Kuei Yang Wang said:
OK - let me put things into perspective. The numbers here are at least eight orders of magnitude below what may reasonably considered significant. Even astronomers find this level of discrepancy troubling. If you move the wires to within 0.1mm of each other, they will still only move by 37 nanometres. That's a few parts per million, and it will change neither the inductance, capacitance, characteristic impedance, or anything else about the cable, by any remotely significant amount.
I don't object to a subjectivist approach in the slightest, but if you try to explain stuff in terms of things I actually know about, you'd better be up for a good argument.
Cheers
IH
That's pretty vague. Can you tell me what was submitted, by whom, when (a year will do), the referee's reason for rejection, and what the author did to answer the objections? Two or three examples would be sufficient to establish some sort of pattern. And if there's a pattern, believe me, much noise and stink will be made.
Making a grave charge against a reputable journal and organization is serious. It ought to be investigated, if true. I would hate to think that this is going on. And I'd hate to think that it's NOT going on and that you're making baseless accusations. I'd like to determine what is true, but a simple, "Talk to someone else" doesn't get me anywhere.
Making a grave charge against a reputable journal and organization is serious. It ought to be investigated, if true. I would hate to think that this is going on. And I'd hate to think that it's NOT going on and that you're making baseless accusations. I'd like to determine what is true, but a simple, "Talk to someone else" doesn't get me anywhere.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
But why does it have to be 'belief' ? Can't we simply use good ol' physics and math ? Human hearing could be difficult to quantify, so let's leave it aside for the moment.
How about the principle that in order to hear something, speaker has to move ? That is simple enough, no ?
It is also simple enough to find the threshold signal level below which speaker will NOT move, as current applied will completely dissipate as heat in the coil and lossy suspension. Every driver's response becomes decidely nonlinear at the extremes (very low and very high signals). Methinks that from YOUR measurement data (if memory serves you cited -70 to -90 dB for tested cables) we'd be talking microvolt residuals at speaker terminals.
Even if our ears weren't saturated with main signal, even if we could isolate this error signal and play it alone, a typical bass or midrange with their lossy and dampened spiders will be having really hard time trying to move AT ALL with this level of energy at its disposal.
How are we going to hear it if it wasn't there in the first place ?
(and let's not even get into the ability of a driver, no matter how high end, to superimpose this level of signal onto of the movements caused by main signal 80dB or so above. It would make a very interesting study though about accelerations involved, stiffness that is required and materials that are available)
Bratislav
IanHarvey said:
I think these modifications to your analysis are believable:
Halve distance, double the force
I=7A, 49x
22 gauge cable, 10x the acceleration
f=30Hz, 100x the peak displacement
So now D is about 6.2e-5.
(3E-3+D)/(3E-3-D)=0.96
So the change in capacitance is almost 4%. Honestly I also find it highly questionable that this is audible, but 4% is at least approaching significance.
I found 5 orders of magnitude for you at least. 🙂
7A through 22 gauge cable. It would be interesting to see how much temperature rise that corresponds to.
Pretty extreme I would say. 😉 However, we ARE talking about music. If we are talking about peak power of 200W into a 4 ohm load, average power is probably less than 20W. Unless the loud passages are continuous, the cable will survive.
(Especially if the impedance dip is in the bass region)
(Especially if the impedance dip is in the bass region)
tiroth said:
So you're listening to drum'n'bass at about 110dB, and you wire your speakers up with bits of gardening wire.
I suggest the drugs you must have ingested by this point would alter what you're hearing vastly more than 4% change in capacitance...
Cheers
IH
There is no need to get defensive. I have in my possession cable just like that. It came with some KLH bookhelf speakers that I use for pre-testing projects.
I was merely demonstrating that it is believable that the effects could be 5 orders greater than stated. Wasn't the entire point of this exercise to maximise D within reasonable limits on the cable?
I was merely demonstrating that it is believable that the effects could be 5 orders greater than stated. Wasn't the entire point of this exercise to maximise D within reasonable limits on the cable?
If that was directed at me, tiroth, I was only having fun with the idea. No offense intended. But I still wonder about thermal modulation of plain old DCR at the 30Hz rep rate. Not to mention the greater thermal rise with time during the test.
Did you ever run 7A through those KLHs? I'll bet it was... spectacular.
Did you ever run 7A through those KLHs? I'll bet it was... spectacular.
No, not you SY. I just thought it funny that Ian would start a physics-based line of reasoning, then suddenly switch to a non-physics argument for why it wouldn't matter.
I was just trying to see how big the effect could be (within reason) by modifying the test parameters.
I've certainly never tried to put 7A though that cable. ^_^
I was just trying to see how big the effect could be (within reason) by modifying the test parameters.
