5) Many of the differences arise not from the direct (signal transmission) but indirect facors (key factor "pin one problem") in unbalanced interconnections between multiple, mains powered pieces of equipment.
Any of the above is fully defendable even in a court of law (or worse - a peer reviewed journal), as a basically true thesis.
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please specify WHY, taking into account ESPECIALLY the way in wich human perception & hearing differs from technical/mechanical measurements of known quanteties.
As a corollorary on the above, we know how to measure the direction of movement or the speed of a subatomic particle at a given time, but not both at the same time (Heisenbergs uncertainty principle). It is perfectly reasonable to suppose a third factor not covered by conventional measurements, which if revealed and quantified will allow us from itself and either of the other two factors to determine the third, making the relationship CERTAIN, as opposed to UNCERTAIN.
Now, as long as we ave not found X, it would behoove us all rather well to seek X (if we wish to be "scientific" about it) rather than to insist that either only speed or direction are the "true" information and everything else illusion.
I hope by using a Non-Audio (If in the right circles no less controversiol) example I can get "through".
Christopher said:
Do your bloody homework kiddo.
Due to the nature of the design(s) the measurable differences (without going past ppt levels) are zip.
(been there, done that)
Christopher said:
Except, made as instructed the differences amount to a hill of beans in a twister....
Christopher said:
There you go again. Where did I say "Magnetostriction is audible!"? I suggested it MAY be one of the things that MAY lead to observed audible differences, no more.
HOWEVER, the case for magnetostriction would be made considerably stronger, if you afterwards took measures to "rigiditify" the "loose" cable and the audible differenes (which of course you do not beliefe in) are reduced or eliminated....
I think it may beoove you VERY WELL to talk less theoretical ******** based on books written by others third, fourth and anything up to the 1930's RCA Radiotron Manual handdowns and actually get your "feet wet" by attempting some serious resaerch into the topic.
Of course, you may very well continue spouting garbage promoted by others as "doctrine" who in fact promote their own prejudices, but do not be offended if I take you no more serious than when you claim that two opposing 9or inded equal) polarity magnetic fields have no effect.
Do your bloody homework YOURSELF kiddo, or accept that you are a mere follower of a radical religion, with no experience of the matter.
Christopher said:
Well, I can ONLY go by the way you present yourself and your arguments and how you react to rebuttals of the fundamentals of your belief. A Branch Davidian gunman at Waco would likely have been less **** sure that he was right than you are and that despite having a bit more direct and personal evidence....
But hell, that's just me.
Christopher said:
You may presently believe that the moon is made of green cheese. You have not presented anything that would make your hypothesis perferable to the usual "rock in the sky" theory and untill we actually go to the moon (for real I mean, not in something that can't go through the van allen belt without frying at least your DNA and which has little reality outside propaganda) neither point can be proven beyound a reasonable doubt.
More, even if we eventually "go to the moon" it is perfectly reasonable to hold a doubt about the green cheese or roch nature of the moon untill one oneself has been to some place that is undeniably, incontrovertably the moon.
That is why in all cases where it can possibly be applied recommend to people make their OWN empirical enquiries (I may suggest experiments and setups to give clues - sure), rather than to wholesale subscribe to someone elses theories. Because doing so is by defintion religion, not science.
Christopher said:
Actually, as sound engineer (with credits on some obscure LP sleeves) and as degreed EE with a few years pure audio work I can VERY WELL call it lore. YOU cannot, because you are on the outside.... But never equate me with you (it would hurt too much - I do not hit my head repeatedly against walls insisting they don't exist).
Sayonara
PS, there are many components to this thread really, if I find time I will try to establish each (like DBT, Hearing Physiology, Hearing Psychology, Hearing as auditory/psychological process and a few more) as seperate threads, so we can discuss individual fact without being hampered by the need to proof or disproof an issue that is really totally peripheral to the subject.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
So far so good.
Excellent application of electromagnetic theory. Don't know about
Telsa (it's Nikola, not Nicola, BTW), but James Maxwell would be pleased.
Hey! Why stop with engineering now when it gets most interesting ? Get the job done ! Go all the way - plug in some numbers. We know typical L/C values for a speaker cable. We know dimensions/physics (thickness, length, insulation diameter & dellectric constant) of it. We know currents involved. We knwo a typical speaker (terminating) impedance. Let's see some numbers !!!
