I won't argue semantics but...
Well let's see. (Checks physics qualifications; barely adequate for the task)
I measured a piece of Cat5 conductor using vernier 's and got an insulation thickness .2mm and a conductor diameter of .6mm and chose a length of 3meters
Solving Ian's equations, I ended up with a force of .0015N and a D=8.8e-6meters. for a 3 meter pair.
The formula for inductance of parallel conductors is;
L=mu0*l/pi*ln(d/R+1/4-d/l)
where d=distance between conductors=2*insulation thickness=.4mm
R = the radius of the conductors = .3mm
l is the length of the conductor=3 meters
So solving for .4mm you get
.551uh for a 3m pair
Solving again for .0003912m (.4mm-.0088mm)
you get .528uh
a change of .023uh.
Relevent primarily to speaker cables?...No
Bear in mind that these calculations are still for the unimpeded movement in free air, in fact D will be much smaller.
Also this is as small a spacing as geometry allows, the insulation of both conductors must be touching
Also as you add pairs to your cable, inductance will drop, as will current in each pair, so our 1A assumption will be much less.
All of this has been heavily biased toward showing magnetostriction effect and it still shows it to be completely irrelevent. (that's a personal opinion drawn on the present data)
Conclusions,
If you think that magnetostriction can have audible effects, you are likely prone to fall for to a set of incomplete, out of context, analysis' designed to show the Americans never made it to the moon.
To be exact.
Chris
Well let's see. (Checks physics qualifications; barely adequate for the task)
I measured a piece of Cat5 conductor using vernier 's and got an insulation thickness .2mm and a conductor diameter of .6mm and chose a length of 3meters
Solving Ian's equations, I ended up with a force of .0015N and a D=8.8e-6meters. for a 3 meter pair.
The formula for inductance of parallel conductors is;
L=mu0*l/pi*ln(d/R+1/4-d/l)
where d=distance between conductors=2*insulation thickness=.4mm
R = the radius of the conductors = .3mm
l is the length of the conductor=3 meters
So solving for .4mm you get
.551uh for a 3m pair
Solving again for .0003912m (.4mm-.0088mm)
you get .528uh
a change of .023uh.
Relevent primarily to speaker cables?...No
Bear in mind that these calculations are still for the unimpeded movement in free air, in fact D will be much smaller.
Also this is as small a spacing as geometry allows, the insulation of both conductors must be touching
Also as you add pairs to your cable, inductance will drop, as will current in each pair, so our 1A assumption will be much less.
All of this has been heavily biased toward showing magnetostriction effect and it still shows it to be completely irrelevent. (that's a personal opinion drawn on the present data)
Conclusions,
If you think that magnetostriction can have audible effects, you are likely prone to fall for to a set of incomplete, out of context, analysis' designed to show the Americans never made it to the moon.
To be exact.
Chris
Re: I won't argue semantics but...
Konnichiwa,
As usual. All theoretical. How about an emirical research project. Make a Spakercable and shorten one end. Lay it out and attach a powersupply with a suitable current limit (say 2A) now switch the current on/off and observe the cable.
Is the movement of the coductors really as small as you have calaculated? Or does the cable make visbible motions as the current is switched on and off?
And afterwards you could measure the inductance, also with a few A current applied and then without current.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Christopher said:
As usual. All theoretical. How about an emirical research project. Make a Spakercable and shorten one end. Lay it out and attach a powersupply with a suitable current limit (say 2A) now switch the current on/off and observe the cable.
Is the movement of the coductors really as small as you have calaculated? Or does the cable make visbible motions as the current is switched on and off?
And afterwards you could measure the inductance, also with a few A current applied and then without current.
Sayonara
Re: I won't argue semantics but...
...well, they didn't did they.....ample irrefutable proof....
Christopher said:
...well, they didn't did they.....ample irrefutable proof....
My, this thread has been busy. Go away for a few days, and what do you miss...
I would be very interested in results if anyone carries out these experiments with cables, but personally, I would prefer to spend £400 on music than cables...🙂
Good to see one of the greatest frauds ever, T. Lobsang Rampa, the plumber from Plympton, (Devon, UK), getting a mention!
