FROM THAT OTHER PRIEST.
Hi,
Ah, and you think it works like that?
Sorry to say so but going for a thicker wire gauge isn't going to be any good at all.
Electron penetration depth is said to be frequency dependent.
Most of them travel at the surface of the conductor.
Than there is other phenomenon that occurs called current bunching as well...
They do get paid at the end of the month so they'd better do as they're told to.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Ah, and you think it works like that?
Sorry to say so but going for a thicker wire gauge isn't going to be any good at all.
Electron penetration depth is said to be frequency dependent.
Most of them travel at the surface of the conductor.
Than there is other phenomenon that occurs called current bunching as well...
They do get paid at the end of the month so they'd better do as they're told to.
Cheers,😉
Re: Re: What about no cable at all?
This is how they solved the problem in the old days. 😉
Seems there's nothing new under the sun.Steve Eddy said:
This is how they solved the problem in the old days. 😉
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Steve,
What is this, an AES forum? A Law Institution? Medicine, where lives are at stake?
When is sharing an opinion in a diy forum making a claim of fact. And when is something that has not been scientifically proven must therefore be false.
Before Newton formulated the laws of gravity, does it mean gravity does not exist. And since I cannot show God to anyone, does it mean there is no God. There are millions of devotees world-wide, from Christians to Hindus to Buddhist, to name a few, who have not have the grace to met their diety or Maker. Am I to say they are wrong?
For your information, we do freeze photograph. Check with Eastman Kodak on "The Preservation of Color Prints and Transparencies for Archiving".
What is this, an AES forum? A Law Institution? Medicine, where lives are at stake?
When is sharing an opinion in a diy forum making a claim of fact. And when is something that has not been scientifically proven must therefore be false.
Before Newton formulated the laws of gravity, does it mean gravity does not exist. And since I cannot show God to anyone, does it mean there is no God. There are millions of devotees world-wide, from Christians to Hindus to Buddhist, to name a few, who have not have the grace to met their diety or Maker. Am I to say they are wrong?
For your information, we do freeze photograph. Check with Eastman Kodak on "The Preservation of Color Prints and Transparencies for Archiving".
A rather unfortunate example which will surely be used by 'the other side'
Lets not turn cables into a religious debate. For God's sake 🙂 There happen to be atheists who can actually hear without believing.
Lets not turn cables into a religious debate. For God's sake 🙂 There happen to be atheists who can actually hear without believing.
mcp said:
Hi,
I just jumped in the middle of this thread and admit I haven't read it all, but this upsets me. Am I to believe that the qualities of a 100.000$ system can be trashed by a "wrong cable"? I my opinion, such a system isn't worth 100$!
If I pay that much for a system, I want it to be insensitive to whatever cable I use, as long as it is of reasonable quality, for instance speaker cable less than .1Ohms resistance, less than a couple of 1000 pF's etc. Similarly for interconnects. Not too high capacitance and reasonble EMI shielding should do it. That has nothing to do with resolving power.
Jan Didden
Brett
It's easy to be smug from paradise 🙂
Jan
Paradoxical as it may seem, the sound of a very high quality system is very easy to destroy. It takes weeks (months?) of work to produce really nice, pleasant sound out of very expensive and high quality components. The smallest mistake and all synergy is gone. If you want to have it nice and easy stay with mid-fi as i do. Disappointment with the high end is really very common. And a wrong mains cable or a silly stand is all it may take. $100,000 sytems that can't play music to save their lives are plentiful, yet the components which make them may be quite good in different setups.
cheerio
peter
It's easy to be smug from paradise 🙂
Jan
Paradoxical as it may seem, the sound of a very high quality system is very easy to destroy. It takes weeks (months?) of work to produce really nice, pleasant sound out of very expensive and high quality components. The smallest mistake and all synergy is gone. If you want to have it nice and easy stay with mid-fi as i do. Disappointment with the high end is really very common. And a wrong mains cable or a silly stand is all it may take. $100,000 sytems that can't play music to save their lives are plentiful, yet the components which make them may be quite good in different setups.
cheerio
peter
Kuei Yang Wang said:
My problem with Duncan is that he seems more interested in proving his pet theories than getting at the truth and doesn't always do a very good job of considering OTHER explanations that "fit observed fact." Rather like the creation science folks who pick and choose only that which they can fit into their preconcieved dogma while ignoring other explanations.
