Silver conducts electricity 6% better than anealed copper (with in turn is 10% better than drawn copper - that is, 'long grain').
Comparing an oxidised copper wire against a clean silver wire generally shows a difference. Whether it's an improvement or not is generally up to the listener and their mood - it's the same argument as tube vs bp transister vs mosfet (ie. it's up to you).
Although, I'd buy pure silver if I could afford to, but I'm still trying to get speakers/amps/source to the stage where it's worth it to me...
Comparing an oxidised copper wire against a clean silver wire generally shows a difference. Whether it's an improvement or not is generally up to the listener and their mood - it's the same argument as tube vs bp transister vs mosfet (ie. it's up to you).
Although, I'd buy pure silver if I could afford to, but I'm still trying to get speakers/amps/source to the stage where it's worth it to me...
Joel was right
I think Joel said it best a few years ago when he proclaimed that all capacitors sound the same. Therefore, shouldn't all cables sound the same?
I have listened to a few cables and have drawn my own conclusion and that the less metal on the conductor the better the sound. Personally, I believe that we are hearing mostly the differences in capacitance and inductance. Given the same readings of capacitance and inductance per two brands of cables I prefer the cables with the least amount on metal on/in the connector. Just my .02
I think Joel said it best a few years ago when he proclaimed that all capacitors sound the same. Therefore, shouldn't all cables sound the same?
I have listened to a few cables and have drawn my own conclusion and that the less metal on the conductor the better the sound. Personally, I believe that we are hearing mostly the differences in capacitance and inductance. Given the same readings of capacitance and inductance per two brands of cables I prefer the cables with the least amount on metal on/in the connector. Just my .02
I used to have an article on speaker cable tests. Right from general cable to exotic cables. It listed out dc resistance , capacitance and inductance of each type of cable. I can't find that now. The test was conducted by some magazine. I can't even remember which one.
Can anyone point me to a web site that has this kind of information?
Thanks.
Ashok.
I found some on a google search. I still haven't found the one I wanted. Sorry I can't remember any other details that would help.
Anything that you know of would be OK.
Can anyone point me to a web site that has this kind of information?
Thanks.
Ashok.
I found some on a google search. I still haven't found the one I wanted. Sorry I can't remember any other details that would help.
Anything that you know of would be OK.
john curl said:
I am a firm believer in classic Coca Cola.
My dad pioneered in the plastic cup, the PET bottle, and the easy plastic twist-seal on PET bottles technology.
Sometimes i cursed him, for years glass bottles with classic coke were hard to get. I ended up buying the stuff wholesale.
Could be we should all put some music on and pour ourselves a plastic coke blindfolded.
Cloth Ears wrote: " Comparing an oxidised copper wire against a clean silver wire generally shows a difference." Yep. Because an oxidised conductor can take on all
sorts of measureable effects in relation to their place in a circuit. I did some soldering
for JC years ago, and the lead of each circuit element had to be cleaned, before stuffing
and soldering on the board. Oxidation and bad solder joints, can add elements of diode
action and extra resistance. At low signal parts of a circuit, these effects would grow.
At speaker level, these effects would have less influence. Measureable? Audible?
How much? Has anybody, taken some 40 year old, cloth-covered copper speaker wire,
where each strand has turned black, and tested it? LCR content? At very low volume
levels, does it develop diode action? Measureable, or audible?
fdegrove wrote:
"Even IF they'd succeed in proving that it's impossible to hear any difference and I still hear it at my place time and time again, what good does that do for me?" Not much.
For me, science has a big role in audio. Regardless of the AES or others, if you hear
a difference, I'll keep an open mind. I hope you do too. See if your local audio dealer
has an A/B/X speaker cable box, they'd lend overnight. Buy some Radio Shack and/or
similar gauge wire to your own, and test it out. If not, have a friend randomly hook
up your favorite cable vs. same gauge 10 times in a row, and see how close you get
to hearing a difference. I'm serious here. It might be quite a different story, if many
'audiophile' folk, were tested within their home set-up, and could hear the blindfolded
difference 7 or more times out of 10, between their wire, and a close 2nd. Close 2nd
being constucted for less than $5.00 in wire and parts, to roughly mimic the
LCR elements of their favorite wire.
sorts of measureable effects in relation to their place in a circuit. I did some soldering
for JC years ago, and the lead of each circuit element had to be cleaned, before stuffing
and soldering on the board. Oxidation and bad solder joints, can add elements of diode
action and extra resistance. At low signal parts of a circuit, these effects would grow.