I would be very interested in results if anyone carries out these experiments with cables, but personally, I would prefer to spend £400 on music than cables...🙂
Good to see one of the greatest frauds ever, T. Lobsang Rampa, the plumber from Plympton, (Devon, UK), getting a mention!
pinkmouse said:
I totally agree with you, there are a lot of good times inside an LP and only one inside a cable change. That's what I learned from my violin teacher, but that's another story.
Cyril Henry Hoskin
I dunno Al, I just thought it was appropriate. Glad a couple of you are familiar with the story.
I dunno Al, I just thought it was appropriate. Glad a couple of you are familiar with the story.
Re: Cyril Henry Hoskin
If anyone else can be bothered to do the research I'm sure they will appreciate how appropriate
SY said:
If anyone else can be bothered to do the research I'm sure they will appreciate how appropriate
...tryst with violin teacher....?Tell all...Criminy, I've created a monster with this thread.
I still can't believe how many people try to prove that you can hear a difference with all this scientific stuff. (especially the guy that starts all his posts with "Konichiwa" and then rambles for like 3 pages, breaking down EVERY OTHER POST LINE BY LINE!!! AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!)
Anyways, all I want is someone to PROVE that they can hear a difference. I've said on this thread a few times all the different ways I've tested people who said they could hear a difference, and when I say that nobody has come close to passing the test, I get all this flak from "believers" about how I didn't handle the test properly, and that I'm insane for thinking I could handle a test by playing music through different quality cables and seeing if people can pick them. How I can't possibly expect to get results unless I'm testing in some kind of a clean room/recording studio with millions of dollars in equipment, and using some proven scientific method..... all circumstances that are often not met by those who so easily hear differences with "better" cables in their systems at home.
Why do the questions come so easily when someone says there is no difference, but when someone hooks up a new set of cables and rambles about the "revelation" that they are, people accept it without a second thought?
I have a feeling that no matter how perfectly I performed the tests, if I found the results to show that not one person can hear the difference, many people would just be in denial and say that there must have been something wrong.
How long has Autosound 2000 been running a GOOD ENOUGH test to find a person that can hear the difference (with a hefty reward to that person) with not a single positive result?
Please, somebody meet me SOMEWHERE and show me that you can hear the difference. If you want to know how I run the tests, read the first post of this thread. Tell me why I need such a scientific method to prove either point, when people describe the difference between one cable and the other the way they describe the difference between 8-track and SACD. If there is that much of a difference you should never miss in a blind test.
Go ahead and break it down, mister konichiwa.
I still can't believe how many people try to prove that you can hear a difference with all this scientific stuff. (especially the guy that starts all his posts with "Konichiwa" and then rambles for like 3 pages, breaking down EVERY OTHER POST LINE BY LINE!!! AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!)
Anyways, all I want is someone to PROVE that they can hear a difference. I've said on this thread a few times all the different ways I've tested people who said they could hear a difference, and when I say that nobody has come close to passing the test, I get all this flak from "believers" about how I didn't handle the test properly, and that I'm insane for thinking I could handle a test by playing music through different quality cables and seeing if people can pick them. How I can't possibly expect to get results unless I'm testing in some kind of a clean room/recording studio with millions of dollars in equipment, and using some proven scientific method..... all circumstances that are often not met by those who so easily hear differences with "better" cables in their systems at home.
Why do the questions come so easily when someone says there is no difference, but when someone hooks up a new set of cables and rambles about the "revelation" that they are, people accept it without a second thought?
I have a feeling that no matter how perfectly I performed the tests, if I found the results to show that not one person can hear the difference, many people would just be in denial and say that there must have been something wrong.
How long has Autosound 2000 been running a GOOD ENOUGH test to find a person that can hear the difference (with a hefty reward to that person) with not a single positive result?
Please, somebody meet me SOMEWHERE and show me that you can hear the difference. If you want to know how I run the tests, read the first post of this thread. Tell me why I need such a scientific method to prove either point, when people describe the difference between one cable and the other the way they describe the difference between 8-track and SACD. If there is that much of a difference you should never miss in a blind test.
Go ahead and break it down, mister konichiwa.