An example of this is Duncan's claim of current-dependent phase shifts in audio cables in the three part "Great Cable Test" series in the July, August and Sepember 1999 issues of HFN&RR.
Dr. J.C.G. Lesurf at the University of St. Andrews showed that this "observed fact" could be explained by the different load impedances Duncan used for the low current and high current tests.
Which issue was this in?
Where did Holmes say anything like that? Or is this another myth along with "Elementary, my dear Watson" and the Calabash pipe?
What Holmes was fond of saying was "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth."
And if course you can't even get to this point until you've first considered all possibilities.
se
Koinichiwa,
While this MAY seem reasonable enough to start with, you have a few basic problems with your demands. Sadly, the commonly defined "voltage" interfaces between source and receiver (be that CD-Player and Preamp of Poweramp and Speaker) are sensitive to impedance variations (and other factors) in exactly the way the Analogue Telephone current driven system is not, hence your ability to actually phone around the world on twisted copper pairs in the 1940's.
So, if you wish to make a HiFi System independent from cable issues you must define a current interface. Doing this for speakers has of course many other advantages, but it means you need to supply a full system that is completely incompatible with about everyone elses gear. This tends to be sadly not particulary conductive to sales outside the sub $ 1,000 all in one plastic boom box market.
Sayonara
janneman said:
While this MAY seem reasonable enough to start with, you have a few basic problems with your demands. Sadly, the commonly defined "voltage" interfaces between source and receiver (be that CD-Player and Preamp of Poweramp and Speaker) are sensitive to impedance variations (and other factors) in exactly the way the Analogue Telephone current driven system is not, hence your ability to actually phone around the world on twisted copper pairs in the 1940's.
So, if you wish to make a HiFi System independent from cable issues you must define a current interface. Doing this for speakers has of course many other advantages, but it means you need to supply a full system that is completely incompatible with about everyone elses gear. This tends to be sadly not particulary conductive to sales outside the sub $ 1,000 all in one plastic boom box market.
Sayonara
The original poster is right I think, Cables/wire don’t actually change the sound. They do however change how one perceives the sound.
They can change how your mind decodes the sound.
This is a quote from a guy on another forum which summed it up perfectly to me.
"One thing people should keep in mind about these types of things is that, while it may not change the sound at all, it can still change what you hear.How does that statement make sense? Simple - the brain. What your ear drum picks up - the acoustic signal - is not what you hear! What you hear is the brain interpreting what the ear picks up. As such, it can be colored or fooled. What you experience as sound is not necessarily what you hear.Want proof? Check out the Franssen effect. A click starts off the test tone, in one speaker (for example, the left speaker). Then the tone immediately jumps to the other speaker only (the right speaker). However, because of the way our brains interpret precedence and timing, you will hear the tone coming from the left speaker. You can go and disconnect the left speaker, and it will still sound like it's coming from the left speaker. It's an old audio trick, but one that is very good at showing just how the brain can be fooled.Likewise with audio stuff like high end cables and blocks of wood. If you believe it will make your system sound better - or even sound different - there's a good chance it will. Regardless of what a test meter will show. This is because the human brain will color what it interprets - knowledge of the event ahead of time will affect what you hear. And it's not even know what the change is supposed to be, just knowing there is a change is enough to cause your brain to expect a change, and thus create a change.So, does that mean the gear actually works? Well, on a physical level I'd say no. If it can't be empirically measured, then it doesn't physically work. However, I would say it does change what you hear, because it works on the psychological level. You are expecting to hear a change, and that expectation can make your brain create the change.All in all, with high-end stuff like this that I really don't espouse, I'm perfectly willing to agree that some people will hear the difference - because they are expecting to hear a difference, and they know what's going on with their gear. Is it a physical difference? Ninety nine times out of 100, no. But it is a psychological difference, and that ultimately makes it a real difference for that individual. That is not to say that you can't fool them by swapping out the megabuck stuff for low-end cable, etc. Sure you can. But the fact that they keep hearing the difference (until shown the changes) is proof that there was a difference; just happens to be in their minds, not in the physical world. And ultimately, what we hear and experience is a mental thing. So what someone believes they hear is what they really hear. Is it what everyone hears? No. Is it an accurate representation of the physical world? Maybe yes, maybe no. But within their perceptions, it is accurate, and that is ultimately what is important (especially with experience of art, which music is)."
