Well, I know that Darwin waited some 20-30 years to publish his theories and findings about natures selectivity
And even then got into serious trouble
No, its probably not your intention "to set the rules"
But the way you respond to people is slightly personal and aggressive
Surely these creative people dont like to share anymore of their maybe potentionally "valuable" experiences
If we quit this debate as of now, Im sure you wouldnt pursue any of this any further, as you dont seem to be interested in cables
The creative minds are needed to inspire us
Without inspiration we wont get anywhere
And even then got into serious trouble
No, its probably not your intention "to set the rules"
But the way you respond to people is slightly personal and aggressive
Surely these creative people dont like to share anymore of their maybe potentionally "valuable" experiences
If we quit this debate as of now, Im sure you wouldnt pursue any of this any further, as you dont seem to be interested in cables
The creative minds are needed to inspire us
Without inspiration we wont get anywhere
scott wurcer said:
Yes that is a pity, I should be good for some more discussions. Anyway, that whole paper is sort of un-Hawksford-wise, as if it was an experiment (for him) to see how this stuff would be received in non-engineering circles. He only did a few of these.
jd
tinitus said:
I think you lost the plot. Comparing any of these anecdotal stories with Darwin and evolutionay theory is ridiculous. It really looks as if you don't understand at all what it is to develop a theory and test it, repeat it, describe it and let others check it in order to put it on firm footing. Everything else is anecdotal stories.
jd
janneman said:
Actually, Darwin is apropos, though I fear for the opposite reason of what was intended. He took a very long time to publish because he well understood that his theory would be controversial, so it was important that the evidence be extensive and scrupulously laid out.
Being an honest person, he was also quite explicit about what he felt were possible holes and shortcomings in his theory (e.g., the evolution of the eye). With later discoveries, these potential objections were swept away and, despite the controversial nature of the theory, it was completely accepted by all serious scientists.
Evidence rather than bald assertion and anecdote. What a nutty concept!
SY said:
Well, Darwin was a creative thinker
Yes he used all his life to find evidence
And there is no comparison at all
And I probably shouldnt have mentioned
Only, somehow you remind me of the religious people who "forced" Darwin to keep his findings a secret all his life
tinitus said:
You're doing it again. What or whom do I try or force to keep a secret?
Edit: I see you answered SY, not me. So:
You're doing it again. What or whom does SY try or force to keep a secret?
jd
janneman said:
I dont like neither, but seems to be the dominating style here
You dont like it, neither do I
Anecdotal?
A very fine word from the literature
Ridiculously?
It is just that, to demand from us common DIYers to deliver scientific proof for every single experience
For those of you who get confused by BudP's long and wooly prose, you aren't alone. I talk with Bud quite often and he always leaves me confused, but curious. Bud's just like that. He does "think different."
But here's the cool thing. Bud gets results, and he has a great set of "ears." Meaning he hears things I don't - until he points them out to me. Then I can't help but hear them. Nor can others. (kinda like the new faux slate tile my wife put on the porch. Looked quite random to me - until she pointed out there are only 4 different tiles. Now I can't help but see it!)
I bought a number of coupling transformers and blind tested them in my circuit. Bud's transformers always won. I don't know how he does what he does - but he does seem to know what he's doing. (They do measure differently)
I don't think you'll ever get the type of "rigorous scientific" evidence you want out of Bud, he just isn't like that. Personally, I just take it for what it is and enjoy the fruits of his work and knowledge.
But I'd still love to see a well controlled ABX cable test. One that does show a listener can tell the difference between cables wit the same LCR values. If it shows he can’t, well… around we go again!
But here's the cool thing. Bud gets results, and he has a great set of "ears." Meaning he hears things I don't - until he points them out to me. Then I can't help but hear them. Nor can others. (kinda like the new faux slate tile my wife put on the porch. Looked quite random to me - until she pointed out there are only 4 different tiles. Now I can't help but see it!)
I bought a number of coupling transformers and blind tested them in my circuit. Bud's transformers always won. I don't know how he does what he does - but he does seem to know what he's doing. (They do measure differently)
I don't think you'll ever get the type of "rigorous scientific" evidence you want out of Bud, he just isn't like that. Personally, I just take it for what it is and enjoy the fruits of his work and knowledge.
But I'd still love to see a well controlled ABX cable test. One that does show a listener can tell the difference between cables wit the same LCR values. If it shows he can’t, well… around we go again!
tinitus said:
I agree, that doesn't look fair. But, I think that the reason that it is asked is because those experiences are presented as hard fact, sometimes even as overthrowing current knowledge.
Its a dilemma I guess. If you present your experience saying, hey, it's just my experience, it's not that interesting. If you present your experience as hey, I just discovered that turning my cable around causes the sound to expand, you can bet your sweet hind that there's a lot of interest, but probably not the kind you want 😉 .
jd
tinitus said:
Why? If he can now hear them (as opposed to Clever Hans), blind listening won't affect that.
Hi,
I for one am not confused by what he wrote.
It's actually pretty close to what dr. Hawksford explains in his article for Stereophile Janneman posted earlier on.
While I don't agree with everything that's written in the article, it does make sense to me.
Unfortunately, just like the vast majority of theis forum's members, I'm neither equipped to prove either way nor do I have the knowledge to figure out how to go about it scientifically.
One thing that has me intrigued is the role of the dielectricum, more precisely the permittivity of it and how it relates to the transmission of the signal.
Cheers, 😉
panomaniac said:
I for one am not confused by what he wrote.
It's actually pretty close to what dr. Hawksford explains in his article for Stereophile Janneman posted earlier on.
While I don't agree with everything that's written in the article, it does make sense to me.
Unfortunately, just like the vast majority of theis forum's members, I'm neither equipped to prove either way nor do I have the knowledge to figure out how to go about it scientifically.
One thing that has me intrigued is the role of the dielectricum, more precisely the permittivity of it and how it relates to the transmission of the signal.
Cheers, 😉
fdegrove said:
Well the thing that surprised me bigtime is the notion that if you had a perfect, zero-resistance material, the current would all be in the skin! The radial field inside the conductor pushes the moving charge outward to the boundary, and since it is zero resistance (in the perfect case), skin depth becomes very small (don't know, maybe one electron deep?).
Skin depth is non-zero just because of the 'normal' resistivity. That resistivity along the conductor causes a potential across a length of conductor giving rise to a field all by itself.
jd
Jan, in reality, you'd have to delve into quantum mechanics to get an accurate picture of charge propagation in superconductors- "skin effect" is only a gross model and largely inapplicable outside of classical E&M.
None of this, of course, has any relevance to hooking up your speakers.😀
None of this, of course, has any relevance to hooking up your speakers.😀
panomaniac said:
Let me restate my belief/thesis/challenge whatever you want to call it. A small team of those skilled in the art could build a cable (presumably from off the shelf ordinary matierials) to match an arbitrary second cable to the point that there is no stated preference for either cable in a DBT. The process could involve several trials to arrive at a final result.
I prefer this over the L,R, & C matching stuff. Exotic enough Litz construction could make this difficult. The failure of a single open ended trial like this would just fuel more controversy which maybe everyone wants anyway.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.