At speaker level, these effects would have less influence. Measureable? Audible?
How much? Has anybody, taken some 40 year old, cloth-covered copper speaker wire,
where each strand has turned black, and tested it? LCR content? At very low volume
levels, does it develop diode action? Measureable, or audible?
fdegrove wrote:
"Even IF they'd succeed in proving that it's impossible to hear any difference and I still hear it at my place time and time again, what good does that do for me?" Not much.
For me, science has a big role in audio. Regardless of the AES or others, if you hear
a difference, I'll keep an open mind. I hope you do too. See if your local audio dealer
has an A/B/X speaker cable box, they'd lend overnight. Buy some Radio Shack and/or
similar gauge wire to your own, and test it out. If not, have a friend randomly hook
up your favorite cable vs. same gauge 10 times in a row, and see how close you get
to hearing a difference. I'm serious here. It might be quite a different story, if many
'audiophile' folk, were tested within their home set-up, and could hear the blindfolded
difference 7 or more times out of 10, between their wire, and a close 2nd. Close 2nd
being constucted for less than $5.00 in wire and parts, to roughly mimic the
LCR elements of their favorite wire.
No doubt you are. I've done similar tests around 25 years ago. Quite certainly Frank has too. Btw, creating an acoustically 'blameless' ABX box is far from trivial.
Recently i had an experience which may offer additional explanation why some people are unable to hear differences between cables. I put together a reasonably decent 'bedroom' system so my wife can listen to trashy music without having her fingers burned, inhaling mercury vapours or getting close to my TT 🙂
Although relatively musical, this system shows very little (none?) difference in the quality of the interconnect between the DAC output and the passive attenuator. The digital cable to my surprise is a lot more audible. I can see nothing obviously wrong with the setup other than the use of a CD source and passive resistive attenuator and cannot really explain the insensitivity towards cabling.
Oh dear Oh dear the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
So said Chicken Little...
ABX boxes won't usually do what you expect. Relay contacts are inherently non-linear elements. Things can be done to minimize that effect, but first you have to be aware of it before you can attempt to *minimize* it (not eliminate it). Few if any of the ABX box builders are apparently aware of this. Will this matter? It might, and it is a variable that needs to be controlled no matter what.
2. Switching, blind or otherwise introduces certain problems in terms of perception.
3. Hearing is NOT a linear process.
4. Hearing is NOT a constant process.
5. Hearing and the perception thereof varies according to sample time and length as well.
6. If you can't control these variables you don't have a truly meaningful test nor do you have meaningful results.
(you get results that are valid *for that test* and nothing more - then the question is: "what did you actually test?")
My view of this controversy is as follows:
- The *only* valid test of differences *requires* otherwise IDENTICAL cables with only *one* variable at a time being different. The simplest example being a change of conductor material, all other factors being identical
- R, L & C variables *do* account for the majority of audible differences.
- None of the published tests that I am aware of <--- (read what I said please) have used a system that is properly documented, nor having the requisite low distortion that would be required to show meaningful *generalizable* results. (These are simple enough basic parameters to document- but no one seems to! Why?)
- It is fairly easy to *measure* differences between cables and amplifiers and systems - correlating measurements to audibility seems rather difficult and nebulous. (for good reasons that relate to how we actually hear and perceive sounds)
- The role of a sound system is to provide *cues* to our brains that permit us to assemble and make sense of the thing that is nominally being presented. Music does not exist per se - it is assembled into a meaningful thing by the brain based only on cues. Speech also does not exist, it too is assembled by the brain into something meaningful. The big problem is that we can do this assembly process without having a really complete set of "cues." So when we are looking for minute differences between cables we are looking for *negative differences* in effect. This becomes a contest of how much *extra data* being present in the signal is NOT going to be essentially ignored once a certain threshold is reached for the *reassembly* of the cues into meaninful perception! Taken another way, the higher quality, lower distortion, higher *cues content* sound signal merely makes it *easier* for the brain to do the assembly process. (fewer "brain processing cycles" required to extract the required data) AND THIS TAKES PLACE AS AN INTEGRATION OVER TIME. Think about this some.
