Re: Magic Wire ?.
Sure.
The electrons interact with lattice vibrations (phonons) in such a way that their absolute directions remain randomized and the signal is represented by their net drift in the direction determined by the signal.
In other words, the electrons are kept moving randomly in all directions which decorrelates the quantization error from the signal, but statistically, you still have the appropriate number of electrons passing a given point resulting in the appropriate electrical current representing the signal.
se
mrfeedback said:
Sure.
The electrons interact with lattice vibrations (phonons) in such a way that their absolute directions remain randomized and the signal is represented by their net drift in the direction determined by the signal.
In other words, the electrons are kept moving randomly in all directions which decorrelates the quantization error from the signal, but statistically, you still have the appropriate number of electrons passing a given point resulting in the appropriate electrical current representing the signal.
se
Steve's Wire.
So in other words you are just talking about any old piece if wire in standard theory terms, yeah ?.
Eric.
You mean you're left with standard thermal noise ?.
Individual electron drift is as slow as walking speed isn't it ?.
That just describes standard conduction does it not ?.
So in other words you are just talking about any old piece if wire in standard theory terms, yeah ?.
Eric.
I might have missed it, but I think that so far nobody, in this
thread or any other similar one, has mentioned Rod Elliotts
alternative theory of why cables may sound different. It is
discussed in this article http://sound.westhost.com/highspeed.htm
(note that the article discusses two different topics intermixed).
His idea is based on the fact that most amplifiers have a very
high oputput impedance at RF so the cable might pick up RF
signals which sneak back into the feedback path and cause
distorsion (RF causing distorsion at audio frequencies is not
new per se). Different cables might have different properties
as antennas, picking up different frequencies well. Which cable
sounds best might then depend rather on the RFI spectrum
at a certain location than on the actual audio equipment. As far
as I understand it, this would also mean that other factors than
R, L and C are important, since it is the properties at RF, not
audio frequencies, that are of interest.
Further, Elliott suggests using a Zobel filter also on line level
outputs to prevent this problem. If his theory is correct, adding
a Zobel filter should make the equipment almost insensitive
to the choice of inteconnects.
This is an interesting experiment for those who (claim to) hear
clear differences between different interconnects. Add a Zobel
filter at the output and try the different interconnects again.
It should be noted that Elliott has not himself tested his theory
for lack of RF test equipment and lack of RFI where he lives.
thread or any other similar one, has mentioned Rod Elliotts
alternative theory of why cables may sound different. It is
discussed in this article http://sound.westhost.com/highspeed.htm
(note that the article discusses two different topics intermixed).
His idea is based on the fact that most amplifiers have a very
high oputput impedance at RF so the cable might pick up RF
signals which sneak back into the feedback path and cause
distorsion (RF causing distorsion at audio frequencies is not
new per se). Different cables might have different properties
as antennas, picking up different frequencies well. Which cable
sounds best might then depend rather on the RFI spectrum
at a certain location than on the actual audio equipment. As far
as I understand it, this would also mean that other factors than
R, L and C are important, since it is the properties at RF, not
audio frequencies, that are of interest.
Further, Elliott suggests using a Zobel filter also on line level
outputs to prevent this problem. If his theory is correct, adding
a Zobel filter should make the equipment almost insensitive
to the choice of inteconnects.
This is an interesting experiment for those who (claim to) hear
clear differences between different interconnects. Add a Zobel
filter at the output and try the different interconnects again.
It should be noted that Elliott has not himself tested his theory
for lack of RF test equipment and lack of RFI where he lives.
No, not at all. But I would maintain that the absence of evidence in a case like this (i.e., a long standing one, where an industry has been created) is a STRONG indicator of the evidence of absence. My analogy would be homeopathy- despite decades of effort, a lot of money thrown at it by consumers, and many fortunes made, no-one can produce any reliable evidence that it works. In a Popperian sense, it can't be DISproved, but as the null results mount up (and molecules and electrons continue to show exactly the behavior that well-established physics predicts), one can get arbitrarily confident that the null result is the correct one. That's what I (somewhat sloppily) meant by the phrase "overwhelming evidence."
All it takes is one psychic under conditions that eliminate the possibility of cheating to demonstrate that ESP exists. One dowser to demonstrate that it works. One homeopathic treatment to show efficacy beyond placebo. And only one valid listening test to show cable effects beyond connection integrity and impedance. We're waiting...
Relativity, Scepticism et al....
Koinichiwa,
I think we have some fundamental problems here, part of this is the "modern" view of "science" and what "engineers" are thought of it.