They can change how your mind decodes the sound.
This is a quote from a guy on another forum which summed it up perfectly to me.
"One thing people should keep in mind about these types of things is that, while it may not change the sound at all, it can still change what you hear.How does that statement make sense? Simple - the brain. What your ear drum picks up - the acoustic signal - is not what you hear! What you hear is the brain interpreting what the ear picks up. As such, it can be colored or fooled. What you experience as sound is not necessarily what you hear.Want proof? Check out the Franssen effect. A click starts off the test tone, in one speaker (for example, the left speaker). Then the tone immediately jumps to the other speaker only (the right speaker). However, because of the way our brains interpret precedence and timing, you will hear the tone coming from the left speaker. You can go and disconnect the left speaker, and it will still sound like it's coming from the left speaker. It's an old audio trick, but one that is very good at showing just how the brain can be fooled.Likewise with audio stuff like high end cables and blocks of wood. If you believe it will make your system sound better - or even sound different - there's a good chance it will. Regardless of what a test meter will show. This is because the human brain will color what it interprets - knowledge of the event ahead of time will affect what you hear. And it's not even know what the change is supposed to be, just knowing there is a change is enough to cause your brain to expect a change, and thus create a change.So, does that mean the gear actually works? Well, on a physical level I'd say no. If it can't be empirically measured, then it doesn't physically work. However, I would say it does change what you hear, because it works on the psychological level. You are expecting to hear a change, and that expectation can make your brain create the change.All in all, with high-end stuff like this that I really don't espouse, I'm perfectly willing to agree that some people will hear the difference - because they are expecting to hear a difference, and they know what's going on with their gear. Is it a physical difference? Ninety nine times out of 100, no. But it is a psychological difference, and that ultimately makes it a real difference for that individual. That is not to say that you can't fool them by swapping out the megabuck stuff for low-end cable, etc. Sure you can. But the fact that they keep hearing the difference (until shown the changes) is proof that there was a difference; just happens to be in their minds, not in the physical world. And ultimately, what we hear and experience is a mental thing. So what someone believes they hear is what they really hear. Is it what everyone hears? No. Is it an accurate representation of the physical world? Maybe yes, maybe no. But within their perceptions, it is accurate, and that is ultimately what is important (especially with experience of art, which music is)."
Re: FROM THAT OTHER PRIEST.
Sure do.
Please re-read what I wrote.
I said that in the context of losing a bit of wire diameter due to some of the copper atoms at the surface having combined with oxygen, resulting in an effectively smaller (though only microscopically smaller) wire diameter.
Said by cable marketing literature you mean.
The greater transport current density nearer the surface of the conductor (skin effect) isn't the result of the electrons all migrating toward the surface (i.e. not penetrating the depth of the conductor). It's because more of the electrons toward the center of the conductor are tied up spinning around in eddy currents and not contributing to transport current.
So as I said, there are electrons throughout the conductor. Just that as you get toward the center of the conductor, fewer of the electrons there are contributing the transport current.