Then and only then we can discuss about how much signal will change. And then we can talk about magnitudes involved and whether it is possible to hear it. And compare those differences with say how much will speaker in room response change if you move your head 2mm to the left. Or someone blocks a reflection from a side wall and intreferrence patern changes. Or room reverberation (decay) changes because you wear your favourite woolen jumper. And then apply a DBT on all those and get the weed out of the wheat.
You see, you can be an engineer/scientis only when you get to the bottom of it. Everything else is armchair handwaving.
Impressive with your dentist and lawyer friends, but not much good elsewhere.
Bratislav
Konnichiwa,
Apples and Pears. Two totally different effects and precisely because of the nature of the human hearing not equatable. If someone on the other side of twon has a Mc Donalds Hamburger for dinner, whta does this tell me about the taste of my breakfast?
First understand HOW humans hear, then try to understand what they potentially CAN hear. Then we can quantify technical issues.
Sayonara
Bratislav said:
Apples and Pears. Two totally different effects and precisely because of the nature of the human hearing not equatable. If someone on the other side of twon has a Mc Donalds Hamburger for dinner, whta does this tell me about the taste of my breakfast?
First understand HOW humans hear, then try to understand what they potentially CAN hear. Then we can quantify technical issues.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Last time I checked we hear by detecting pressure differences in the eardrum, converted to electric signals and then synapsed to the brain. Now I've heard of some instances of "direct" hearing
(by direct electromagnetic induction, cases of people 'hearing' meteors as they fall, instead of hearing the sound that normally lags 'cause of speed of sound), but these are rather extreme cases (currents in ionized trails are on a competely different scale to those through speaker wire), and this is still mostly theory as there is still no conclusive proof.
So we hear air moved by the speakers. Agreed ?
Speakers on the other hand are plain ol' electromechanical devices. No ESP involved. They will produce sound ONLY if you apply electric signal to them. And that signal we can measure, rather easily in fact.
So let's start with speaker terminals : how much the input signal will change because of A to Z effects in speaker cable ? In Volts, dBs, electron counts, whatever.
Don't know about other letters, but I have suggestion for W that could apply to all those theories I've seen so far here 🤐
Bratislav
What does T. Lobsang Rampa have to do with an inapt analogy?
That's vital.
And since you have the sorts of controlled, blind testing data that can fundamentally affect the way we think about wires, you do us a great disservice by not writing up a JAES paper. I'm serious, not being facetious. You're claiming something very interesting and, if replicable, something potentially profound.
Konnichiwa,
Do I? I have noted repeatedly that I did the tests for my own use, simply to find out "what works best". To make sure that I did not deceive myself I used blind testing in some (not all) tests.
However, I never as such bothered to test for difference. If you read my comments earlier in this thread you'd find that I already knew that cables made a difference, even though common EE lore says they should not....
At any extent, these tests where not made to publish AES Papers. Actually, about the last thing I'd do is to write AES papers or worse JAES articles. It suffices to me to know WHO and WHAT kind of articles they routinely reject to know not to bother.
LASTLY, if you actually read the JAES you will find published a number of ABX cable tests. The first one showed some positive results despite using already unrealistically low significance values for the size of the dataset generated. The author was severely criticised and as a result re-tested with even lower significance levels, resulting in fewer "false positives".
By the time the tests finally gave the desired answer (Null) the statistics applied had been "adjusted" such that for the size of the dataset "false positives" could be ruled out with great certainty, yet at the same time the risk of obtaining flase "null" results was maximised such that obtaining a "null" result became more than 95% certain....
To note, the tests started out with a for small scale tests realistic criteria of 4/5 as "positive", when the results where positive when "null" was desired the criteria was altered to 9/10, which still threw out too many positives, so it was altered again to 19/20 (or in statistics .05 significance).
This is an excellent example for how there are lies, damned lies and the Ststistics & ABX Tests.
I am claiming nothing past the following specific points, made earlier:
1) Cables make differences.
2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither with current technology.
3) Some of these differences may be easy to measure using conventional measurements but are inaudible.