I've certainly never tried to put 7A though that cable. ^_^
Someone just had to mention the *******' AES.....
SIGH..........(pun inteneded).........
I won't threadjack here, but the AES is very narrow-minded, and if you do not "toe the party line", then you are out of line.
I speak from experience, and let's leave it at that. This thread is too amusing to interrupt with my hatred of them thar' people.
I now return this food fight back to its original combatants.
Jocko
SIGH..........(pun inteneded).........
I won't threadjack here, but the AES is very narrow-minded, and if you do not "toe the party line", then you are out of line.
I speak from experience, and let's leave it at that. This thread is too amusing to interrupt with my hatred of them thar' people.
I now return this food fight back to its original combatants.
Jocko
Jocko, why do you think it's OK to accuse an organization of unethical behavior and then not give any evidence, just make dark implications?
To be clear, I'm not an AES member. I don't have any experience with submitting to their journal or presenting papers at their meetings. I do read the journal, I have found many useful and interesting papers with all sorts of unexpected results. It appears to be a journal and an organization similar to the professional organizations I've belonged to (American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Electrochemical Society, Society for Applied Spectroscopy) and the journal appears similar to journals like JACS. Maybe someone with direct experience like Jan Didden can confirm this.
In any event, "toe the party line" all too often means, "they want solid and replicable proof for unusual claims." And that's the way research works. If you've got specifics on how the AES is refusing to publish pertinent papers with important results and a necessary standard of evidence, give with it.
To be clear, I'm not an AES member. I don't have any experience with submitting to their journal or presenting papers at their meetings. I do read the journal, I have found many useful and interesting papers with all sorts of unexpected results. It appears to be a journal and an organization similar to the professional organizations I've belonged to (American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Electrochemical Society, Society for Applied Spectroscopy) and the journal appears similar to journals like JACS. Maybe someone with direct experience like Jan Didden can confirm this.
In any event, "toe the party line" all too often means, "they want solid and replicable proof for unusual claims." And that's the way research works. If you've got specifics on how the AES is refusing to publish pertinent papers with important results and a necessary standard of evidence, give with it.
tiroth said:
The point is a serious one. The "worst case" numbers we should allow here are the worst that might reasonably occur in a test situation where the tester could credibly have claimed to have heard magnetostrictive effects.
For instance, I can't believe golden-eared audiophiles would regularly subject themselves to mean sound levels in excess of 95dB - (in the UK at least) this would fall foul of occupational health legislation. Your figure of 3g/m for cable mass implies (given the density of copper) about 0.3mm^2 cross-section; typical wire of this size would have resistive losses which would easily account for any audible effects.
Cheers
IH
I beg to differ. I think the question you were responding to was "how big of an effect can magnetorestriction have?" Once you find an answer to that in the general case, you can start applying that answer to better-designed cables.--it doesn't matter how big R is in this case; R is not the parameter under test!
At any rate I think we've already demonstrated that the effect of "M" on capacitance is extremely minor.
At any rate I think we've already demonstrated that the effect of "M" on capacitance is extremely minor.
Now we're getting somewhere
When you said
I kinda thought you were saying that magnetostriction was relevant to speaker cables, and this was how it worked,
But to be fair, no where did you say it actually mattered, and only you know for sure whether or not you meant to infer it. Thus, I apologize for reading too much into your statement. So for clarity, since you have emphatically said that it only MAY effect the sound, we need only assess probability. I think Ian did a marvelous job of showing a basic 0 probability and a near 0 possibility from a capacitive standpoint at least. You don’t like his 3mm spacing and the fact that his calculations should have been for L, so again it appears that you still hold to the idea that magnetostriction can have an effect. Since Ian already did most of the hard work, I think you can plug in a more realistic spacing and solve for L.
So, you have two options, show relevance for L, or admit that it cannot have any Real effect on the sound.
Thanks for the URL Pjotr, I read the whole thing and bookmarked it, there’s a wealth of good data that can be used for approximations, assuming that they haven’t been fabricated by the ABX mafia, one never knows does one?
Your reverse reasoning post was nice, but hey, I’ll indulge Thorsten and give it the old college try.
Somehow I just know this doesn't meet your definition of exact, but I'm really at a loss to figure out what does. Sorry, I guess I can't give you exactly what my objections are after all.
I'd like also to mention that while you can grab some pretty extreme numbers and show a perhaps 4% change in capacitance that this is still an example that is unrealistically biased towards showing a difference and it still fails. Let’s not forget that in order to keep things simple Ian assumes air to be holding the wires. In fact they will be held in place with much more force. Even just lying on the floor there will be a much larger resistance to movement than hanging in free air, let alone bound by insulation inside a cable. Understand, I'm not finding fault here at all, just adding a little relevent info.