And "current bunching" is right out of Analysis Plus' marketing literature. So is your entire understanding of the physics of conduction in wires based on cable company marketing literature?
"Current bunching" is more commonly known as "proximity effect." Its cause is the same as for skin effect. Eddy currents induced by time-varying magnetic fields. The two effects (skin effect and proximity effect) are basically one and the same. Skin effect is from the perspective of a single conductor and priximity effect is from the perspective of multiple conductors in close proximity to each other.
But so what? The copper oxide on the surface of the wire isn't participating to any degree in terms of conduction and transport curent anyway so what exactly is the problem?
se
fdegrove said:
Sure do.
Please re-read what I wrote.
I said that in the context of losing a bit of wire diameter due to some of the copper atoms at the surface having combined with oxygen, resulting in an effectively smaller (though only microscopically smaller) wire diameter.
Said by cable marketing literature you mean.
The greater transport current density nearer the surface of the conductor (skin effect) isn't the result of the electrons all migrating toward the surface (i.e. not penetrating the depth of the conductor). It's because more of the electrons toward the center of the conductor are tied up spinning around in eddy currents and not contributing to transport current.
So as I said, there are electrons throughout the conductor. Just that as you get toward the center of the conductor, fewer of the electrons there are contributing the transport current.
And "current bunching" is right out of Analysis Plus' marketing literature. So is your entire understanding of the physics of conduction in wires based on cable company marketing literature?
"Current bunching" is more commonly known as "proximity effect." Its cause is the same as for skin effect. Eddy currents induced by time-varying magnetic fields. The two effects (skin effect and proximity effect) are basically one and the same. Skin effect is from the perspective of a single conductor and priximity effect is from the perspective of multiple conductors in close proximity to each other.
But so what? The copper oxide on the surface of the wire isn't participating to any degree in terms of conduction and transport curent anyway so what exactly is the problem?
se
Re: Re: Re: What about no cable at all?
Hahahaha! Good one!
Yeah, can't get much more direct than that. Acoustical to mechcanical and back to acoustical.
Like Lars used to say, "Look! No watts per channel!" 🙂
Well, no electrical watts anyway.
se
Circlotron said:
Hahahaha! Good one!
Yeah, can't get much more direct than that. Acoustical to mechcanical and back to acoustical.
Like Lars used to say, "Look! No watts per channel!" 🙂
Well, no electrical watts anyway.
se
THE EDDY CURRENTS.
Hi,
Not at all.
If you care to wrestle through Dr. Malcolm Hawfords work you'll notice alot of what most cable manufacturers do is based on that.
So, assuming I read you correctly we could all expect a range of cable from you that can be as oxidized as possibly imaginable?
You're probably going for a PVC or other chloride rich insulator since that doesn't matter anymore either...
I wonder what geometry you'll adopt but I'm sure that with sufficient marketing clout and appropriate amounts of hype they're going to beat the hell out of all competitors, right?😉
BTW, some vulgarised resume of Dr.Hawkfords work was published in Hi-Fi News back in 1988 already under the title "The Essex Echo".
Never heard of that company but I'll have a look later on.
That's all I needed to hear.
So, would it be safe to conclude that you don't think crystal boundary effects, contaminants and whatever else is out there is just a load of salestalk?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Not at all.
If you care to wrestle through Dr. Malcolm Hawfords work you'll notice alot of what most cable manufacturers do is based on that.
So, assuming I read you correctly we could all expect a range of cable from you that can be as oxidized as possibly imaginable?
You're probably going for a PVC or other chloride rich insulator since that doesn't matter anymore either...
I wonder what geometry you'll adopt but I'm sure that with sufficient marketing clout and appropriate amounts of hype they're going to beat the hell out of all competitors, right?😉
BTW, some vulgarised resume of Dr.Hawkfords work was published in Hi-Fi News back in 1988 already under the title "The Essex Echo".
Never heard of that company but I'll have a look later on.
That's all I needed to hear.