- Under the right conditions you can extract a "signal" that is below the noise floor. Under the wrong conditions you can not.
Now, afaik, NONE of these factors have yet to be taken into account in any published ABX, double blind or other "cable test" or "amplifier test" etc...
So, until they are and have been imho the jury is out to lunch with no prospect of coming back with any verdict that means anything at all... at this point, no one knows for certain what is or is not going to be audible or not.
Having said that, I will say categorically that in a vast majority of systems out there that the factors that will be *dominating* the overall sound will be and are ones that are more readily measured and controlled (like the R,L,C thing and distortions that can be measured) than those that are on the edges of perceptability. Even so, the case can be made for "cascading tolerances" having a larger effect than small variations in a given system.
The use of cables or amps, et al as "tone altering" elements is not the issue we're talking about here - we're talking about the ultimate audibility of things that on paper would appear to have no reason to be audible - like copper vs. silver (IN OTHERWISE IDENTICAL CABLES) etc...
My 2 cents worth... which I feel is dispositive of the issue. 😀
_-_-bear
So said Chicken Little...
ABX boxes won't usually do what you expect. Relay contacts are inherently non-linear elements. Things can be done to minimize that effect, but first you have to be aware of it before you can attempt to *minimize* it (not eliminate it). Few if any of the ABX box builders are apparently aware of this. Will this matter? It might, and it is a variable that needs to be controlled no matter what.
2. Switching, blind or otherwise introduces certain problems in terms of perception.
3. Hearing is NOT a linear process.
4. Hearing is NOT a constant process.
5. Hearing and the perception thereof varies according to sample time and length as well.
6. If you can't control these variables you don't have a truly meaningful test nor do you have meaningful results.
(you get results that are valid *for that test* and nothing more - then the question is: "what did you actually test?")
My view of this controversy is as follows:
- The *only* valid test of differences *requires* otherwise IDENTICAL cables with only *one* variable at a time being different. The simplest example being a change of conductor material, all other factors being identical
- R, L & C variables *do* account for the majority of audible differences.
- None of the published tests that I am aware of <--- (read what I said please) have used a system that is properly documented, nor having the requisite low distortion that would be required to show meaningful *generalizable* results. (These are simple enough basic parameters to document- but no one seems to! Why?)
- It is fairly easy to *measure* differences between cables and amplifiers and systems - correlating measurements to audibility seems rather difficult and nebulous. (for good reasons that relate to how we actually hear and perceive sounds)
- The role of a sound system is to provide *cues* to our brains that permit us to assemble and make sense of the thing that is nominally being presented. Music does not exist per se - it is assembled into a meaningful thing by the brain based only on cues. Speech also does not exist, it too is assembled by the brain into something meaningful. The big problem is that we can do this assembly process without having a really complete set of "cues." So when we are looking for minute differences between cables we are looking for *negative differences* in effect. This becomes a contest of how much *extra data* being present in the signal is NOT going to be essentially ignored once a certain threshold is reached for the *reassembly* of the cues into meaninful perception! Taken another way, the higher quality, lower distortion, higher *cues content* sound signal merely makes it *easier* for the brain to do the assembly process. (fewer "brain processing cycles" required to extract the required data) AND THIS TAKES PLACE AS AN INTEGRATION OVER TIME. Think about this some.
- Under the right conditions you can extract a "signal" that is below the noise floor. Under the wrong conditions you can not.
Now, afaik, NONE of these factors have yet to be taken into account in any published ABX, double blind or other "cable test" or "amplifier test" etc...
So, until they are and have been imho the jury is out to lunch with no prospect of coming back with any verdict that means anything at all... at this point, no one knows for certain what is or is not going to be audible or not.
Having said that, I will say categorically that in a vast majority of systems out there that the factors that will be *dominating* the overall sound will be and are ones that are more readily measured and controlled (like the R,L,C thing and distortions that can be measured) than those that are on the edges of perceptability. Even so, the case can be made for "cascading tolerances" having a larger effect than small variations in a given system.
The use of cables or amps, et al as "tone altering" elements is not the issue we're talking about here - we're talking about the ultimate audibility of things that on paper would appear to have no reason to be audible - like copper vs. silver (IN OTHERWISE IDENTICAL CABLES) etc...
