Your objection to the word "everyone" is noted.
Can we agree that "bias" is inherent to a very, very large majority of audiophiles? and this discussion revolves around the large majority and not the very, very small minority that amazingly have magical powers? The purpose is to save the normal, sane person from wasting $$$ and time thinking cables make any difference at all especially compared to better speakers, better room design and setup and better treatments.
It is clear that an unbalanced set of currents in a shieled cable will both generate and receive stray magnetic fields - the physics is pretty simple, but my question is "what is the order of magnitude"? of what you are saying and has the audibility of this been tested? Years ago I found hum a problem, but these days I don't find it an issue at all. Virtually all of my signal paths are digital, so I guess thats part of the reason, but even on analog ICs the unbalanced currents in the audio frequency would have to be pretty small.
Correctomundo there dude..
Hi Steve, long time no talk...hope all is well.
First and second points...concur, especially for 20 hz.
Second...signal ground not connected to safety ground...me no like..specially on a diy site where double insulated is... just a word...
Third...yep, yep, yep. But the currents will depend on the path resistances. Safety ground resistances are in general much less, typically an order of magnitude.
But as frequency rises, the safety ground impedance decouples.
Cheers, John
That has never been in any doubt. So absolutely, no question at all.😀
I doubt that a person largely immune to suggestion bias would claim their immunity was in any way 'magical'. But that's another tangent isn't it?😉
With you 100% on that. Let's work to expose the snake oil and educate. But people will spend $$$ on cables no matter how rational the arguments are against them. That's just psychology - people are emotional, not rational.
Originally Posted by Charles Darwin View Post
########## No amount of training can completely eradicate expectation bias and no one is ever above it. ###########
Ofcourse its true, a fine observation of its time
A good note of caution, but not to use as a overriding rule to wipe ANYTHING off the table
🙂
Not being able to prove something doesnt mean its not working.....it only means you dont know why or how, thus hard to repeat flawlessly....everyday life of a scientist
########## No amount of training can completely eradicate expectation bias and no one is ever above it. ###########
Ofcourse its true, a fine observation of its time
A good note of caution, but not to use as a overriding rule to wipe ANYTHING off the table
🙂Not being able to prove something doesnt mean its not working.....it only means you dont know why or how, thus hard to repeat flawlessly....everyday life of a scientist
Primary coupling of the immediate loop which shows as input IR drop is simply proportional to frequency. This is most of the hum in unbalanced as well as within pin 1 issues.
Secondary coupling of the loop currents occur within the chassis and are proportional to frequency squared. Fixing the pin 1 can still leave this, but typically 60 hz is buried by the balanced leaving buzz.
Primary is the largest, and most believe gone when hum is inaudible. Unfortunately, when the system draws power, any haversine coupling via line cord or romex to the input loop is confounded by the acoustic power. Listening is a mixed bag in that case. I would prefer measurement.
Secondary coupling I consider more nefarious and difficult to physically locate and remove.
Both are easily tested for. Bill Whitlock details methods of finding primary, but does not touch on secondary. He also considers only IR drop, but not magnetic coupling nor star ground issues.
Cheers, John
Its not in any shape or form an observation. Its a belief, maybe even a prejudice. An observation would have the form 'no-one in any test so far has been able to demonstrate complete freedom from expectation bias'.
At some point in time, I hope you engage in the technical discussion. Clearly you are not yet willing to do so.
I will respond to you if you wish to discuss the technical aspects.
Cheers, John
However this would not be changed by swapping interconnect or speaker cables, right?
I am not speaking of speaker cables at this time.
IC's? Simple.
The return current to the preamp follows 3 paths. Two IC shields, and one power ground (for the example I started with).
The relative current levels are dependent on the path resistances and the path inductance.
Do all IC's have the same shield resistance and the exact same shield connection resistance, such that the currents distribute exactly the same as before and have the same break frequencies?
The same applies to the line cord safety ground, outlet, and IEC connector.
Earl..here's the test I developed back in 2004..it requires breaking the input to power stage connection, and reading what the input sees when the power stage is pushed. Things to watch for are chassis based loop currents compromising the measurements at the input section, supply based coupling doing the same.. Oh, and this depiction obviously ignores the sheild current's contribution to the integrated loop field, this is out of phase and therefore reduces the total induction. But this test looks for and isolates haversine currents caused by the supply draw, allowing direct measurement of the input problem without having to differentially subtract them from an audio signal.
Cheers, John
Attachments
Last edited:
Hey John!
All is indeed well. Hope the same for you and yours!
Exactly.