Modern science promotes extreme specialisation often at the cost of knowing only one narrow area and nothing else. Modern Enginners are generally tought a simplified version of what was accepted by the scientific establishment about a decade or two before the engineer actually attends University.
Now in the "old" scientific tradition (that which "modern" science studiously denies) the various original scientific disciplines (Physick, Alchymie, Astrology, Medicine) where seen as being part, together with the liberal arts as part of that one "Super Science" known as Philosophy (from Philae Sophia - Love of Knowledge), out of which all the others came.
In many ways the "old" view is the more complete and usefull one. What we percieve is personal, subjective and relative (Bishop Berkley, David Hume) and despite Kant, there is NO "thing in itself" percievable by humans.
As a result what we percieve is largely a product of our education, upbringing, cultural background, or in a much shorter term, our Philosophy or worldview.
As someone whose entire value system, worldview etc. is very much informed by the last age of enlightenment, rather than that of the current age of darkness of corporate greed and a science that has removed itself from it's origins, moral responsibilityes and aims and has become a mere tool to the worshippers of Mamon, I find it hard to even have a common language with those who have sold their "soul" to modern science (note, I'm not using the previous terms in a religous way - however in a lot of ways they and the worldview of the Age of Enlightenment are fundamentally religeuos).
Now a sceptic, a TRUE sceptic in Hume's tradition will be sceptical of all things (and must be). It seems however that modern scpetics have forgotten that lesson and choose to be certain (to a degree of fanatical belief) of all things that agree with their philosophy, while they are equally absolutely and irreoncilably "sceptical" of things not immediatly agreeable with their philosophy. They will never mistrust their own perceptions, but will readily mistrust the perceptions of those whose perception dioffers from theirs.
I find this state of affairs most delorable.
I am readily admiting that I do not know for certain what causes sonic differences that extend past the RLC parameters, though I have my theories. Nevertheless, I percieve these differences with good reliability (yes, I questioned my own perception too) and thus will not accept to be told I am hallucinating.
I note that there are plenty of people who have never really tried a fair and statistically defensible comparison under adequate conditions insist on the inaudibility of these "esotheric" effects, based purely on second and third hand information and a basic philosophy.
I would also note that the effect which may lead "believers" to hear a difference where there is non (a well documented phenomenae) will lead staunch non-believers not to hear a blindingly obviously audible difference.
If you do not believe - set up a basic nice DBT Test. Then invite known "Believers" and known "Unbelievers" to a test which you claim will be the audibility of cables.
HOWEVER, instead of actually swpping cables, you will introduce a number of changes to the system that should be blatantly audible, such as wiring one channel out of polarity with the other, a lowpass (1st Order) with a 20KHz Corner frequency, large amounts of added even order harmonic distortion and so on. Then note the scoring.
You will most often find that those who believe that there should be an audible difference will have a lot more accurate identification than those who believe that they are listening to something for which no audible difference exists. You would be quite amused by just how much these "unbelievers" start fuming when you tell them that you tricked them and that they where not at all testing the audibility of cable changes, but simply the validity of carying out such a test in the manner and fashion it is often applied in Audio. And of course, when the same people know that they are listening for changes they know should be audible, their scoring will improve.
Untill the whole subject remains a dug in trench warfare between factions that cannot accept to see their fundamental philosophy questioned and are thus irreconcilable no progress is going to be made. I will call again for a reasonable discussion, an openminded approach to such subjects as DBT's (on both sides) and a general willingness to admit that we know in a scientific sense very few things with any degree of certainty, be this applied to our own perception or that of others.
Sayonara
PS, no fire - no smoke. And I see plenty of smoke - so should we not try to find the fire, instead of arguing if the smoke is smoke and if it is real smoke or imagined smoke and the nature of the smoke? Once we have penetrated through the smoke to the source, much will become clear.
Koinichiwa,
I think we have some fundamental problems here, part of this is the "modern" view of "science" and what "engineers" are thought of it.
Modern science promotes extreme specialisation often at the cost of knowing only one narrow area and nothing else. Modern Enginners are generally tought a simplified version of what was accepted by the scientific establishment about a decade or two before the engineer actually attends University.
Now in the "old" scientific tradition (that which "modern" science studiously denies) the various original scientific disciplines (Physick, Alchymie, Astrology, Medicine) where seen as being part, together with the liberal arts as part of that one "Super Science" known as Philosophy (from Philae Sophia - Love of Knowledge), out of which all the others came.
In many ways the "old" view is the more complete and usefull one. What we percieve is personal, subjective and relative (Bishop Berkley, David Hume) and despite Kant, there is NO "thing in itself" percievable by humans.
