Well lets take that a little further.
Let us test any number of random cables and find the "best" one. Then measure it and apply its FR and level differences to another cable via EQ. So that now 2 different cables "measure" the same in level and FR. Do they now sound the same?
You have entered an unknown variable in the EQ to the scenario. These components are just bigger tone controls that introduce their own issues to the equation.
I'll go even further- as the "cable that will be EQ'd," use some Romex or heavy zip cord. Try it first blind without the EQ, since it's possible that the EQ is superfluous and the differences are inaudible with the chosen room, equipment, and source. If it's distinguishable, it would be fun to duplicate the fancy stuff with cheap wire and a couple of cheap passive parts.
Well I wasn't thinking passive EQ, but that would work. I was going to get fancy and EQ the digital file. =)
Gentleman,
This is Bob Smith of Aether Audio... the "ignorant" guy that wrote the "ignorant" Debye paper. I wish I could say I was coming here under much more amicable circumstances, but unfortunately the insults of a few have already spread like a melanoma and gotten my attention.
First off though I would like to thank John Curl. Sir... it is of with great honor that my paper has even received you attention, let alone comments of support. I hold you in very great respect as one of the true pioneers of the industry. I could not be more honored if your comments came from my former mentors Gerald Stanley and D.B. Keele (formerly) of Crown International, as its gentlemen like you that have paved the way for all of us. Thank you so much for you open-mindedness. Know I realize you are even more gifted than I had previously thought.
Ok... now for the ugly stuff. Mr. Sy... I figure you must be a real smart guy with a PHD or whatever, and that I hold the greatest respect for. But when a person uses such to be rude and condescending without even doing their research before making personal attacks on another, their degree or other prior accomplishments don't amount to much more than a gold ring in the snout of a pig.
Just how much do you think you know about me? I would have assumed that someone of your (not so) obvious "intellegence" would have realized that I wrote that paper for audiophiles... not PHDs. Were I to have submitted something similar to the AES for peer review and publication or whatever, that paper wouldn't even resemble the form it does now. It took all I had to simplify it so that the average non-tech person could have a hope of understanding it. Obviously along the way I mixed terms such as swapping conductors for cables, etc., but that's of little concern to the audiophiles as even they get the point.
On the otherhand we have knuckleheads like you and andy_c that get off on picking the "fly crap out of the pepper" as an apparent exercise in stroking your own egos more than anything. Anybody that wasn't hell bent on finding fault woudn't have wasted the time in pointing out such trivial issues.
Rather than attack my character, education and motives, why didn't you simply point out the obvious FUNDAMENTAL errors? You know... the error in my understanding of the core principles? Did you find any? If so, please share them as I'm all ears when it comes to learning. Unlike some, I surely don't see myself as being above reproach. If I am in error, please just "politely" (check Webster for the definition) point it out and I'll stand corrected and tip my hat to you for making the effort. You notice I made no reference to "polorons," "plasmons," "magnons," or the like? There's a reason for that - I did the research to make sure I knew (as best to my ability) that I knew what I was talking about. That would be in contrast to some pseudo-science audiophile "loose cannon" that just picks up on keywords and runs with them.
So far though... nobody has suggested or pointed out anything of the kind. Rather, it's simply been one of a blind attack on my character, knowledge and motives. That alone speaks volumes to those that can read between the lines.
No... I'm no PHD. God knows I wish I'd made different choices in my youth and that I hold "true" knowledge in the highest regard. At the same time I have nothing but the greatest disdain for those that have "a little" and sit in their ivory towers or parade around with pomp and "airs" as "keepers of the truth." Your nothing more than the equivalent of "Pharasees" in the days of Christ's ministry. God forbid somebody did have the truth but not your credentials. Surely he'd be "crucified." I see the Roman soldiers coming as I write.
Sure, I'll admit my education is limited, but I've learned a fair share from experience. I worked for the better part of 9 years in the engineering department of Crown International's former Techron Division. Working under the direction of Gerald Stanley we designed and built some of the largest audio amps in the world (40KW +) for the medeical MRI imagining industry. Don't think for a minute that was a playground for "hacks"... or that I didn't learn a tremendous amount about the scientific process. It was guys like Gerald that tought me to have the deepest respect for education and knowledge... but then they didn't parade around like "know-it-all" ***** either... even though they pretty much did.