It's TWO WORDS all you idiots out there! 😀
Yup.
That much? Hmmm. Of course it would depend on the particular cable in question, but a good braided shield is often pretty close to 18 gauge equivalent, they'll typically be shorter than the power cords, and there will be at least two of them between any two chassis.
se
Sigh...I can always rely on you to correct my foibles...you do not dissapoint.
It all depends on the actual numbers. How many honkin 10 guage power cords and 33 guage IC's out there? (or even visa-versa?)
Cheers, John
Well everyone, sorry about getting everybody so riled up, once again.
I just wanted to point out to someone that frequency response was not enough to make a successful loudspeaker and that cabinet resonance could really be significant in his example. I mean, the guy is worrying about a coffee table and not recognizing the potential cabinet problems. This is what we sometimes call a microscopic view.
I also stated an example where I too had made a loudspeaker, BUT at least I attended to the cabinet problems after working with the GD for 3 years and their speaker cabinets, John Meyer for 1.5 years on a loudspeaker design, and reading Barlow's paper on cabinet resonance from the 1975 London AES convention.
I found that even with 'excellent' frequency response, good time delay charactistics, and low distortion, using the best components available and bi-amping as well, I still made a fairly lousy loudspeaker. I then realized, about 35 years ago, that something was missing, either in my measurements, or my intuitive tradeoffs were off.
Now, here comes someone new to the field and seems to think it is relatively easy to produce a good loudspeaker, and he does it himself. At the same time, he dismisses the listening experience of countless others, who, presumably used 'better' loudspeakers to listen for differences in wire and such, and have noted it here. Once again, I was only trying to point out, that incomplete measurements may give a false sense of accomplishment, and that, in principle, even wires have measurable differences that will correspond to listening differences, IF we can find the right way to measure them.
I just wanted to point out to someone that frequency response was not enough to make a successful loudspeaker and that cabinet resonance could really be significant in his example. I mean, the guy is worrying about a coffee table and not recognizing the potential cabinet problems. This is what we sometimes call a microscopic view.
I also stated an example where I too had made a loudspeaker, BUT at least I attended to the cabinet problems after working with the GD for 3 years and their speaker cabinets, John Meyer for 1.5 years on a loudspeaker design, and reading Barlow's paper on cabinet resonance from the 1975 London AES convention.
I found that even with 'excellent' frequency response, good time delay charactistics, and low distortion, using the best components available and bi-amping as well, I still made a fairly lousy loudspeaker. I then realized, about 35 years ago, that something was missing, either in my measurements, or my intuitive tradeoffs were off.
Now, here comes someone new to the field and seems to think it is relatively easy to produce a good loudspeaker, and he does it himself. At the same time, he dismisses the listening experience of countless others, who, presumably used 'better' loudspeakers to listen for differences in wire and such, and have noted it here. Once again, I was only trying to point out, that incomplete measurements may give a false sense of accomplishment, and that, in principle, even wires have measurable differences that will correspond to listening differences, IF we can find the right way to measure them.
Last edited:
SY, when I find the measurement that I made 35 years ago, I will attempt to post it, one way or another. Right now it is buried in with the thousands of other paperwork that I have in heaps around me.
For the record, I also tried, last night, to again post with a scanned image. I got no results after 4 tries, with different settings. Sorry about that.
For the record, I also tried, last night, to again post with a scanned image. I got no results after 4 tries, with different settings. Sorry about that.
Why should I? You're just discussing marginalia and/or badly designed equipment. I've yet to see hard facts of "cable sound".
Measurements?? Sheesh, what's that going to tell us 😕
Just tell us what wires (thread topic?) you used, so we know the real, rational and logical reason it sounded so poorly.
We only used good quality German-Swiss made industrial grade wires. I designed this loudspeaker before wire was ever discussed, but you do have a point.
Who needs those, when we can have unending chatter instead😕
In any case, unless there's been a derailment, I'm fairly certain jneutron is on the LCR train for "sound" factors.
I know, I know, boooorrrring....😉
Maybe that Teutonic design/manufacture made the wire rather staid and clinical, hence the so-so sound?
It seems best to start with rational, logical explanations for things in wire "sound" threads.
Maybe you could cook up another 2 pairs of speakers using your previous methodology, make one with rational/known to science wire and the other with magic "good" wires, make sure they measure acoustically the same (since wire sound difference measuremnts are currently unknown). Then place them behind a visually opaque curtain and see if you can imagine hearing a difference??
Oh wait, I forgot about the whole need visual reference for "sound" change criteria of yours. Never mind.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.