4) Some of these differences may be audible but are not covered by conventional measurements.
5) Many of the differences arise not from the direct (signal transmission) but indirect facors (key factor "pin one problem") in unbalanced interconnections between multiple, mains powered pieces of equipment.
I repeat, instead of arguing about other peoples data, how about you generate some data of your own?
But make sure to calibrate you ABX test by first testing a number of known audible phenomenae to make sure your test as such works and is discriminative enough. Then you take all the glory and write your own JAES article.
Most likely it will be one on how ABX tests with a small sample size and analysis to .05 significance FAIL to reliably detect virtually ANYTHING. You will very likely find that you cannot reliably identify one channel out of phase with other under such condition, or rather, you will find you can but the ststistics will say you didn't.
Enough ABX tests have been published with full data included. If you actually re-analyse these tests with significance levels apropriate to their sample size you will find that the majority of these test must be considered as having actually pointed to an audible difference being present, HOWEVER, the small smaple size makes the risk of "false positives" quite high if you even out the possibilities for type A (false positives) and type B (flase negatives) Errors.
So, contrary to your comments non of my claims are either profound or interesting, instead they are boring and old and enough data exists to support a very reasonable contention with regards to claims that certain tests yielded "null" results and support instead claims that in fact they showed that differences where percieved.
AES papers and JAES articles on the subject exist, though the ABX Mafia and the Anti Cable League has studiously avoided to take note. No point adding another article to what already exists.
Sayonara
SY said:
Do I? I have noted repeatedly that I did the tests for my own use, simply to find out "what works best". To make sure that I did not deceive myself I used blind testing in some (not all) tests.
However, I never as such bothered to test for difference. If you read my comments earlier in this thread you'd find that I already knew that cables made a difference, even though common EE lore says they should not....
At any extent, these tests where not made to publish AES Papers. Actually, about the last thing I'd do is to write AES papers or worse JAES articles. It suffices to me to know WHO and WHAT kind of articles they routinely reject to know not to bother.
LASTLY, if you actually read the JAES you will find published a number of ABX cable tests. The first one showed some positive results despite using already unrealistically low significance values for the size of the dataset generated. The author was severely criticised and as a result re-tested with even lower significance levels, resulting in fewer "false positives".
By the time the tests finally gave the desired answer (Null) the statistics applied had been "adjusted" such that for the size of the dataset "false positives" could be ruled out with great certainty, yet at the same time the risk of obtaining flase "null" results was maximised such that obtaining a "null" result became more than 95% certain....
To note, the tests started out with a for small scale tests realistic criteria of 4/5 as "positive", when the results where positive when "null" was desired the criteria was altered to 9/10, which still threw out too many positives, so it was altered again to 19/20 (or in statistics .05 significance).
This is an excellent example for how there are lies, damned lies and the Ststistics & ABX Tests.
SY said:
I am claiming nothing past the following specific points, made earlier:
1) Cables make differences.
2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither with current technology.
3) Some of these differences may be easy to measure using conventional measurements but are inaudible.
4) Some of these differences may be audible but are not covered by conventional measurements.
5) Many of the differences arise not from the direct (signal transmission) but indirect facors (key factor "pin one problem") in unbalanced interconnections between multiple, mains powered pieces of equipment.
I repeat, instead of arguing about other peoples data, how about you generate some data of your own?
But make sure to calibrate you ABX test by first testing a number of known audible phenomenae to make sure your test as such works and is discriminative enough. Then you take all the glory and write your own JAES article.
Most likely it will be one on how ABX tests with a small sample size and analysis to .05 significance FAIL to reliably detect virtually ANYTHING. You will very likely find that you cannot reliably identify one channel out of phase with other under such condition, or rather, you will find you can but the ststistics will say you didn't.
Enough ABX tests have been published with full data included. If you actually re-analyse these tests with significance levels apropriate to their sample size you will find that the majority of these test must be considered as having actually pointed to an audible difference being present, HOWEVER, the small smaple size makes the risk of "false positives" quite high if you even out the possibilities for type A (false positives) and type B (flase negatives) Errors.
So, contrary to your comments non of my claims are either profound or interesting, instead they are boring and old and enough data exists to support a very reasonable contention with regards to claims that certain tests yielded "null" results and support instead claims that in fact they showed that differences where percieved.