My 2 cents worth... which I feel is dispositive of the issue. 😀
_-_-bear
Re: Oh dear Oh dear the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
HI Bear,
A lot of those issues you mention, that make a blind test so difficult, have merit. It is *extremely* difficult to reliably and repeatable identify differences between cables, if you go by THE SOUND ALONE, and try to keep other things like looks, thickness, worth of mouth and price out of the picture.
That is exactly the reason that, when someone comments offhandedly that he changed cable x for cable y and heard a clear difference in soundstage, or balance, or instrument positioning, I can only ROFLMAO.
MY 2 cts worth...
Jan Didden
bear said:So said Chicken Little...
ABX boxes won't usually do what you expect. Relay contacts are inherently non-linear elements. Things can be done to minimize that effect, but first you have to be aware of it before you can attempt to *minimize* it (not eliminate it). Few if any of the ABX box builders are apparently aware of this. Will this matter? It might, and it is a variable that needs to be controlled no matter what.
2. Switching, blind or otherwise introduces certain problems in terms of perception.
3. Hearing is NOT a linear process.
4. Hearing is NOT a constant process.
5. Hearing and the perception thereof varies according to sample time and length as well.
6. If you can't control these variables you don't have a truly meaningful test nor do you have meaningful results.
(you get results that are valid *for that test* and nothing more - then the question is: "what did you actually test?")
My view of this controversy is as follows:
- The *only* valid test of differences *requires* otherwise IDENTICAL cables with only *one* variable at a time being different. The simplest example being a change of conductor material, all other factors being identical
- R, L & C variables *do* account for the majority of audible differences.
- None of the published tests that I am aware of <--- (read what I said please) have used a system that is properly documented, nor having the requisite low distortion that would be required to show meaningful *generalizable* results. (These are simple enough basic parameters to document- but no one seems to! Why?)
- It is fairly easy to *measure* differences between cables and amplifiers and systems - correlating measurements to audibility seems rather difficult and nebulous. (for good reasons that relate to how we actually hear and perceive sounds)
- The role of a sound system is to provide *cues* to our brains that permit us to assemble and make sense of the thing that is nominally being presented. Music does not exist per se - it is assembled into a meaningful thing by the brain based only on cues. Speech also does not exist, it too is assembled by the brain into something meaningful. The big problem is that we can do this assembly process without having a really complete set of "cues." So when we are looking for minute differences between cables we are looking for *negative differences* in effect. This becomes a contest of how much *extra data* being present in the signal is NOT going to be essentially ignored once a certain threshold is reached for the *reassembly* of the cues into meaninful perception! Taken another way, the higher quality, lower distortion, higher *cues content* sound signal merely makes it *easier* for the brain to do the assembly process. (fewer "brain processing cycles" required to extract the required data) AND THIS TAKES PLACE AS AN INTEGRATION OVER TIME. Think about this some.
- Under the right conditions you can extract a "signal" that is below the noise floor. Under the wrong conditions you can not.
Now, afaik, NONE of these factors have yet to be taken into account in any published ABX, double blind or other "cable test" or "amplifier test" etc...
So, until they are and have been imho the jury is out to lunch with no prospect of coming back with any verdict that means anything at all... at this point, no one knows for certain what is or is not going to be audible or not.
Having said that, I will say categorically that in a vast majority of systems out there that the factors that will be *dominating* the overall sound will be and are ones that are more readily measured and controlled (like the R,L,C thing and distortions that can be measured) than those that are on the edges of perceptability. Even so, the case can be made for "cascading tolerances" having a larger effect than small variations in a given system.
The use of cables or amps, et al as "tone altering" elements is not the issue we're talking about here - we're talking about the ultimate audibility of things that on paper would appear to have no reason to be audible - like copper vs. silver (IN OTHERWISE IDENTICAL CABLES) etc...
My 2 cents worth... which I feel is dispositive of the issue. 😀
_-_-bear
HI Bear,
A lot of those issues you mention, that make a blind test so difficult, have merit. It is *extremely* difficult to reliably and repeatable identify differences between cables, if you go by THE SOUND ALONE, and try to keep other things like looks, thickness, worth of mouth and price out of the picture.
