Just reporting what I found. I have no interest in looking at the issues I brought up in any greater depth. As for the predictability of how stacked dielectrics might work, when there is no charged plate for a D Field to link to (see Ralph Morrison's "Grounding and Shielding" on that subject), what would be your prediction for polyethylene wrapped in Kapton tape be? Or polyester / nylon wrapped in polyethylene or fiberglass coated in Mylar? My assumption was that with np D Field forcing a mirrored E Field and the use of symmetrically stacked dielectric materials, the effects would be minimal at best. That was before I put too much polyethylene on the Litz wire, and learned just how narrow a Q this sort of system has.
Scott,
I am glad that those of you involved in multi-billion dollar businesses, that use wires to help save lives, are conservative. However, there is a disconnect here. I do hope you will eventually realize what it is.
For the rest of you, go find a 2 foot long piece of zip cord, split it into two pieces, strip the ends back a couple of inches, fold it in half, twist the ends together and afix the bare wire bundle to the signal return lug on your amplifiers, or your speakers. You will need the other half of that length of zip cord for the other speaker or other channel amp if you have stereo. The results will be all you need to know about Electron Pools, except that they too are tunable, just like the speaker cables.
Bud
BudP said:
We are not on the same wavelength.
You are talking about predicting "aural effects" from material properties.
I was talking about predicting "a repeat performance" of the effect once you had discovered the effect and how much you needed to produce it.
I wasn't clear though.
But since you asked, no audible effect. 🙂
@ janneman,
thanks for your reply to my questing regarding the Toole paper.
I assumed that it was based on his mid90s JAES/Convention paper, and as i recall it, the scoring was done groupwise and therefore any conclusions drawn should be taken in that way.
I know, that it sound sometimes (ok ok mostly 🙂 ) pedantic, but it is important to remember that if a group _could_ _not_... it does not mean that not a _single_ member of this group _could_ have done the opposite, it may have been just swamped out by other results of group members.
thanks for your reply to my questing regarding the Toole paper.
I assumed that it was based on his mid90s JAES/Convention paper, and as i recall it, the scoring was done groupwise and therefore any conclusions drawn should be taken in that way.
I know, that it sound sometimes (ok ok mostly 🙂 ) pedantic, but it is important to remember that if a group _could_ _not_... it does not mean that not a _single_ member of this group _could_ have done the opposite, it may have been just swamped out by other results of group members.
Jakob, that is indeed true, with the larger groups having more of the dilution. But because the hard bottom limit is guessing (50%), one would expect to persistently see numbers somewhat greater than 50%. It's not Gaussian.
Individual tests have, to date, only shown null results. Although there's a possibility of the Black Swan, one can't test everyone, and at a certain point of testing individuals who claim to hear these effects, one can reasonably say, "There's no physical reason that effects beyond LCR should be audible, no group or individual tests have shown anything other than null, so it's unlikely there's anything there." At that point, as with dowsing, homeopathy, astrology, or ESP, it's up to the faith-based folk and wire peddlers to demonstrate that there's an effect before any serious practitioners will bother looking at it again.
"Demonstrate an effect" means actual subjective data, not invective, armchair hypothesizing, or anecdotes. The ball is in their court.
Individual tests have, to date, only shown null results. Although there's a possibility of the Black Swan, one can't test everyone, and at a certain point of testing individuals who claim to hear these effects, one can reasonably say, "There's no physical reason that effects beyond LCR should be audible, no group or individual tests have shown anything other than null, so it's unlikely there's anything there." At that point, as with dowsing, homeopathy, astrology, or ESP, it's up to the faith-based folk and wire peddlers to demonstrate that there's an effect before any serious practitioners will bother looking at it again.
"Demonstrate an effect" means actual subjective data, not invective, armchair hypothesizing, or anecdotes. The ball is in their court.
Hi,
Thanks for that link, Jan.
That article is way better than his earlier work as published in Hi-Fi News back in the Eighties.
Even if it's rather speculative, it is at least a well reasoned attempt to explain what could be a possible cause of differences between various cables.
Cheers, 😉
janneman said:
Thanks for that link, Jan.
That article is way better than his earlier work as published in Hi-Fi News back in the Eighties.
Even if it's rather speculative, it is at least a well reasoned attempt to explain what could be a possible cause of differences between various cables.
Cheers, 😉
fdegrove said:
I actually had a personal conversation with him about this paper, and while he admits that there is some speculation in it (which IARC is dutyfully marked as such) he does stand behind the major conclusions as to this day.
jd
Jakob2 said:
Well it indeed isn't the last word on this, but lets keep it in perspective.
Personal, anecdotal, uncontrolled and sighted tests are so far below tests like this wrt credibility that even mentioning them as if they are somehow comparable is a laugh.
jd
BudP said:
<snip>
Your lack of interest in pursuing your own suppositions belies your agenda...
BudP said:
let me guess... that reality and fantasy are two separate concepts???
or is it that honest hard work backed by decades of discipline and proven hypotheses is inferior to wild speculation and attribution of presumed causation to misunderstood and misguided application of phony technicalese and psuedoscientific technobabble..???
BudP said:
I tried something similar... the sound didn't change but the IC's mass increased by an amount exactly equal to the mass of the wire added...
try reading up on band theory wrt conduction.... u might then re-formulate your concepts about conduction electron availability in materials used in electronics....
then again... wouldn't want anything to dys-illusion(sic) your opinions on this subject by imposing the discipline of evidentiary science, would we??
😀 😉
janneman said:
It is unfortunate that due to professional ediquitte some of the criticism of his reasoning has remained unpublished. I only have it on someone else's word that there are major flaws in his math and/or interpretation of the results. This is from someone whose expertise is in EM theory.
janneman said:
Yeah, just one simple Bose licensed cable for all
No creativity
No opinions
no nothing
No questions asked
And we would all be happy
Do you know what it is you are suggesting
Yes, that limited time and economic resources be directed toward real issues rather than fairy tales.
Blind me, that would surely be nice
But without creative people "thinking out of the box" you wont be getting anywhere
But without creative people "thinking out of the box" you wont be getting anywhere
tinitus said:
Well, I wrote it, remember? 😉 And I didn't suggest anything. Certainly nothing of the kind of things you pluck out of thin air. Did you really read that in my post?
You don't agree to what I wrote?
Edit: I'm really disappointed that you feel it necessary to give this kind of responses to a serious post. Why do you ridicule it rather than say whether you disagree and why?
jd
Rules? I can't recall advocating "rules." Or advocating the censoring of anyone's views. Quite the opposite.
People are free to try oil-soaked silver wire, freezing their photographs, and volume control knobs made of polarized wood. They can demagnetize their vinyl records, cryogenically treat their vacuum tubes, and mark their speaker cones with mysterious patterns. That doesn't mean they should be taken seriously until they offer any actual evidence. And if someone advocates (say) major system improvements by test tones played over a telephone, he should likewise not be surprised if people find his assertions ridiculous.
edit: this was directed at tinitus, who edited out his statement about rules while I was responding.
People are free to try oil-soaked silver wire, freezing their photographs, and volume control knobs made of polarized wood. They can demagnetize their vinyl records, cryogenically treat their vacuum tubes, and mark their speaker cones with mysterious patterns. That doesn't mean they should be taken seriously until they offer any actual evidence. And if someone advocates (say) major system improvements by test tones played over a telephone, he should likewise not be surprised if people find his assertions ridiculous.
edit: this was directed at tinitus, who edited out his statement about rules while I was responding.
tinitus said:
I agree that there's a lot of 'out of the box' here. It's the thinking I miss 😉
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.