Along with that I worked for 2 years as Engineer In Charge at our local WSBT-TV station (shift work with several others) and was responsible for the entire facility on my shift. Ha!... and I don't know the difference between AM, FM, transmission lines... whatever. You guys are just plain jerks getting off on stroking yourselves.
What really cracks me up is that it was obvious in my paper and clearly stated that this was only a "proposed" model and that there was no direct scientific evidence or measurement to back it up - just anecdotal claims. In fact, it was nothing more than an effort to draw a correlation between observations and a "possible" explaination... and everything fit pretty well the way I see it. I left open the door for measurement and the possibility that the model could be proven wrong thereby, and even suggested a possible test method. You know... ideas and suggestions for further research... "man" - that's all - frick'n chill out. Nothing to get your panties in a wad over. Don't worry... "little Bob" isn't about to knock you out of your ivory tower or anything like that. Huh... or am I? 😱
It looks a lot to me that some folks just can't stand the thought that somebody else had an idea that they never thought of... especially when they're supposed to be the "keepers of all knowledge." For all of your knowledge and education, have you ever hade an "original" thought? Or do you collect knowledge like so many little antique vases and just spend you time shining them to show off to your aquaintances? Yeah, let somebody else stick their neck out so you can come along and chop their head off. Instead of shooting me or others down for trying to explain things, why don't you propose your own theory that attempts to prove that it's impossible for cables to sound different? We're waiting. 😛 "No guts - no glory."
You know, looking back at it all there's a lot of you guys that should feel ashamed. I didn't offer up one bit of "new physics" whatsoever and based everything on knowledge that's been around for a very long time. When did Peter Debye propose his model anyway? 🙄 All I did was draw some basic lines of connection between a few well established scientific facts and anecdotal observations. Even if the idea is completely wrong, it looks "good enough" that somebody a lot smarter than me should have at least considered it long before I did. Just like my waveguide designs. "Nothing new under the sun" but the "experts" whistled right past thinking they knew it all and never even stopped to think. Do either of you guys build speakers? If so... let's do a shoot-out. Nah... wouldn't be fair - you don't stand a chance.
Granted the observations of so many could be wrong and possibly everybody that makes such claims is dillusional. Then again, all reality is really about perception (unles your not keeping up on the latest theories and things like super-position and what-not) and it's the "majority" that establishes the definition thereof. In that context I'll gaurantee there are a lot more audiophiles hearing cable differences than scientists saying they're "nuts."
So then... there is a difference in cables and you guys are nuts because you believe in and trust a science that (only "apparently" for now) can't come to terms with reality. Gee... like that would be a "first." 😀
Oh... that's right... you guys now believe in "M" theory and infinite dimensions. Hmm, well... I guess you'll "get there" eventually - just a little "slow" is all. Back at you Mr. Scientist. 
"Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."
Ok... well enough. I said my piece and this time maybe some of you guys accidentally came up against a lot bigger "rock" than the last one you blew to pieces. Again, I'm totally open to where somebody can point out any obvious errors in my thinking. Until then, you might wanna watch your tongue lest you accidentally identify the wrong fool. 😉
-Bob
PS. Have some guts and come on over to my circle at AudioCircle and let's continue the debate: AAether Audio Stick you neck out in my neighborhood like I did here and where your not surrounded by your cronies.
This is Bob Smith of Aether Audio... the "ignorant" guy that wrote the "ignorant" Debye paper. I wish I could say I was coming here under much more amicable circumstances, but unfortunately the insults of a few have already spread like a melanoma and gotten my attention.
First off though I would like to thank John Curl. Sir... it is of with great honor that my paper has even received you attention, let alone comments of support. I hold you in very great respect as one of the true pioneers of the industry. I could not be more honored if your comments came from my former mentors Gerald Stanley and D.B. Keele (formerly) of Crown International, as its gentlemen like you that have paved the way for all of us. Thank you so much for you open-mindedness. Know I realize you are even more gifted than I had previously thought.