That is exactly the reason that, when someone comments offhandedly that he changed cable x for cable y and heard a clear difference in soundstage, or balance, or instrument positioning, I can only ROFLMAO.
MY 2 cts worth...
Jan Didden
Is anybody here an academic? Does anyone here know about the requirements of scientific proof? For all I can understand, this test follows the requirements of a scientific test. But screw science. Tear down the universities. Bring back the dark ages. Welcome to the business of "high end" audio.
But I can't say I'm surprised. Most everything in the "high end" audio business is snake oil. That and marketing done by shrewd conmen. Everybody is praising the SME V tonearm despite the fact that SME hasn't made a great tonearm since the first edition 3009/3012. The anti-skating rubbish has done the single biggest disservice to turntables. Sure, the cartridge tracks to no end. But it comes at the expense of sound. Remove the anti-skating mechanism on just about any arm and the sound will be firmer. How come this is bad? My mistake. It's expensive, so it has to be good.
Very few people can hear any difference between CD and SACD. Those that can are the people that can hear the sampling rate of CDs. I would guess they are about as common as people with photographic memory. Why is it so important to do audio gear for those few people? "SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter," Ing. Öhman writes in the non-profit Swedish Audio Technical Society journal. (Article can be found here.) Of course, none of that explains why people that listen to mp3s somehow still think the far superior CD format isn't good enough.
And tube fans should read this: Tubes Versus Transistors. Of course, like Öhman's findings on the SACD, this paper shouldn't mean anything to audiophiles. It's based on facts, not opinions. And who the hell cares how it sounds as long as it's expensive and says Naim on it?
I could go on and dare anyone to hear the difference between a Thorens TD-150 with original arm (not some bogus Rega junk) and a rip-off Sondek or whatever. But what's the use?
Sorry for going on a mad rant here. I may make a few enemies. But I can't say I care. When I post here asking for help or advice, I don't want people giving me useless opinions. I want facts. I can't imagine what a Naim nuthugger possibly could have to say that I would care to hear. And to criticise a test for not producing the "right" result is just ***.
But I can't say I'm surprised. Most everything in the "high end" audio business is snake oil. That and marketing done by shrewd conmen. Everybody is praising the SME V tonearm despite the fact that SME hasn't made a great tonearm since the first edition 3009/3012. The anti-skating rubbish has done the single biggest disservice to turntables. Sure, the cartridge tracks to no end. But it comes at the expense of sound. Remove the anti-skating mechanism on just about any arm and the sound will be firmer. How come this is bad? My mistake. It's expensive, so it has to be good.
Very few people can hear any difference between CD and SACD. Those that can are the people that can hear the sampling rate of CDs. I would guess they are about as common as people with photographic memory. Why is it so important to do audio gear for those few people? "SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter," Ing. Öhman writes in the non-profit Swedish Audio Technical Society journal. (Article can be found here.) Of course, none of that explains why people that listen to mp3s somehow still think the far superior CD format isn't good enough.
And tube fans should read this: Tubes Versus Transistors. Of course, like Öhman's findings on the SACD, this paper shouldn't mean anything to audiophiles. It's based on facts, not opinions. And who the hell cares how it sounds as long as it's expensive and says Naim on it?
I could go on and dare anyone to hear the difference between a Thorens TD-150 with original arm (not some bogus Rega junk) and a rip-off Sondek or whatever. But what's the use?
Sorry for going on a mad rant here. I may make a few enemies. But I can't say I care. When I post here asking for help or advice, I don't want people giving me useless opinions. I want facts. I can't imagine what a Naim nuthugger possibly could have to say that I would care to hear. And to criticise a test for not producing the "right" result is just ***.
phn, I passed your post out of moderation but had to manually edit something out. Please do not use language that could be deemed as racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted. It probably wasn't your intent, but remember that you've got a rather diverse audience here and it's primarily a technical forum.So, there are others around who think SACD isn't the cats meow.
It seems that science generelly is going out of favour. Black magic welcome to high end audio - I have to agree with my excited friend.
But - the loss in the end will be hifi's, the gain belongs to an unsrupulous industry bending physically theories to fit their claims and even inventing bogus ones if there ain't one that accomodates their marketing efforts.