As a result what we percieve is largely a product of our education, upbringing, cultural background, or in a much shorter term, our Philosophy or worldview.
As someone whose entire value system, worldview etc. is very much informed by the last age of enlightenment, rather than that of the current age of darkness of corporate greed and a science that has removed itself from it's origins, moral responsibilityes and aims and has become a mere tool to the worshippers of Mamon, I find it hard to even have a common language with those who have sold their "soul" to modern science (note, I'm not using the previous terms in a religous way - however in a lot of ways they and the worldview of the Age of Enlightenment are fundamentally religeuos).
Now a sceptic, a TRUE sceptic in Hume's tradition will be sceptical of all things (and must be). It seems however that modern scpetics have forgotten that lesson and choose to be certain (to a degree of fanatical belief) of all things that agree with their philosophy, while they are equally absolutely and irreoncilably "sceptical" of things not immediatly agreeable with their philosophy. They will never mistrust their own perceptions, but will readily mistrust the perceptions of those whose perception dioffers from theirs.
I find this state of affairs most delorable.
I am readily admiting that I do not know for certain what causes sonic differences that extend past the RLC parameters, though I have my theories. Nevertheless, I percieve these differences with good reliability (yes, I questioned my own perception too) and thus will not accept to be told I am hallucinating.
I note that there are plenty of people who have never really tried a fair and statistically defensible comparison under adequate conditions insist on the inaudibility of these "esotheric" effects, based purely on second and third hand information and a basic philosophy.
I would also note that the effect which may lead "believers" to hear a difference where there is non (a well documented phenomenae) will lead staunch non-believers not to hear a blindingly obviously audible difference.
If you do not believe - set up a basic nice DBT Test. Then invite known "Believers" and known "Unbelievers" to a test which you claim will be the audibility of cables.
HOWEVER, instead of actually swpping cables, you will introduce a number of changes to the system that should be blatantly audible, such as wiring one channel out of polarity with the other, a lowpass (1st Order) with a 20KHz Corner frequency, large amounts of added even order harmonic distortion and so on. Then note the scoring.
You will most often find that those who believe that there should be an audible difference will have a lot more accurate identification than those who believe that they are listening to something for which no audible difference exists. You would be quite amused by just how much these "unbelievers" start fuming when you tell them that you tricked them and that they where not at all testing the audibility of cable changes, but simply the validity of carying out such a test in the manner and fashion it is often applied in Audio. And of course, when the same people know that they are listening for changes they know should be audible, their scoring will improve.
Untill the whole subject remains a dug in trench warfare between factions that cannot accept to see their fundamental philosophy questioned and are thus irreconcilable no progress is going to be made. I will call again for a reasonable discussion, an openminded approach to such subjects as DBT's (on both sides) and a general willingness to admit that we know in a scientific sense very few things with any degree of certainty, be this applied to our own perception or that of others.
Sayonara
PS, no fire - no smoke. And I see plenty of smoke - so should we not try to find the fire, instead of arguing if the smoke is smoke and if it is real smoke or imagined smoke and the nature of the smoke? Once we have penetrated through the smoke to the source, much will become clear.
Re: Steve's Wire.
Ultimately, yes. Though seeing as copper (as well as silver) isn't superconductive at any temperature, the random element will be there even at 0 degrees Kelvin.
Depends which model you use. If you use the classical Drude model, yes. If you use the QM model, no. In the QM model, only those electrons very near the Fermi level actually participate in conduction as a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle as it relates to the solid state. With fewer electrons participating in conduction, their drift velocity will be greater than what the Drude model predicts.
Yes.
Yes. But don't tell anybody and I'll cut you in on a share of the profits. 🙂
se
mrfeedback said:
Ultimately, yes. Though seeing as copper (as well as silver) isn't superconductive at any temperature, the random element will be there even at 0 degrees Kelvin.
Depends which model you use. If you use the classical Drude model, yes. If you use the QM model, no. In the QM model, only those electrons very near the Fermi level actually participate in conduction as a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle as it relates to the solid state. With fewer electrons participating in conduction, their drift velocity will be greater than what the Drude model predicts.
Yes.
Yes. But don't tell anybody and I'll cut you in on a share of the profits. 🙂
se
SY said:
Fair enough. To each their own. For myself I simply prefer to say that there is a lack of evidence in support of the claims.
se
Re: Relativity, Scepticism et al....
I agree completely.
As I said elsewhere, my fascination with this centers around why people tend to factionalize themselves and cling dogmatically to blind leaps of faith similar to those you find in religion as well as politics.
Because I haven't any particular beliefs in this matter and have no vested interest in any particular outcome, these contrasts stand out like a sore thumb to me.