So, would it be safe to conclude that you don't think crystal boundary effects, contaminants and whatever else is out there is just a load of salestalk?
Cheers,😉
mcp said:
Nope.
But I would like to think that even here most would expect that which is being presented as factual actually be factual and that those things which are presented as factual should be open to questioning.
When the opinion is presented as a claim of fact rather than an opinion.
Never. And I have never said or implied otherwise.
What I have said is that that which has not been scientifically proven should not be passed off as fact. To do so is just as irrational and misleading as saying that that which has not been scientifically proven must therefore be false.
And just as irrational as your PRESUMPTION that because I say something hasn't been scientifically proven that I am saying it must be false.
Nope.
But where was all this logic and reason you exemplify above when you judged me based not on anything I've actually said, but on your own presumptions? Isn't that the very definition of prejudice?
For my information, please tell me when I've ever said that we don't freeze photographs.
se
Re: THE EDDY CURRENTS.
It's Hawksford, not Hawkfords.
And cable manufacturers were addressing skin effect before Hawksford wrote the Essex Echo series in HFN&RR. And while it's been quite a few years since I read that series, I don't recall Hawksford claiming that there is a dearth of electrons in the center of the conductor.
Don't have any plans of entering the cable business.
But suffice to say that in situations where I don't actually need any insulation on the wire, I don't use any. It's a bit difficult though to make interconnects and speaker cables without any insulation.
If I were to fret over objective performance, I'd worry more about the PVC itself than a thin film of copper oxide on the wire.
A braided quad works for me.
What do you mean a "vulgarized resume"? Hawksford himself wrote those articles. And as far as I'm aware, his bit about skin effect never made it into any professional journal, which seems rather odd given that he's not at all shy about it and has nearly 200 papers in articles published in such journals.
Why would he leave such a piece of work to be published only in a consumer audio magazine?
What it would be safe to conclude is that I have seen many claims for which I have not been able to find any substantiation of.
se
fdegrove said:
It's Hawksford, not Hawkfords.
And cable manufacturers were addressing skin effect before Hawksford wrote the Essex Echo series in HFN&RR. And while it's been quite a few years since I read that series, I don't recall Hawksford claiming that there is a dearth of electrons in the center of the conductor.
Don't have any plans of entering the cable business.
But suffice to say that in situations where I don't actually need any insulation on the wire, I don't use any. It's a bit difficult though to make interconnects and speaker cables without any insulation.
If I were to fret over objective performance, I'd worry more about the PVC itself than a thin film of copper oxide on the wire.
A braided quad works for me.
What do you mean a "vulgarized resume"? Hawksford himself wrote those articles. And as far as I'm aware, his bit about skin effect never made it into any professional journal, which seems rather odd given that he's not at all shy about it and has nearly 200 papers in articles published in such journals.
Why would he leave such a piece of work to be published only in a consumer audio magazine?
What it would be safe to conclude is that I have seen many claims for which I have not been able to find any substantiation of.
se
Brett said:
Exactly. Atheism requires the same leap of blind faith that theism requires. Both are closed-minded, dogmatic, and divisive.
se
Skin Me...
Hi,
Sorry, I really suck when it comes to typing.
Sure enough, but you seem to say that it doesn't matter...your electrons seems to circumvent that problem as if they were on steroids...
That's a relief.😉
Glad you realise that.
Fair enough, as long as you understand why I mentioned it.
Fine, and many other less labour intensive configurations could do as well...
Yours is going to be highly capacitive though.
Like anything else, it's a compromise.
As in written for a broad public, not meant for fellow scientists.
Not odd at all, he just brought the effects to the attention of a broader audience through the mag.
After all skin effect is nothing new, although maybe new to you...
RF engineers countered it quite nicely by using hollow conductors around WW2.
Because it was there already.
You can just as well add your own here...
Not that I believe everything I read, far from it.............
So, if you don't mind me asking, where is it you want all of this to go?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Sorry, I really suck when it comes to typing.
