Sometimes there are good reasons to not use the best conducting materials. Look at voicecoils. Copper is heavy and a copper clad aluminum voicecoil gives better sensitivity than pure and better conducting copper.
On the other hand people like John and me search for unconvetional way to improve sound, parallel to our effort to design something that also measures decent.
As i get to know John better he is not interested in marketing other then giving the companies some turnover to pay for his job. Why the desire for success is so violently attacked here is a mystery to me.
I always thought that the american ethos is to admire people when they have some comercial succes. Here in germany it is very different. When i drive a big car or spend too much on expensive cigars i am under suspission.
On the other hand people like John and me search for unconvetional way to improve sound, parallel to our effort to design something that also measures decent.
As i get to know John better he is not interested in marketing other then giving the companies some turnover to pay for his job. Why the desire for success is so violently attacked here is a mystery to me.
I always thought that the american ethos is to admire people when they have some comercial succes. Here in germany it is very different. When i drive a big car or spend too much on expensive cigars i am under suspission.
But when it comes to "improving sound" there's literally nothing that doesn't "work," up to and including putting photographs of yourself in your freezer or calling Geoff Kait so he can tap on a pie plate.
So what distinguishes "improving sound" by the above means from improving sound by say, offering up some buzzwords about some copper/gold alloy?
Violently attacked? What the **** are you smoking?
Sure, when they do it by means other than blowing a bunch of meaningless buzzwords up peoples' *****.
se
I am smoking a Gauloises red filter right now, a quality of smoke i never witnessed in the states. In fact i whould be a non smoker when i lived in your country so poor is the taste of cigarettes i tried there.
Steve, if i am allowed to call you that way, i have a gut feeling that we have not so very different positions then it may seem. By improving i did not mean altering. I really like a transparent and honest sound.
I just learned from hands on experience that a perfectly logigal aproach does not lead to a good sound under real conditions. I set up hundred of systems the last 30 years and have payed them to customers, revieres and showgoers with success. The problem i see here that it is not posible to tal about sound like it is not posible to dance over architecture. My anecdote about that gold cable just was an example that i whould spare no expense in the quest of better sound. I am a sound quality freak. I really beleave that good sound is important from the standpoint of culture and enyoyment. If everything is known and explainable then there will be no progress.
Steve, if i am allowed to call you that way, i have a gut feeling that we have not so very different positions then it may seem. By improving i did not mean altering. I really like a transparent and honest sound.
I just learned from hands on experience that a perfectly logigal aproach does not lead to a good sound under real conditions. I set up hundred of systems the last 30 years and have payed them to customers, revieres and showgoers with success. The problem i see here that it is not posible to tal about sound like it is not posible to dance over architecture. My anecdote about that gold cable just was an example that i whould spare no expense in the quest of better sound. I am a sound quality freak. I really beleave that good sound is important from the standpoint of culture and enyoyment. If everything is known and explainable then there will be no progress.
And what is it about the Gauloises red filters that causes one to believe anyone on this forum has been "violently attacked"?
And the way they keep slapping more and more taxes on them here, it's not just the taste of the cigarettes that are poor.
Sure.
And I have learned from experience that just because something "sounds better" (or worse for that matter), it doesn't necessarily mean it's due to anything other than normal, well-established human psychology.
No. We all have our own personal tastes and preferences.
But it is possible to talk about whether or not a perceived difference in sound is actually due to real audible differences.
And that's all well and good as far as it goes.
My beef is when people assert that something will change the sound, and say either explicitly or implicitly that it's due to an actual audible change when they have absolutely zero conclusive evidence to show that it does.
And there is no progress when all one resorts to is making empty, unsubstantiated claims.
John's going on about copper/gold alloys while NEVER having shown conclusively that there's anything WRONG with even the cheapest cables.
Where is the meaningful progress in that?
se
Wrong. the ONLY progess occurs when you know and can explain why something has changed.
Outside of that you are a third-world witchdoctor telling the tribe that the crop failed due to the lack of sacrificed virgins
Member
Joined 2004
Not at all. Read the story of Dr. Semmelweis.
Semmelweis discovered that cases of puerperal fever, a form of septicaemia also known as childbed fever, could be cut drastically if doctors washed their hands in a chlorine solution before gynaecological examinations, but could not explain why, as his discovery was prior to the 1864 germ theory of Louis Pasteur.
While employed as assistant to the professor of the maternity clinic at the Vienna General Hospital in Austria in 1847, Semmelweis introduced hand washing with chlorinated lime solutions for interns who had performed autopsies. This immediately reduced the incidence of fatal puerperal fever from about 10 percent (range 5–30 percent) to about 1–2 percent. At the time, diseases were attributed to many different and unrelated causes. Each case was considered unique, just like a human person is unique. Semmelweis's hypothesis, that there was only one cause, that all that mattered was cleanliness, was extreme at the time, and was largely ignored, rejected or ridiculed.
In Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
nope - right. At the level they understood, they understood. There was no mysticism. They KNEW that if they washed their hands, patients lived, and they UNDERSTOOD that it was the washing process that led to hugely increased survival rates. Cause - effect. No doubt they learnt more later - thats the nature of progress, it doesn't end. But they could point to a clear, repeatable and ultimately universally accepted cause and effect.
Bernie Madoff was greatly admired. For a while.
Then came the skeptic....
cheers,
AJ
p.s. he was at "another level" (several) above JC's pal Bybee. Private jets, not some punk a** Bentley.