Sure. But by the same token, there must also be a general willingless to admit to that which we DO KNOW. And the biggest blind spot in high end audio is the near complete denial of the well-established fact that our subjective perceptions are prone to influences other than actual audible stimulus.
In this regard, high end audio is much like Igor from the film Young Frankenstein.
"Hump? What hump?"
se
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I agree completely.
As I said elsewhere, my fascination with this centers around why people tend to factionalize themselves and cling dogmatically to blind leaps of faith similar to those you find in religion as well as politics.
Because I haven't any particular beliefs in this matter and have no vested interest in any particular outcome, these contrasts stand out like a sore thumb to me.
Sure. But by the same token, there must also be a general willingless to admit to that which we DO KNOW. And the biggest blind spot in high end audio is the near complete denial of the well-established fact that our subjective perceptions are prone to influences other than actual audible stimulus.
In this regard, high end audio is much like Igor from the film Young Frankenstein.
"Hump? What hump?"
se
Creative Brochure Writing.....
IOW, due to mutual interactions of differing numbers of electrons in electron shells, is there not a likelyhood that the thermal noise spectrum is different according to the conducting element.
Eric.
Is this straight randomness ?
IOW, due to mutual interactions of differing numbers of electrons in electron shells, is there not a likelyhood that the thermal noise spectrum is different according to the conducting element.
This drift is still nowhere as fast as the propagation velocity (near to the speed of light) of the conductor is it ?.
Is the text in your first post (...which decorrelates the quantization error from the signal so instead of signal-correlated quantization distortion, you're left with just a bit of quantum level noise....) copyrighted ?.
Eric.
Slightly Different Subject.
What are the fields extending outside the braid of a shielded, balanced line cable ?. - I have reasons to ask this question.
Eric.
What are the fields extending outside the braid of a shielded, balanced line cable ?. - I have reasons to ask this question.
Eric.
Re: Creative Brochure Writing.....
With respect to the signal, yes.
No, but it's considerably faster than you can walk.
I don't claim any copyright to it, no.
se
mrfeedback said:
With respect to the signal, yes.
No, but it's considerably faster than you can walk.
I don't claim any copyright to it, no.
se
Re: Slightly Different Subject.
Fields extending outside the braid of a shielded, balanced line cable would be fields, yes?
Sorry, no idea what you mean by what are they other than fields.
se
mrfeedback said:
Fields extending outside the braid of a shielded, balanced line cable would be fields, yes?
Sorry, no idea what you mean by what are they other than fields.
se
I love when people agree with me.
CHRISTER:
I have down loaded the Elloitt article. Haven't read it all, but agree that fast amps and rf are bad news. The Elliot filter is one way to relieve the problem. I prefer shielding the cable instead of bypassing it. Sometimes both are necessary.
Twisted Shield Pairs for all interconnects including the speakers.
RF sources for rfi testing are easy. The first choice would be a cheap CB radio with whip antenna. Start with it in the same house then progress to the same room. It you dare, parallel the antenna to the cable, but, a couple of meters away. If the system can stand being in the same room with the CB I would say it passes. Hair driers or soldering guns are also used. These are placed close to the cable and turned on and off. Look for the snap, crackle, and pops.
KUEI:
First; I apologize if I pissed you off earlier. That was not my intent. My point was that the same micro structure defects you address in copper wire have relatively huge effects in semi-conductor devices and in my judgment should be addressed first. I profess to be an engineer and not a scientist. I do economics and schedules.
Keep typing I enjoy your posts.
CIRELOTRON:
You get the prize for an actual photo of a direct coupled gain clone. I loved it.
As I remember these devices the music was transferred from the cylinder to the amp through a Mono crystalline piece of bamboo. (The one I remember listening to as a young boy used a bamboo needle to protect the disk.)
CHRISTER:
I have down loaded the Elloitt article. Haven't read it all, but agree that fast amps and rf are bad news. The Elliot filter is one way to relieve the problem. I prefer shielding the cable instead of bypassing it. Sometimes both are necessary.
Twisted Shield Pairs for all interconnects including the speakers.
RF sources for rfi testing are easy. The first choice would be a cheap CB radio with whip antenna. Start with it in the same house then progress to the same room. It you dare, parallel the antenna to the cable, but, a couple of meters away. If the system can stand being in the same room with the CB I would say it passes. Hair driers or soldering guns are also used. These are placed close to the cable and turned on and off. Look for the snap, crackle, and pops.