Chris
When you said
I kinda thought you were saying that magnetostriction was relevant to speaker cables, and this was how it worked,
But to be fair, no where did you say it actually mattered, and only you know for sure whether or not you meant to infer it. Thus, I apologize for reading too much into your statement. So for clarity, since you have emphatically said that it only MAY effect the sound, we need only assess probability. I think Ian did a marvelous job of showing a basic 0 probability and a near 0 possibility from a capacitive standpoint at least. You don’t like his 3mm spacing and the fact that his calculations should have been for L, so again it appears that you still hold to the idea that magnetostriction can have an effect. Since Ian already did most of the hard work, I think you can plug in a more realistic spacing and solve for L.
So, you have two options, show relevance for L, or admit that it cannot have any Real effect on the sound.
Thanks for the URL Pjotr, I read the whole thing and bookmarked it, there’s a wealth of good data that can be used for approximations, assuming that they haven’t been fabricated by the ABX mafia, one never knows does one?
Your reverse reasoning post was nice, but hey, I’ll indulge Thorsten and give it the old college try.
I can’t answer that one for sure until you specify what differences. But I’ll assume (which is always dangerous with you) that you mean “audible” differences. I think it is possible to design a cable that will make a difference, it’s already been shown that extra DCR of less than an ohm can create audible attenuation, but since attenuation is not distortion and it is on the order of 1db or so it won’t make a real difference from a fidelity standpoint. You could design a cable with heaps of capacitance which could roll off the highs, so in this case it would, but why would you?
I think you’re saying here that there are some audible differences that cannot be measured with current technology. Exactly why I think this is not true is because I have yet to see any real data that I could interpret to support this. I know of no principles where a sound could be detected by a human ear which could not be detected by a good microphone. I accept the possibility but not the probability. There are all kinds of things that the brain can do with the sounds it receives, that current technology may not be able to replicate, but that is outside the argument. A sound is a sound, and if my ear can detect it, a microphone can too.
Sure thing
Repeat answer 2)
Well my understanding of the “pin 1 problem” was that it happened with balanced interconnections, as a typical unbalanced interconnect does not really have a pin 1. But you’re the recording engineer, so I’ll take your word for it. Regardless, I’d say that if we change all sorts of things within a basic shielded twisted pair such as shield material, insulation etc. it will have no measurable affect whatsoever on ground loop problems.
Somehow I just know this doesn't meet your definition of exact, but I'm really at a loss to figure out what does. Sorry, I guess I can't give you exactly what my objections are after all.
I'd like also to mention that while you can grab some pretty extreme numbers and show a perhaps 4% change in capacitance that this is still an example that is unrealistically biased towards showing a difference and it still fails. Let’s not forget that in order to keep things simple Ian assumes air to be holding the wires. In fact they will be held in place with much more force. Even just lying on the floor there will be a much larger resistance to movement than hanging in free air, let alone bound by insulation inside a cable. Understand, I'm not finding fault here at all, just adding a little relevent info.
Chris
SY:
I don't want to debate that here. If you want a full answer, I would rather do it in a way that does not turn into a food fight.
Basically, they told me my "methods were irrartional and disproven" when I compalined about the repetive nature of the papers that made their way into the Journal, as opposed to work that was presented, but left for us to shell out $$$ to read.
Mind you......disproven by means of all the things that I objected to. The fact that my findings were contrary was irrelevent.
So....they told me I was an idoit, but not a big enough idiot for them to not cash my membership check.
I don't want to debate that here. If you want a full answer, I would rather do it in a way that does not turn into a food fight.
Basically, they told me my "methods were irrartional and disproven" when I compalined about the repetive nature of the papers that made their way into the Journal, as opposed to work that was presented, but left for us to shell out $$$ to read.
Mind you......disproven by means of all the things that I objected to. The fact that my findings were contrary was irrelevent.
So....they told me I was an idoit, but not a big enough idiot for them to not cash my membership check.
Jeez, Jocko, I'm not interested in food fights or debates, least of all with you. I'm just trying to get some factual basis for some pretty serious charges.
(Note to all: do not be offended by my analogis. Jocko has a sense of humor) If I went onto a public message board and said, "Jocko Homo is fond of diddling underage sheep, but I don't want to go into how I know this," you might reasonably take some offense. "Jocko Homo has repeatedly faked his results." Don't ask me how I know; I speak from experience and let's just leave it at that. Wow, that's pretty nasty and unanswerable charge, no?
Have you considered the possibility that your methods actually ARE irrational and disproven? I got the same comment from a J. Chem. Phys. referee when I looked at some problems of heat flow using the phlogiston theory.