At least we all should agree, that the descriptions heard out there in fanatic reviews like "everything came into view", "night and day" "made a clik and soundstage became real" and so on, SHOULD be at least MINIMALLY sensed or perceived in a well performed comparition test (AB?) Other slightly shades or whatever, maybe not (I could agree with that), but the GREAT differences....?
mikem
What does tryst mean?
mikem
What does tryst mean?
The trouble is that one can always claim that some test performed somewhere is not comparable to some other test performed elsewhere. Unless it was done under the exact same conditions. Even so, the mere fact that say, both cables and subject will be a little older by then, will invalidate the comparison 
Most of the problem with this thread and others lie in semantics. What you have done specifically is, you have not been able to reject the null hypothesis in any of your setups. The null hypothesis is that the subjects can not hear a difference in the setup presented to them. The setup presented to them consisted in your various pieces of hardware used to test the cables (amps, speakers) and the environment (room(s)). The null hypothesis may still be wrong, but under your specific setup you couldn't find a reason to reject it.
So what you have as a result is that for all your pieces of hardware and all your rooms, the chosen subjects could not reliably identify differences between the parameter under test (the cable influence).
That does not preclude that it is possible, with different hardware and rooms, that those subjects possibly could hear differences indeed.
Your implied experimental null hypothesis was this:
"A typical listener with typical good quality amps and speakers in a typical listening room will not hear differences between cables"
In reality you had only one room, and maybe 3 or 4 amps and 3 or 4 speakers.
So, your actual experimental hypothesis was this:
"My group of listeners with sources S, S' and S" , amps A, A' and A", and speakers SP, SP' and SP" in my listening rooms R and R' will not hear differences between the cables C, C' and C" in all permutations"
Your results are only valid for all the permutations you have tried with S, S' and S" ; A, A' and A ; SP, SP' and SP" in listening rooms R and R' and cables C, C' and C".
That's the theoretical side of the question.
The practical side of the question is this:
"Do we believe that your results gained with your specific setup permutations now allow us to extrapolate to form a general opinion about cables used with all and any 'usual' good quality amps and speakers?"
This is and will forever remain open to debate because some setup combinations will for sure produce different results.
So it all boils down to whether one believes that your hardware and room was a good enough approximation of the typical case. If so then we can extrapolate as a matter of common sense. But it is common sense, not proof. There is no positive proof in science BTW. A hypothesis can only be falsified, never proven. It boils down to "good enuff for me".
Conversely, if someone reliably falsifies the null hypothesis with a different setup and different listeners, then his results are again only valid for HIS setup and HIS listeners and HIS room. You may safely ignore HIS results since thy don't apply to YOU.
Conclusion: Once you have sources, amps, speakers, and room, do a DBT for THIS specific combination. The results will be valid for YOU and you may at that point safely stop wondering - and in your case, stay with the cheap stuff. That's what I do 🙂
Don't try to extrapolate to the general case. You can't. It's a theoretical impossibility.
Most of the problem with this thread and others lie in semantics. What you have done specifically is, you have not been able to reject the null hypothesis in any of your setups. The null hypothesis is that the subjects can not hear a difference in the setup presented to them. The setup presented to them consisted in your various pieces of hardware used to test the cables (amps, speakers) and the environment (room(s)). The null hypothesis may still be wrong, but under your specific setup you couldn't find a reason to reject it.
So what you have as a result is that for all your pieces of hardware and all your rooms, the chosen subjects could not reliably identify differences between the parameter under test (the cable influence).
That does not preclude that it is possible, with different hardware and rooms, that those subjects possibly could hear differences indeed.
Your implied experimental null hypothesis was this:
"A typical listener with typical good quality amps and speakers in a typical listening room will not hear differences between cables"
In reality you had only one room, and maybe 3 or 4 amps and 3 or 4 speakers.
So, your actual experimental hypothesis was this:
"My group of listeners with sources S, S' and S" , amps A, A' and A", and speakers SP, SP' and SP" in my listening rooms R and R' will not hear differences between the cables C, C' and C" in all permutations"
Your results are only valid for all the permutations you have tried with S, S' and S" ; A, A' and A ; SP, SP' and SP" in listening rooms R and R' and cables C, C' and C".
That's the theoretical side of the question.
