It is wholly inappropriate to advise newbies in any other way than zip cord. There is no science to support otherwise... only opinions. Newbies need knowledge (read: a set of facts) not conjecture that remains; the subject of controversy, unproven, and is dismissed as BS by any engineer with the exception of those "engineers" who sell cables.
Member
Joined 2004
poobah said:
You know, this is all about music. And music is about listening. I´m not afraid to try any design passed by someone whose opinions I respect and to discard that same design if it is not to my liking. After listening. Even if science tells it should sound terrific.
It happened in the past, it was a lot of fun. And an education.
poobah said:
By that criteria it's inappropriate for many of these forums to exist. Full range? Gone, see Sean Olive's Harmon Kardon and the NRC research. Tubes? Chip amps arguably offer equivalent or better specs for far less money and ease of construction. The Pass Labs Zen stuff and Analogue sources? Bye bye. There's no (or controversial) science to support any of them.
Is inappropriate to steer them towards big money wire as the only suitable alternative? With that I agree. To suggest a few popular and inexpensive DIYs in the spirit of learning and fun? Rather than inappropriate, for me it's part of the essence and value of this place. Learning is making your own decisions, not being told what is or isn't inappropriate.
Rdf,
You're right... I am wrong. To the extent that you express my sentiments, at least partially, better than I can myself... Thank you!
You're right... I am wrong. To the extent that you express my sentiments, at least partially, better than I can myself... Thank you!
poobah said:
Is anything really gained by these ad hominems ("engineers"), and by your certainty that opinions contrary to yours are so clearly wrong? It's easy to let go in these anonymous forums with critical language that would have no place in civil face to face interaction. I suggest that newbies need direction in learning to trust their own perceptions, which never will be free of ambiguity and that lingering sense that something's being missed, as nobody really has the whole scoop or the final word. It is, in any event, more fun to learn, and to learn to trust one's own particular perspective and judgment, than it is to accept somebody else's "facts."
unfortunantly "just listening" has been demonstrated to be hard to do right
when your particular personal judgements are based on sighted, subjective evaluation "informed" (by expectaion) it might be useful to find out what others have learned about the (un)reliability of such judgements and to learn how to reduce error in subjective evaluation - "blinding", controls, level and FR matching, test singnals (music is very "low resolving" in these tests), and training too
"Levels must be matched, too, as I learned when I preferred microphone A to microphone B in a blind comparison, then found out that there was only one microphone, but version A was playing two-tenths of a decibel louder than B. (Louder sounds better, so long as nothing's clipping.) "
in: http://www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html
- hardly a "just give me the #'s" exposition - but with repect for what is really required to do meaningful listening tests
serengetiplains said:
when your particular personal judgements are based on sighted, subjective evaluation "informed" (by expectaion) it might be useful to find out what others have learned about the (un)reliability of such judgements and to learn how to reduce error in subjective evaluation - "blinding", controls, level and FR matching, test singnals (music is very "low resolving" in these tests), and training too
"Levels must be matched, too, as I learned when I preferred microphone A to microphone B in a blind comparison, then found out that there was only one microphone, but version A was playing two-tenths of a decibel louder than B. (Louder sounds better, so long as nothing's clipping.) "
in: http://www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html
- hardly a "just give me the #'s" exposition - but with repect for what is really required to do meaningful listening tests
jcx said:
And what, precisely, are you, as a representative, I presume, of the measurement camp, offering by way of controls etc, that will educate better than purchasing a few strands of copper and silver wire, bare and/or with differing (including foamed) dielectrics, fashioning this wire in some predetermined geometry into a cable, wrapping it or not with shielding, then listening to hear if any difference can be heard? Such experiment reasonably won't cost more than $30 or $40 and in the end gives that to which measurement inevitably must defer, which is one's experience in real listening. What newbie has the ability to do more, and what newbie is precluded by the cost of such experiment?