KUEI:
First; I apologize if I pissed you off earlier. That was not my intent. My point was that the same micro structure defects you address in copper wire have relatively huge effects in semi-conductor devices and in my judgment should be addressed first. I profess to be an engineer and not a scientist. I do economics and schedules.
Keep typing I enjoy your posts.
CIRELOTRON:
You get the prize for an actual photo of a direct coupled gain clone. I loved it.
As I remember these devices the music was transferred from the cylinder to the amp through a Mono crystalline piece of bamboo. (The one I remember listening to as a young boy used a bamboo needle to protect the disk.)
CHRISTEN:
I read the article you linked. Very interesting. I particuliary liked with the cabling part and the unpredictable mature of rfi. Elliott gives a much better discription then I did.
Also browsed through the site and down loaded some other articles. A lot of good material. Also, Elloit seems to be a critic Nelson Pass. This would not be serious audio without serious differences of opinion.
FRANK: (edited)
Good to see you are still around.
I have been to Mole a couple of times. I have also seen the little boy in the entrance to the square and have even been to one of the bird markets. One of the folk heroes from my other dark side is OH4UN, John (de Vorhees sp?). First class engineer and an excellent writer.
I read the article you linked. Very interesting. I particuliary liked with the cabling part and the unpredictable mature of rfi. Elliott gives a much better discription then I did.
Also browsed through the site and down loaded some other articles. A lot of good material. Also, Elloit seems to be a critic Nelson Pass. This would not be serious audio without serious differences of opinion.
FRANK: (edited)
Good to see you are still around.
I have been to Mole a couple of times. I have also seen the little boy in the entrance to the square and have even been to one of the bird markets. One of the folk heroes from my other dark side is OH4UN, John (de Vorhees sp?). First class engineer and an excellent writer.
Sorry Frank; I know who you are. It's just that it has been a long afternoon. Please forgive me.
May be if I would read the fine print I would get some of the fine points of this form, like editing.
Maybe I can make some of the rest of this work.
I just love it when a good design comes together.🙂
Back to the lab.
May be if I would read the fine print I would get some of the fine points of this form, like editing.
Maybe I can make some of the rest of this work.
I just love it when a good design comes together.🙂
Back to the lab.
Still Slightly Different Subject.
In my understanding, the purpose of the shielding braid is to keep external noise sources out, and the braid carries little or no currents.
Whilst such a cable is for instance carrying microphone signal, do any of this audio signal magnetic or electric fields leak out of the cable assembly.
If the cable assembly passes close to a for example chair leg, is the audio signal modified because of the proximity of the cable to such a conductive metallic material ?.
Eric.
For example a balanced microphone cable consists of a twisted pair surrounded by a shielding braid.Steve Eddy said:
In my understanding, the purpose of the shielding braid is to keep external noise sources out, and the braid carries little or no currents.
Whilst such a cable is for instance carrying microphone signal, do any of this audio signal magnetic or electric fields leak out of the cable assembly.
If the cable assembly passes close to a for example chair leg, is the audio signal modified because of the proximity of the cable to such a conductive metallic material ?.
Eric.
Re: Still Slightly Different Subject.
Ok.
Yes. Though it also works to keep the cable from radiating noise.
Certainly. Particularly magnetic fields seeing as the typical shielding materials (copper braid or aluminum foil) aren't very effective at all with regard to shielding against magnetic fields. But then magnetic fields are kept pretty low to begin with due to the close proximity of the of the signal conductors.
Ultimately, yes. Particularly if the metallic material is ferromagnetic.
How significant it would be is another matter. But all electric and magnetic fields are effected by the permittivity and permeability of the medium they're propagating through.
se
mrfeedback said:
Ok.
Yes. Though it also works to keep the cable from radiating noise.
Certainly. Particularly magnetic fields seeing as the typical shielding materials (copper braid or aluminum foil) aren't very effective at all with regard to shielding against magnetic fields. But then magnetic fields are kept pretty low to begin with due to the close proximity of the of the signal conductors.
Ultimately, yes. Particularly if the metallic material is ferromagnetic.
How significant it would be is another matter. But all electric and magnetic fields are effected by the permittivity and permeability of the medium they're propagating through.
se
Follow On
Ok, given the above information, what would be the effect of putting a ferrite cylinder (ala pc monitor signal lead ferrite cylinder) around a microphone cable ?.
Eric.
Ok, given the above information, what would be the effect of putting a ferrite cylinder (ala pc monitor signal lead ferrite cylinder) around a microphone cable ?.
Eric.
Re: Follow On
It would tend to increase inductance and introduce a bit of hysteresis.
se
mrfeedback said:
It would tend to increase inductance and introduce a bit of hysteresis.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.