The practical side of the question is this:
"Do we believe that your results gained with your specific setup permutations now allow us to extrapolate to form a general opinion about cables used with all and any 'usual' good quality amps and speakers?"
This is and will forever remain open to debate because some setup combinations will for sure produce different results.
So it all boils down to whether one believes that your hardware and room was a good enough approximation of the typical case. If so then we can extrapolate as a matter of common sense. But it is common sense, not proof. There is no positive proof in science BTW. A hypothesis can only be falsified, never proven. It boils down to "good enuff for me".
Conversely, if someone reliably falsifies the null hypothesis with a different setup and different listeners, then his results are again only valid for HIS setup and HIS listeners and HIS room. You may safely ignore HIS results since thy don't apply to YOU.
Conclusion: Once you have sources, amps, speakers, and room, do a DBT for THIS specific combination. The results will be valid for YOU and you may at that point safely stop wondering - and in your case, stay with the cheap stuff. That's what I do 🙂
Don't try to extrapolate to the general case. You can't. It's a theoretical impossibility.
Konnichiwa,
I would go further. As the statistics used to determine the outcome (NULL) are at least questionable the tests may had ABSOLUTELY NO RESULT that can be called such, other than anecdotal relults, which abound in either direction.
I have repeatedly asked Paulinator to disclose the statistics used and the actual data, if he wants his tests to be considered as anything of reality.
Yup. Exactly. Hence my repeated call for people to make up their minds beased on personal, emirical work and not to use other peoples opinions (including my own) as crutches to lean upon.
Taking care I hope to equalise the risk of type A and type B errors rather than to minimise the risk of type A errors (null hypothesis is falsified when actually true) and to maximise type B errors (null hypothesis is accepted when actually untrue).
EGGSAGDLY!
Sayonara
MBK said:
I would go further. As the statistics used to determine the outcome (NULL) are at least questionable the tests may had ABSOLUTELY NO RESULT that can be called such, other than anecdotal relults, which abound in either direction.
I have repeatedly asked Paulinator to disclose the statistics used and the actual data, if he wants his tests to be considered as anything of reality.
MBK said:
Yup. Exactly. Hence my repeated call for people to make up their minds beased on personal, emirical work and not to use other peoples opinions (including my own) as crutches to lean upon.
MBK said:
Taking care I hope to equalise the risk of type A and type B errors rather than to minimise the risk of type A errors (null hypothesis is falsified when actually true) and to maximise type B errors (null hypothesis is accepted when actually untrue).
MBK said:
EGGSAGDLY!
Sayonara
MBK said:
Actually I should qualify this. Over time, the seemingly same setup may acquire different behaviour. Say, the mains may have become dirtier, and all of a sudden a mains filter may make sense in a system where before you reliably couldn't detect an effect of using a mains filter. Some cell phone transmitter may have gone on line which may overnight make some (better shielded) cables sound different from some (lesser shielded) other ones.
So, it's good to re-evaluate even a proven system from time to time. Since the times they are a-changin' ;-)
Kuei Yang Wang said:
True, actual data beat endless discussion. But in this forum every one is guilty of the same thing. Almost no one really presents actual data that would stand in a scientific forum or pass peer review. Then again it is a hobbyist forum so that's OK.
I do trust Paulinator that his results were reasonably valid for his location and hardware - "good enuff" for the purpose.
I also trust you did reliably hear differences in CAT5 cable vs. stranded double-8. I tried your CAT5 and me, in my system, I can't hear the difference.
But every once in a while I check again if, say in a new house, with an upgrade of my system etc., maybe I will start to hear differences.
alot of number crushers in this one.
Maybe it's not the little (insifnificant) change in the cable on its own that makes the difference, but it's influence in the system (including x-over and driver).
This statement includes that directly (with active x-over) driven systems should NOT been influenced as much or in another way by cable propreties.
war between brains and perceptions, cables are definitfly female...
...or cables are kind of cascode (for those who are follwing that subject)
Maybe it's not the little (insifnificant) change in the cable on its own that makes the difference, but it's influence in the system (including x-over and driver).
This statement includes that directly (with active x-over) driven systems should NOT been influenced as much or in another way by cable propreties.
war between brains and perceptions, cables are definitfly female...
...or cables are kind of cascode (for those who are follwing that subject)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.