With all this talk I'm curious what you guys are using to build your own IC's. Check out
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70038
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70038
poobah said:
Oh, ok..
I didn't take issue only because I knew my intent, and also knew I didn't clearly state it.. no problemo..
Cheers, John
Re: Measurements
Your example is overly simple, and incorrect. I only posted the simple things I could think of..the technology is far more complex.
Hmmmm..you seem to be saying that the specifications do not correlate completely to the performance. I think I said that..
Guess we are agreeing that we have a ways to go?..
Cheers, John
The tire pressure will indicate how much lateral stiffness can be expected as a result of sideways acceleration, how much the vertical spring constant will change, the amount and profile of the contact area of the tread, how the vehicle will recover from cornering lateral acceleration while also changing forward velocity (gas or brake), the stability change resulting from these spring constant changes, how these changes are affected by the front end suspension (alterations to the suspension can be used to compensate for low tire pressure, this willl be more an issue with the advent of active suspension, choices of toe in, camber, height and damping factor are the independent variables here). It can be used to predict the tread temperature vs location as a result of frictional changes, predict tire wear, predict ultimate coefficient of friction both wet and dry vs temperature.hermanv said:
Your example is overly simple, and incorrect. I only posted the simple things I could think of..the technology is far more complex.
They spend millions on the driver, for the experience and education required to provide accurate feedback on all variables changed within the suspension. It is no longer possible to win by just having a driver that steps on the gas more and saying it feels good, they have to be able to detail what is going on. For example, going into a turn in a decel mode, does the wheel try to turn into the turn, or turn out. A good driver can distinguish easily how the wheel is reacting, and how the car is reacting..does it dive outer side down, does the inner side drop, is it neutral, either tire start to slide?? It is far more complex nowadays.hermanv said:
hermanv said:
Hmmmm..you seem to be saying that the specifications do not correlate completely to the performance. I think I said that..
Guess we are agreeing that we have a ways to go?..
Cheers, John
serengeti et al,
You seem to imply that "my facts" are just that... mine.
When I speaks of facts, I speak of things that we all agree on. Things where empirical observation can be aligned with a supporting theory, and results can be repeated independantly. I think this is called science.
Some presume that all newbies are here to diddle... I would suggest that many newbies are her to learn as well. Rdf makes a compelling case for "To each his own"; and in the way that he presents it, I agree. But even in the pursuits of, tubes, full range, analogue etc... there is a constant theme... make it better. This is about about, sorry, facts (science).
To clarify, I am not telling anyone what is appropriate to do. I will say that any one who cares to teach should restrict themselves to science... "appropriately". To do otherwise is irresponsible... any good teacher (perhaps rare) would agree.
Jneutron is on the best track... if it is real... then let's measure it. If we can't measure it... let's find out why? Oops... science again.
I have said it before, falling on deaf ears (selectively), that were it not for science, and its cold methods, you wouldn't have amplifiers to "test" your cables on.
As for those of you who rile against the title of engineer, learn some facts, use them, restrict your teachings to the known truth, and you too can be an engineer... it doesn't require a degree... just an attitude.
You seem to imply that "my facts" are just that... mine.
When I speaks of facts, I speak of things that we all agree on. Things where empirical observation can be aligned with a supporting theory, and results can be repeated independantly. I think this is called science.
Some presume that all newbies are here to diddle... I would suggest that many newbies are her to learn as well. Rdf makes a compelling case for "To each his own"; and in the way that he presents it, I agree. But even in the pursuits of, tubes, full range, analogue etc... there is a constant theme... make it better. This is about about, sorry, facts (science).
To clarify, I am not telling anyone what is appropriate to do. I will say that any one who cares to teach should restrict themselves to science... "appropriately". To do otherwise is irresponsible... any good teacher (perhaps rare) would agree.
Jneutron is on the best track... if it is real... then let's measure it. If we can't measure it... let's find out why? Oops... science again.