Sure enough, but you seem to say that it doesn't matter...your electrons seems to circumvent that problem as if they were on steroids...
That's a relief.😉
Glad you realise that.
Fair enough, as long as you understand why I mentioned it.
Fine, and many other less labour intensive configurations could do as well...
Yours is going to be highly capacitive though.
Like anything else, it's a compromise.
As in written for a broad public, not meant for fellow scientists.
Not odd at all, he just brought the effects to the attention of a broader audience through the mag.
After all skin effect is nothing new, although maybe new to you...
RF engineers countered it quite nicely by using hollow conductors around WW2.
Because it was there already.
You can just as well add your own here...
Not that I believe everything I read, far from it.............
So, if you don't mind me asking, where is it you want all of this to go?
Cheers,😉
Hollow conductors? Like copper pipe, perhaps? (silver pipe if you're picky?) Would this work well as an audio conductor?
I picked up a copy of Audiophile magazine a while back and read a few articles, including a comparison of 4 cables that were, if I remember, 3m long each... or some shortish length... anyway, they were all >$450 per, and, AFAICT, just different combinations of insulations and ends...
It seemed to me, that selection of driver materials, crossover frequencies, and box design would make orders of magnitude more difference than the cable...
I also thought it was interesting that there was no AB or ABX testing in the article; they just plugged in one, listened, then the next, listened, perhaps did some back and forth, but did nothing to even address placebo effect. I guess it just bothered me that people who spend so much time and money tweaking every last part of their stereo systems, are unwilling to accept any scientific testing at all. If it were me with the $100K setup, I'm sure it would rack my brain to no end that perhaps I was wrong in my selection of cable A over cable B, or the amp, or the CD player, DAC, or box design. Doesn't that eat away at anyone else? Could I take this as proof that it really is just a money thing, and there isn't any difference of any importance between my $0.50 cables and your $500 cables?
*sigh* Why did I ever subscribe to this thread?!? *unsubscribes*
I picked up a copy of Audiophile magazine a while back and read a few articles, including a comparison of 4 cables that were, if I remember, 3m long each... or some shortish length... anyway, they were all >$450 per, and, AFAICT, just different combinations of insulations and ends...
It seemed to me, that selection of driver materials, crossover frequencies, and box design would make orders of magnitude more difference than the cable...
I also thought it was interesting that there was no AB or ABX testing in the article; they just plugged in one, listened, then the next, listened, perhaps did some back and forth, but did nothing to even address placebo effect. I guess it just bothered me that people who spend so much time and money tweaking every last part of their stereo systems, are unwilling to accept any scientific testing at all. If it were me with the $100K setup, I'm sure it would rack my brain to no end that perhaps I was wrong in my selection of cable A over cable B, or the amp, or the CD player, DAC, or box design. Doesn't that eat away at anyone else? Could I take this as proof that it really is just a money thing, and there isn't any difference of any importance between my $0.50 cables and your $500 cables?
*sigh* Why did I ever subscribe to this thread?!? *unsubscribes*
Hollow Conductors...
Hi,
And why wouldn't it?
Fashionable variations on the theme nowadays are foil conductors and oval conductors...
And yes, they claim to have invented the wheel...
A hollow conductor does all of that and more...
So, what do you do to improve your system when you have all of the above figured out?
Sure, and that's how most sales are made...a lot of people can't decide..so they take the "safe way out" and go for the most expensive stuff, hoping it's the best money can buy.
Little do they know, but can you blame them?😉
Hi,
And why wouldn't it?
Fashionable variations on the theme nowadays are foil conductors and oval conductors...
And yes, they claim to have invented the wheel...
A hollow conductor does all of that and more...
So, what do you do to improve your system when you have all of the above figured out?
Sure, and that's how most sales are made...a lot of people can't decide..so they take the "safe way out" and go for the most expensive stuff, hoping it's the best money can buy.
Little do they know, but can you blame them?😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.