(Note to all: do not be offended by my analogis. Jocko has a sense of humor) If I went onto a public message board and said, "Jocko Homo is fond of diddling underage sheep, but I don't want to go into how I know this," you might reasonably take some offense. "Jocko Homo has repeatedly faked his results." Don't ask me how I know; I speak from experience and let's just leave it at that. Wow, that's pretty nasty and unanswerable charge, no?
Have you considered the possibility that your methods actually ARE irrational and disproven? I got the same comment from a J. Chem. Phys. referee when I looked at some problems of heat flow using the phlogiston theory.
Well, I may be getting to this late....but.....like the instigator of this thread I see no sense in the $500/m cable that purists praise.
As someone involved in broadcast engineering I understand and appreciate that a cheap zip cord is not as good as decent cable (Radio Shack Gold) However, the characteristics that the purists attribute to "wonder cable" defy rigorous engineering explanation. Psychological explainations I accept, and if you feel good about your investmant then more power to you.
The one that just boggles the mind are those who debate the audible differences in IEC cords for amplifiers. Perhaps those folks should consider the nature of their home wiring more carefully!
When I have had occasion to visit someone who subscribes to these or similar beliefs I have been dismayed to see how little consideration they give to the acousts of their listening environment. The impact of un/ill-considered acoustics will easily swamp much of the difference between electronics or speakers.
Just my opinion. Not worth much ;-)
Michael
As someone involved in broadcast engineering I understand and appreciate that a cheap zip cord is not as good as decent cable (Radio Shack Gold) However, the characteristics that the purists attribute to "wonder cable" defy rigorous engineering explanation. Psychological explainations I accept, and if you feel good about your investmant then more power to you.
The one that just boggles the mind are those who debate the audible differences in IEC cords for amplifiers. Perhaps those folks should consider the nature of their home wiring more carefully!
When I have had occasion to visit someone who subscribes to these or similar beliefs I have been dismayed to see how little consideration they give to the acousts of their listening environment. The impact of un/ill-considered acoustics will easily swamp much of the difference between electronics or speakers.
Just my opinion. Not worth much ;-)
Michael
If my methods were really THAT irrational......
Then:
1.) Every amp that I ever built would have sounded like dreck.
2. ) Marshall Leach would not have written papers saying bascially the same thing that I support.
If either of us wrote a letter to our respective professional society, and suggested that they may want to publish some of the many other numerous (seemingly more interesting) papers that they have at their disposal, instead of the same rubbish (in case you-know-who is reading this) every issue, then just perhaps they would like to know what the people who pay their salary think. How many articles did they think that we could read with the same 2 Ph.D.s going back and forth fighting over which has lower inherent distortion: common-collector or common-emitter?
No.....instead they fire back a response saying that my letter was not in the proper form to be published.....I didn't ask them to publish it to begin with.......send me the prescribed outline of how to do so; and then include the findings of their review board, who in turn, used the articles attacking Leach that I complained I was tired of reading as proof that I am a yutz.
Now really, does anyone here think that by my stating that "a lot of bad sound has its foundation in bad engineering" is all that irrational??
Stuff like ground loops??
Stuf like power transformers sitting right on top of the low-level stages?
Stuff I find like that, which after being fixed, makes a difference both sonically and with the meter?????? And make no mistake gang, I have worked on many product with those flaws.
So......there are your irrational methods. Feh.
Jocko
Then:
1.) Every amp that I ever built would have sounded like dreck.
2. ) Marshall Leach would not have written papers saying bascially the same thing that I support.
If either of us wrote a letter to our respective professional society, and suggested that they may want to publish some of the many other numerous (seemingly more interesting) papers that they have at their disposal, instead of the same rubbish (in case you-know-who is reading this) every issue, then just perhaps they would like to know what the people who pay their salary think. How many articles did they think that we could read with the same 2 Ph.D.s going back and forth fighting over which has lower inherent distortion: common-collector or common-emitter?
No.....instead they fire back a response saying that my letter was not in the proper form to be published.....I didn't ask them to publish it to begin with.......send me the prescribed outline of how to do so; and then include the findings of their review board, who in turn, used the articles attacking Leach that I complained I was tired of reading as proof that I am a yutz.
Now really, does anyone here think that by my stating that "a lot of bad sound has its foundation in bad engineering" is all that irrational??
Stuff like ground loops??
Stuf like power transformers sitting right on top of the low-level stages?
Stuff I find like that, which after being fixed, makes a difference both sonically and with the meter?????? And make no mistake gang, I have worked on many product with those flaws.
So......there are your irrational methods. Feh.
Jocko
- Status
- Not open for further replies.