Ok... now for the ugly stuff. Mr. Sy... I figure you must be a real smart guy with a PHD or whatever, and that I hold the greatest respect for. But when a person uses such to be rude and condescending without even doing their research before making personal attacks on another, their degree or other prior accomplishments don't amount to much more than a gold ring in the snout of a pig.
Just how much do you think you know about me? I would have assumed that someone of your (not so) obvious "intellegence" would have realized that I wrote that paper for audiophiles... not PHDs. Were I to have submitted something similar to the AES for peer review and publication or whatever, that paper wouldn't even resemble the form it does now. It took all I had to simplify it so that the average non-tech person could have a hope of understanding it. Obviously along the way I mixed terms such as swapping conductors for cables, etc., but that's of little concern to the audiophiles as even they get the point.
On the otherhand we have knuckleheads like you and andy_c that get off on picking the "fly crap out of the pepper" as an apparent exercise in stroking your own egos more than anything. Anybody that wasn't hell bent on finding fault woudn't have wasted the time in pointing out such trivial issues.
Rather than attack my character, education and motives, why didn't you simply point out the obvious FUNDAMENTAL errors? You know... the error in my understanding of the core principles? Did you find any? If so, please share them as I'm all ears when it comes to learning. Unlike some, I surely don't see myself as being above reproach. If I am in error, please just "politely" (check Webster for the definition) point it out and I'll stand corrected and tip my hat to you for making the effort. You notice I made no reference to "polorons," "plasmons," "magnons," or the like? There's a reason for that - I did the research to make sure I knew (as best to my ability) that I knew what I was talking about. That would be in contrast to some pseudo-science audiophile "loose cannon" that just picks up on keywords and runs with them.
So far though... nobody has suggested or pointed out anything of the kind. Rather, it's simply been one of a blind attack on my character, knowledge and motives. That alone speaks volumes to those that can read between the lines.
No... I'm no PHD. God knows I wish I'd made different choices in my youth and that I hold "true" knowledge in the highest regard. At the same time I have nothing but the greatest disdain for those that have "a little" and sit in their ivory towers or parade around with pomp and "airs" as "keepers of the truth." Your nothing more than the equivalent of "Pharasees" in the days of Christ's ministry. God forbid somebody did have the truth but not your credentials. Surely he'd be "crucified." I see the Roman soldiers coming as I write.
Sure, I'll admit my education is limited, but I've learned a fair share from experience. I worked for the better part of 9 years in the engineering department of Crown International's former Techron Division. Working under the direction of Gerald Stanley we designed and built some of the largest audio amps in the world (40KW +) for the medeical MRI imagining industry. Don't think for a minute that was a playground for "hacks"... or that I didn't learn a tremendous amount about the scientific process. It was guys like Gerald that tought me to have the deepest respect for education and knowledge... but then they didn't parade around like "know-it-all" ***** either... even though they pretty much did.
Along with that I worked for 2 years as Engineer In Charge at our local WSBT-TV station (shift work with several others) and was responsible for the entire facility on my shift. Ha!... and I don't know the difference between AM, FM, transmission lines... whatever. You guys are just plain jerks getting off on stroking yourselves.
What really cracks me up is that it was obvious in my paper and clearly stated that this was only a "proposed" model and that there was no direct scientific evidence or measurement to back it up - just anecdotal claims. In fact, it was nothing more than an effort to draw a correlation between observations and a "possible" explaination... and everything fit pretty well the way I see it. I left open the door for measurement and the possibility that the model could be proven wrong thereby, and even suggested a possible test method. You know... ideas and suggestions for further research... "man" - that's all - frick'n chill out. Nothing to get your panties in a wad over. Don't worry... "little Bob" isn't about to knock you out of your ivory tower or anything like that. Huh... or am I? 😱
It looks a lot to me that some folks just can't stand the thought that somebody else had an idea that they never thought of... especially when they're supposed to be the "keepers of all knowledge." For all of your knowledge and education, have you ever hade an "original" thought? Or do you collect knowledge like so many little antique vases and just spend you time shining them to show off to your aquaintances? Yeah, let somebody else stick their neck out so you can come along and chop their head off. Instead of shooting me or others down for trying to explain things, why don't you propose your own theory that attempts to prove that it's impossible for cables to sound different? We're waiting. 😛 "No guts - no glory."