AES papers and JAES articles on the subject exist, though the ABX Mafia and the Anti Cable League has studiously avoided to take note. No point adding another article to what already exists.
Sayonara
Bratislav said:
(f/x: checks physics qualifications. Still working - good).
1. Assume we have two parallel conductors 3mm apart, carrying 1A each (into an 8ohm speaker of typical efficiency, that's a healthy 95dB). The force between two conductors length L spacing R is:
F = mu0 * I * I' * L / (2 * pi * R)
(Google for "force between parallel conductors" for references). Plugging these in, at 1A we get F = 6.6E-5 N per m of cable length.
2. I don't know how springy speaker insulation is, so let's just let our conductors float in free air and use the force to move them back and forth; the maximum amplitude we get is limited by the maximum acceleration the force can produce.
So, assume our conductor has a mass of, say 30g per m; using F = ma, our force can generate a maximum acceleration in the cable of 2.2E-3 m/s^2.
Let's assume our test frequency is 300Hz; the acceleration of the cable is (w^2).D, where D is the peak displacement and w is 2*pi*freq. (Google for "simple harmonic motion" for references).
Plug this in, and get D = 2.2E-3 / (2.pi.300)^2 = 6.3E-10 m.
3. Capacitance between two parallel conductors is complicated, but a fair approximation for a number of geometries is that it's proportional to 1 / distance between conductors. So the fractional change in capacitance between our conductors 3mm apart is:
(1 / (3E-3 - 6.3E-10) - 1 / (3E-3 + 6.3E-10) )
which comes out as 4.2E-7 x the cable's original capacitance.
4. Supposing our cable's initial capacitance was 1nF, and we're looking at the change in impedance presented at, say, 15KHz. The change in capacitance is (4.2E-16) farads, which at 15KHz has an impedance of 2.5E+10 Ohms.
In other words, the effect of 'magnetostriction' on typical audio signals is comparable to putting a 25,000Mohm resistor across your tweeter.
Cheers
IH
Post 407:
This something along the line:
My breakfast tasted like Groimpfwszaom this morning. Wow that was a delicious breakfast. You don’t agree? How dare you, if you disagree, please specify WHY, taking into account ESPECIALLY the way in which human perception & tast differs from technical/mechanical measurements of known quantities.
In other words claiming something to be true and it IS true until somebody disproves it? Reverse/upside-down reasoning 😕
Did not read this whole lengthy thread, so maybe it came along already:
http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/Audioquest.html
Kuei Yang Wang said:
This something along the line:
My breakfast tasted like Groimpfwszaom this morning. Wow that was a delicious breakfast. You don’t agree? How dare you, if you disagree, please specify WHY, taking into account ESPECIALLY the way in which human perception & tast differs from technical/mechanical measurements of known quantities.
In other words claiming something to be true and it IS true until somebody disproves it? Reverse/upside-down reasoning 😕
Did not read this whole lengthy thread, so maybe it came along already:
http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/Audioquest.html
Konnichiwa,
You forget (or deliberatly omit) two facts. Often conductors are closer than 3mm and the dominant part of the Z in Speaker Cables tends to be L, not C (or R).
So, the effect in a given specific case on the capacitance is covered, on the inductance (more important) not yet.
Sayonara
IanHarvey said:
You forget (or deliberatly omit) two facts. Often conductors are closer than 3mm and the dominant part of the Z in Speaker Cables tends to be L, not C (or R).
So, the effect in a given specific case on the capacitance is covered, on the inductance (more important) not yet.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Hardly. Maybe you need to read the thread.
My point is that there is in the US (and specifically in the US as I note) a group of people that has in effect "declared war" on the High End industry and has been of decades attempted with dubious methodes (including poorely implemented and incorrectly statistically analysed ABX Tests) to make public the notion that many of the claimed sonic differences in High End Audio are non-existent.
I take STRONG exception to the actual tests set up, conducted and published in support of this "everything sounds the same" position and for many perfectly good and scientific reasons.
So, at the moment there is no public domain data I would consider fully acceptable to either accept or reject the presence of audible differences. In absence of universally acceptable public domain data each and every individual will have to make her or his own mind.