Hey AJ! Concerning your friend Dave's custom Fostex FF165K driver what I was attempting to find out is, is it a "custom" driver because of Fostex releasing an improved, limited edition, version of the FF165K driver or is it a "custom" driver because of your friend Dave modifying or having it modified in some way? I'll be looking forward to your response to this after you speak with Dave.
The Fostex FE206ES-R drivers I use are also a "custom" driver because Fostex released it as an improved, limited edition, version of their FE206E driver and it is a "custom" driver because of my having it modified with Mike Rispoli's proprietary cone treatment! So it's a one of a kind!
Yes I agree with you completely on this point!
Perhaps I should explain that a large part of the reason this is taking so long is not only do I have to get used to a new CD player but, I've been trying various types of NOS 6DJ8/6922/7308/6H23 tubes from Amperex, Mullard, Siemens, Matsushita, Voskhod & Sylvania to see which tubes I sonically prefer. Each tube type and each manufactuer's tube has a unique sonic signature. Each time I tried a different tube, I had to listen to a few CDs over the course of a few days. I have finally settled on the Voskhod 6H23 Russian "rocket logo" type from the 1970s and early 1980s as being the tube I want to use in the new CD player.
Now that that's done I'll be ready to try listening to different wires. One of my friends from the Central Florida Audio Society dropped off a PC for me to repair last night. He'll be coming over Friday or Saturday to pick it up. When he does we'll do some wire swapping.
It's not a matter of my not being comfortable with you coming over when SY does the test. What ever gave you that idea? I have very limited parking as I previously told you. Also I believe this DBT should be limited to just a few people being present in order to prevent distractions so I'd say 5 or 6 tops should attend! Maybe not even that many. I'd like SY's input on this issue. SY and I make 2 and I'd like Roger Russell to participate "if" possible so that makes 3.
I cannot tell you how many members of Central Florida Audio Society, Space Coast Florida Audio Society & SETriodes group want to attend this event too! So it's not that I don't want you to attend the DBT it's simply a matter of deciding who the remaining 1-3 people should be. I'd like a balance of proponents and opponents of the wire issue to attend. Most likely, although it's not set in stone, you'd have to come a little before or after ---{that will be your choice if you're not selectd to be one of the last 1-3 positions left}
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Pausim, you have it right. When working at the edge of knowledge of a subject, areas not described in normal textbooks of the subject, or in many practical applications, it is not possible to 'prove' everything that you find 'works' to the satisfaction of everyone.
While today, over 150 years later, Dr. Semmelweis is appreciated for his discovery, it was NOT true at the time, EVEN with the evidence that he had gathered.
It is the same in audio, today. To be really successful, or at least ahead of the pack that includes companies with resources far beyond what we can ever have, we have to keep our eyes open for both practical improvements, that might first appear as only 'accidents' and yet apply every new idea proposed by others, and even older ideas not usually associated with audio. Quantum physics is one of those areas that is often useful for understanding how to make better audio equipment. It is NOT my area of expertise. However, I find that using a concept derived from what I can understand and use of it, gives enough intellectual framework to go along with it.
While today, over 150 years later, Dr. Semmelweis is appreciated for his discovery, it was NOT true at the time, EVEN with the evidence that he had gathered.
It is the same in audio, today. To be really successful, or at least ahead of the pack that includes companies with resources far beyond what we can ever have, we have to keep our eyes open for both practical improvements, that might first appear as only 'accidents' and yet apply every new idea proposed by others, and even older ideas not usually associated with audio. Quantum physics is one of those areas that is often useful for understanding how to make better audio equipment. It is NOT my area of expertise. However, I find that using a concept derived from what I can understand and use of it, gives enough intellectual framework to go along with it.
It would be nice to have some real discussions on cables, differing constructions, materials etc and how these change the well known and well documented variables that effect signal transmission, (mainly L C R G, and dielectric effects), and also their effectiveness or lack of in regards to EMC, also how they might interact with varying input and output impedances of the connected equipement.
It would also be of benefit to ourselves and others to prove or disprove some of the more eclectic myths regarding signal transmission in cables at Audio frequencies such as Skin Effect, micro diodes (ha!), directionality of copper with ac signals(with reference to signal transmission, not the end at which the shield is connected). We are dealing with wavelengths of approx 15,000,000m to 15,000m with relatively slow rise times so there shouldn’t be the same problems as high speed digital suffers with reflections, ringing etc over what is a short run of cable compared to the wavelength (i.e. not really transmission lines as defined today for high speed design)
It would also be of benefit to ourselves and others to prove or disprove some of the more eclectic myths regarding signal transmission in cables at Audio frequencies such as Skin Effect, micro diodes (ha!), directionality of copper with ac signals(with reference to signal transmission, not the end at which the shield is connected). We are dealing with wavelengths of approx 15,000,000m to 15,000m with relatively slow rise times so there shouldn’t be the same problems as high speed digital suffers with reflections, ringing etc over what is a short run of cable compared to the wavelength (i.e. not really transmission lines as defined today for high speed design)
Yeah Scott,
You might have designed some amps that found their way into audio products by the 100k's, but what have you REALLY done ?
jd
No, actually the guy's from ESS insisted that the difference in DAC's is "black and white" (as if I haven't heard that before). I will take them up on a personal demo. Kirkwood promised me some PFET samples too.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.