You know, looking back at it all there's a lot of you guys that should feel ashamed. I didn't offer up one bit of "new physics" whatsoever and based everything on knowledge that's been around for a very long time. When did Peter Debye propose his model anyway? 🙄 All I did was draw some basic lines of connection between a few well established scientific facts and anecdotal observations. Even if the idea is completely wrong, it looks "good enough" that somebody a lot smarter than me should have at least considered it long before I did. Just like my waveguide designs. "Nothing new under the sun" but the "experts" whistled right past thinking they knew it all and never even stopped to think. Do either of you guys build speakers? If so... let's do a shoot-out. Nah... wouldn't be fair - you don't stand a chance.
Granted the observations of so many could be wrong and possibly everybody that makes such claims is dillusional. Then again, all reality is really about perception (unles your not keeping up on the latest theories and things like super-position and what-not) and it's the "majority" that establishes the definition thereof. In that context I'll gaurantee there are a lot more audiophiles hearing cable differences than scientists saying they're "nuts."
So then... there is a difference in cables and you guys are nuts because you believe in and trust a science that (only "apparently" for now) can't come to terms with reality. Gee... like that would be a "first." 😀
Oh... that's right... you guys now believe in "M" theory and infinite dimensions. Hmm, well... I guess you'll "get there" eventually - just a little "slow" is all. Back at you Mr. Scientist. "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."Ok... well enough. I said my piece and this time maybe some of you guys accidentally came up against a lot bigger "rock" than the last one you blew to pieces. Again, I'm totally open to where somebody can point out any obvious errors in my thinking. Until then, you might wanna watch your tongue lest you accidentally identify the wrong fool. 😉
-Bob
PS. Have some guts and come on over to my circle at AudioCircle and let's continue the debate: AAether Audio Stick you neck out in my neighborhood like I did here and where your not surrounded by your cronies.
". . .and stood out for their engaging presentation. . ." describes "branded sound" as I posted earlier.
Amplifiers aren't really supposed to stand out quite that much, because that is called a distortion. But, its not necessarily an error when it is built to do it. That is also called. . .
Thank you moderator! I like ya!
On description, I had guessed that the Jadis was an effects box--a rather addictive effects box, it seems.
I don't know what the "rules" are for tube amps; however, Solid State tends to act up at approximately 20W@8R (not much larger than a biggie pre-drive section) as the make/break point for "amplifier is its own effects box."
Although its seems technically more appropriate to use a separate, smaller "preamp-like" unit so that the consideration of effects can be separate from the power amp. Either that or the amplifier is bolted to its own speaker, called "active speaker" so that measurements can be purpose based on just the one speaker.
What is the general make/break point of scale for "amplifier is its own effects box" with tubes?
It seems that Jadis made a few errors, such as scale too large and employing a heavy-handed "one fell swoop" approach that sent the amp out of spec. That amp seems to need a correction circuit whereby it goes closer-to-spec as the output increases.
The really tough thing about a pleasing distortion is that replacing it with something technically cleaner can be a tall order. Its doable. . . directly after one admits what one wants, which is FUN! Caveat: Nothing about that is easy. 😉
Let me guess: because as somebody already mentioned, quoting Pauli: "It's not even wrong".
First my apologies for being 5 pages behind. You sleep, you miss a lot.
from RDF
Dont get me wrong, I like Brystons. But I bet there still using the unique output topology (the only real difference in there amps) they invented 30 years ago.
from RDF
Dont get me wrong, I like Brystons. But I bet there still using the unique output topology (the only real difference in there amps) they invented 30 years ago.
I could care less what you want to call it, but when an amplifier brings the sound of music that much closer to the "live experience", I cll that greatness, as did many others. Branded sound? Give me all of the branded sound in the universe if it gets me closer to the sound of real live unamplified music!