I prefer to make up my mind based on personal empirical study (not just about audio and audio cables) and I recommend the same process to others.
Of course, it is much easier to simply adopt another persons opinions as ones own, however doing so is a simple act of faith equal to that made by an atheist or theist on the eXistenZ of the divine, something I find adequate for my spiritual state of mind with regards to the suprasensual world (whose eXistenZ can be stipulated but neither proven or disproven).
Yet I do not find this simple believe adequate when it comes to issues that are open to empirical analysis and I equally suggest to others that simple "believe" is not adequate. That's all.
So, instead of lengthy theoretical talk about the whichness of the why I recommend the most basic emirical process which will take less time and generate much more reliable and hard data than has been seen in this whole thread.
Sayonara
Pjotr said:
Hardly. Maybe you need to read the thread.
My point is that there is in the US (and specifically in the US as I note) a group of people that has in effect "declared war" on the High End industry and has been of decades attempted with dubious methodes (including poorely implemented and incorrectly statistically analysed ABX Tests) to make public the notion that many of the claimed sonic differences in High End Audio are non-existent.
I take STRONG exception to the actual tests set up, conducted and published in support of this "everything sounds the same" position and for many perfectly good and scientific reasons.
So, at the moment there is no public domain data I would consider fully acceptable to either accept or reject the presence of audible differences. In absence of universally acceptable public domain data each and every individual will have to make her or his own mind.
I prefer to make up my mind based on personal empirical study (not just about audio and audio cables) and I recommend the same process to others.
Of course, it is much easier to simply adopt another persons opinions as ones own, however doing so is a simple act of faith equal to that made by an atheist or theist on the eXistenZ of the divine, something I find adequate for my spiritual state of mind with regards to the suprasensual world (whose eXistenZ can be stipulated but neither proven or disproven).
Yet I do not find this simple believe adequate when it comes to issues that are open to empirical analysis and I equally suggest to others that simple "believe" is not adequate. That's all.
So, instead of lengthy theoretical talk about the whichness of the why I recommend the most basic emirical process which will take less time and generate much more reliable and hard data than has been seen in this whole thread.
Sayonara
Could you please give some specifics? The tacit claim that AES reject properly done papers that somehow "disagree" with conventional wisdom is a grave one and ought to be examined.
That is exactly why KYW's work is so potentially important. Here's a guy who has some experimental results that could shake our understanding and open up new fields of research. We need to do what we can to get him to do the right thing and share this discovery with the world.
Konnichiwa,
For starters talk to Ottala.
There are a few other Amplifier Designers too who had real papers rejected on the grounds that their comments did not agree with one or other paper previously published, which of course was the main point to start with.
Now I do not normally move in AES circles (too many uniformed boneheads who ave interest only in keeping the status quo) so I only get to hear about the occasional item, which is really the tip of the iceberg.
Of course, this should not be surprising, as the AES is in effect a lobby of a certain group and the JAES the Lobbys "speech organ".
If anyone truely believes the AES (as an organisation) is about fostering free, unfettered and detailed research into audio they may find themselves with a rude awakening. Since about the 1950's this has not been the case in many fields. Current research is almost exclusively in data compression and surround sound.
All else is subject to scrutiny by the "comitee for un-aes activities", headed up by McCarthy (this a pun I might add, but the principles are the same).
Sayonara
SY said:
For starters talk to Ottala.
There are a few other Amplifier Designers too who had real papers rejected on the grounds that their comments did not agree with one or other paper previously published, which of course was the main point to start with.
Now I do not normally move in AES circles (too many uniformed boneheads who ave interest only in keeping the status quo) so I only get to hear about the occasional item, which is really the tip of the iceberg.
Of course, this should not be surprising, as the AES is in effect a lobby of a certain group and the JAES the Lobbys "speech organ".
If anyone truely believes the AES (as an organisation) is about fostering free, unfettered and detailed research into audio they may find themselves with a rude awakening. Since about the 1950's this has not been the case in many fields. Current research is almost exclusively in data compression and surround sound.
All else is subject to scrutiny by the "comitee for un-aes activities", headed up by McCarthy (this a pun I might add, but the principles are the same).
Sayonara
- Status
- Not open for further replies.