Re: Re: Oh dear Oh dear the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
It's good that I make you laugh, Jan 😉
cheers 😉
janneman said:
It's good that I make you laugh, Jan 😉
cheers 😉
My theory is that folks maybe take a little extra effort with the SACD recording. I've heard some pretty darn crappy CDs, but rarely a truly gnarsty recording on SACD.
As for wires making a difference. I work in a research lab, and I'm in Missouri.
Haven't seen empirical evidence. Just a lot of stuff from people who either have something to sell, or who know folks with something to sell...
What _really_ gets me are the folks who maintain that "special cables" will make the ones and zeros of digital transmissions sound better...
Bogie
(12 gauge low voltage)
As for wires making a difference. I work in a research lab, and I'm in Missouri.
Haven't seen empirical evidence. Just a lot of stuff from people who either have something to sell, or who know folks with something to sell...
What _really_ gets me are the folks who maintain that "special cables" will make the ones and zeros of digital transmissions sound better...
Bogie
(12 gauge low voltage)
any reasom why you stress missouri? do you think research and the south is mutually exclusive and us folks have to be convinced otherwise?
Re: SACD - please do not forget that most SACD material is now taken from the remasters that were used for all those "remastered cd's" the industry used to sell us the old stuff twice - and now for the third time with SACD.
So, no wonder the material on SACD is a lot better then the first **** that was issued on cd.
And - at least those ones and zeros look better when passed through a 500$ cable
😀
Its all in the eye of the beholder...
To phn & audiokraut,
Hey guys,
You make one critical error😉 : You assume the world is governed by logic and facts. It most definitely is not. The vast majority of people (and this forum is a prime example) go by hearsay, ignorance, and are mightily impressed by colors, looks, cable thicknesses, resistor prices and what have you.
Remember the times that missionaries went to Africa with little mirrors and beads to win the favors of the locals? Replace "missionaries" by hi-end salesman and substitute promises for audio nirwana and you realise that nothing has changed really. I am often amazed how a race that is so gullible and illogical made it to the top of the heap....😉
Jan Didden
Hey guys,
You make one critical error😉 : You assume the world is governed by logic and facts. It most definitely is not. The vast majority of people (and this forum is a prime example) go by hearsay, ignorance, and are mightily impressed by colors, looks, cable thicknesses, resistor prices and what have you.
Remember the times that missionaries went to Africa with little mirrors and beads to win the favors of the locals? Replace "missionaries" by hi-end salesman and substitute promises for audio nirwana and you realise that nothing has changed really. I am often amazed how a race that is so gullible and illogical made it to the top of the heap....😉
Jan Didden
Well, at least it's not like they believe that the universe was created by a supernatural being or force that has put them in it for a reason...
...oh, wait
In English it's spelled with a v.
Say what? By what metric is the human race at the top of the evolutionary heap? It is not. By any sensible measure of evolutionary success, from total biomass, numbers, adaptability, resiliency, distribution throughout the biosphere, etc., it is bacteria and other single-celled organisms that take top prize. It is not by luck that the first life forms, kingdom Archaea, survive to this day. They and the other microscopic lifeforms are the most, take up the most space, live from kilometers underground to high in the atmosphere, from arctic temperatures to boiling hotsprings, from oxygen atmospheres to those of sulfurous gases, and overal have been little influenced by major climatic disasters. They are just complex enough to survive, and no more. Complex multicellular life has been able to find its niches, but it is far more fragile. Humans may have a shot at controlling its environment to make up for our biological shortcomings, but the chance of success is small.
Prune,
OK, you are right. I made the classical error by thinking that because we are able to mess up our own nest big time, we are the top. Not so, indeed. Reminds me of the book by Wim Kayzer, really a compilation of interviews with scientists like Sacks, Dennet, Dyson, Stephen-Jay Gould and a few others I don't remember right now. It's about our 'gift' of conciousness. The title? "A glorious accident"..
I think it was aired on US PBS many years ago.
Jan Didden
OK, you are right. I made the classical error by thinking that because we are able to mess up our own nest big time, we are the top. Not so, indeed. Reminds me of the book by Wim Kayzer, really a compilation of interviews with scientists like Sacks, Dennet, Dyson, Stephen-Jay Gould and a few others I don't remember right now. It's about our 'gift' of conciousness. The title? "A glorious accident"..
I think it was aired on US PBS many years ago.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.