Last edited:
OK Bob,
To comment in a not confrontational manner. First, 1/f noise modulation as, for instance, in some tube circuits is well known. A Wheatstone bridge of sufficiently bad resistors, when balanced to reject the drive signal, will still show the noise modulation since the four noises are uncorellated.
Secondly, as pointed out previously, the nonuniformity of speed of propagation of sound in air is certainly above the ppm level in any normal environment and the resulting phase noise is not separable from other sources.
Inappropriate simplifications and analogies for the "layman" usually end up full of seriously wrong or easily misinterpreted facts. Yes, a full discussion of the phonon as quantum mechanical quasi-particle would lose most audiophiles.
To move forward to your conclusions. A cable as a conductor has a resistance and as such it can exhibit excess noise with current as any resistor. By known classical mechanisms a (your?) test could measure this effect.
I can't really tell but if you are trying to show 1/f noise in a resistance with no excitation you are up against a few first principles.
To comment in a not confrontational manner. First, 1/f noise modulation as, for instance, in some tube circuits is well known. A Wheatstone bridge of sufficiently bad resistors, when balanced to reject the drive signal, will still show the noise modulation since the four noises are uncorellated.
Secondly, as pointed out previously, the nonuniformity of speed of propagation of sound in air is certainly above the ppm level in any normal environment and the resulting phase noise is not separable from other sources.
Inappropriate simplifications and analogies for the "layman" usually end up full of seriously wrong or easily misinterpreted facts. Yes, a full discussion of the phonon as quantum mechanical quasi-particle would lose most audiophiles.
To move forward to your conclusions. A cable as a conductor has a resistance and as such it can exhibit excess noise with current as any resistor. By known classical mechanisms a (your?) test could measure this effect.
I can't really tell but if you are trying to show 1/f noise in a resistance with no excitation you are up against a few first principles.
Last edited:
Well said, Bob. I don't have the 'ability' anymore to say it. The Prozac keeps me in control. I knew D.B Keele. One of the best minds in the audio business.
And that has not to do with ''mood''? OK I will try punk rock at 110dB spl before morning coffee. Only the word ''emotional'' says it all. Remotely relevant to natural laws. Its simply another order of discussion. Pin that and there is no argument.
It is the ability of a system to recreate convincingly the emotion of the performer,singer and music as a whole that Curly Woods was refering to in his post.Totally different thing to what mood you might be in,either in the morning having your coffe,or late in the evening with some special company
Curly;
So now its a p*ssing war?
Have YOU ever worked in the audio field? And hocking gear dosnt count.
Im an EE who has worked in professional (not in the basement) recording studios for 20 years, recording and mixing music, comercials, TV and movies. I have also done a lot of tech work modifying, repairing and installing professional audio equipment. Presently I edit and design sound effects for TV and movies. I spend my day and make a living listening.
If image has nothing to do with it why are the HiFI mags full of beautiful glossy full page adds with adjectives that are better suited to religious experience?
Envy for what? You? Pity maybe.
So now its a p*ssing war?
Have YOU ever worked in the audio field? And hocking gear dosnt count.
Im an EE who has worked in professional (not in the basement) recording studios for 20 years, recording and mixing music, comercials, TV and movies. I have also done a lot of tech work modifying, repairing and installing professional audio equipment. Presently I edit and design sound effects for TV and movies. I spend my day and make a living listening.
If image has nothing to do with it why are the HiFI mags full of beautiful glossy full page adds with adjectives that are better suited to religious experience?
Envy for what? You? Pity maybe.
Again the point eludes me. Is the claim Bryston made no circuit changes in the pursuit of sound quality since I bought a 2B in the Seventies? You made a common claim, stereotyping 'audiophools' as anti-engineering, as fleeing from properly engineered product. I submitted the most trivial of lists demonstrating the falsehood of that claim. Bryston remains extremely well engineered and acclaimed product (as does Parasound, PSB & Paradigm, the latter heavy users of the NRC, etc. etc. etc.). The stereotype is false.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.