I have said it before, falling on deaf ears (selectively), that were it not for science, and its cold methods, you wouldn't have amplifiers to "test" your cables on.
As for those of you who rile against the title of engineer, learn some facts, use them, restrict your teachings to the known truth, and you too can be an engineer... it doesn't require a degree... just an attitude.
At least If we are talking DIY to reproduce sound,
there are limits to how far and what is fruitful to do to improve sound reproducing equipement.
I see 2 major factor that sets these limits:
- Human ability to hear
- Loudspeakers capability accurately to produce soundwaves
You can make measurements and simulations at the amplifier output or wherever else
but what counts is how sounding wave in air will be.
This you can try to examine using microphones.
Even if small changes in sound wave should exist,
this does not mean we will actually hear anything different.
Some seem to think there is no limit to human ear and hearing.
Truth is human has very bad hearing, compared to some animals.
Hearing is also degraded by damages and by age.
In my opinion, at a certain level, any further improvements
in most components in the reproducing chain will be of no use.
A waste of time, effort and money.
This because speakers and human hearing will not be able
to make any use of and benefit from further improved specifications.
If someone still will experience a better reproduction
it is purely a subjective perceptional and personal opinion.
It is not relevant to anyone else.
And this can not prove that soundwaves will be better and more precisely reproduced
and any improvement actually heard.
On the other hand,
if a great number of people will experience the same improvement
in a proper and objective investigation,
then it is difficult to contradict and we would have to accept it is a fact.
there are limits to how far and what is fruitful to do to improve sound reproducing equipement.
I see 2 major factor that sets these limits:
- Human ability to hear
- Loudspeakers capability accurately to produce soundwaves
You can make measurements and simulations at the amplifier output or wherever else
but what counts is how sounding wave in air will be.
This you can try to examine using microphones.
Even if small changes in sound wave should exist,
this does not mean we will actually hear anything different.
Some seem to think there is no limit to human ear and hearing.
Truth is human has very bad hearing, compared to some animals.
Hearing is also degraded by damages and by age.
In my opinion, at a certain level, any further improvements
in most components in the reproducing chain will be of no use.
A waste of time, effort and money.
This because speakers and human hearing will not be able
to make any use of and benefit from further improved specifications.
If someone still will experience a better reproduction
it is purely a subjective perceptional and personal opinion.
It is not relevant to anyone else.
And this can not prove that soundwaves will be better and more precisely reproduced
and any improvement actually heard.
On the other hand,
if a great number of people will experience the same improvement
in a proper and objective investigation,
then it is difficult to contradict and we would have to accept it is a fact.
Lineup,
I agree 100%, loudspeakers (and some listeners) are the greatest challenge to progress.
😀
I agree 100%, loudspeakers (and some listeners) are the greatest challenge to progress.
😀
Member
Joined 2004
What actually is 'zip cord'? It gets mentioned a lot and maligned only slightly less than Monster cable. Is there a specific type of cord, or are we just talking <24AWG copper, or tin, stranded/non-stranded?poobah said:
Zip cord is the 2 conductor. side by side, siamese style cord that comes in 12, 14, etc... styles. Just like on lamps coffee pots etc...
You can grap each conductor and "zip" them apart...
You can grap each conductor and "zip" them apart...
Thanks, I've guessed correctly for a number of years - but never screwed up the courage to ask...
Most commercial hifi components do not have an earth connection.
They have a mains transformer with significant capacitance to Live and Neutral, basically putting the electronics at half mains voltage at a high impedance.
The spikey supply current drawn by the simple powers supplies used also ends up causing circulating currents to flow in the signal cables. In a single ended cable this current will appear as signal depending on the transfer impedance of the cable.
They have a mains transformer with significant capacitance to Live and Neutral, basically putting the electronics at half mains voltage at a high impedance.
The spikey supply current drawn by the simple powers supplies used also ends up causing circulating currents to flow in the signal cables. In a single ended cable this current will appear as signal depending on the transfer impedance of the cable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.