I think people get very confused about skin effect. The impedance of a wire with skin effect rises at 3db/oct and has about 45 degrees phase shift. Skin effect is a shunt resistance distributed through the bulk inductance of the wire. You could say the inductance of the wire is partially shunted by resistance in a distributed fashion.
Here is the most interesting question to me. Maybe Jneutron knows. Why in a straight wire with skin effect are the inductance and resistance balanced within the frequency range of the skin effect? That's what 45 degree phase shift means, reactance and resistance are balanced. So why does the resistance from skin effect end up equal to the inductance which it is shunting?
Here is the most interesting question to me. Maybe Jneutron knows. Why in a straight wire with skin effect are the inductance and resistance balanced within the frequency range of the skin effect? That's what 45 degree phase shift means, reactance and resistance are balanced. So why does the resistance from skin effect end up equal to the inductance which it is shunting?
🙂,On our local "highendforum" arose new invention, phono slippmats made from various materials as Cu , stainless steel or so, perforated or made from full material of different thicknes and different surfaces (matt or highgloss..). And each such slippmat will modify sound , ofcourse according "earmetric" tests , some to warm sound, some to cool and bright sound, you can get what you want...
Here is the place for "real audio development" 😀
Here is the place for "real audio development" 😀
While others are trying to do something useful, based on facts...
ELECTRO MAGNETIC SUSPENSION | ILUMNIA SPEAKERS
//
ELECTRO MAGNETIC SUSPENSION | ILUMNIA SPEAKERS
//
Next time you set up a stage show, try comparing mic cables wrapped or not wrapped around mic stand/boom, and try comparing speaker cables wrapped or not wrapped around tripod speaker stands. On your way home from the show drop into a hardware store and buy yourself some Rebar Chairs and use them to isolate your cables from your flooring and take a listen. Dan.
Yes, we had an interesting conversation about a bunch of things including Bybees and other stuff.
I used my Samsung phone with the factory in-ears talkback headset with a Goop filter surrounding the cable at the plug end for the duration of the call which was on a 'good line'.
Right at the end of the conversation I informed John that we had been talking with the filter in place, so we did a few quick AB's and John unhesitatingly exclaimed "it's clearer" with the filter in place. So a 70+yo man on the other side of the earth was able to notice the difference over a mobile telephone connection, I find that to be significant.
Dan.
I subscribe to things that I know from personal experience to cause audible differences, like AC power filtering, dielectric materials, solder alloys, cabinet/enclosure materials, that's pretty much it. That said my mind is open to investigating the findings of others but I decide based on my personal experience and not that of others.
Dan.
Yes this would produce a DIY ferrite filter of sorts and will have a sound according to formulation, this is cheap enough to try so why not ?.
Dan.
Ferrites don't change the output of LCD TVs or monitors. Why does your goop?
Since you maintain it affects displays, why haven't you done simple tests to prove conclusively it improves color and focus as you said, and then sold it to Samsung or LG?
Are you certain from personal experience that ferrites don't change video or audio ??. Informal subjective tests on displays show what I say to be the case but I have not bothered to document these changes to date because audio is more my interest, but I will do so in time. I do have one degree of separation contact to Samsung head office and as you suggest is possible and probably one direction I will take.
I agree, but you are understating the case. When you hear a difference, it is real.
The argument is about when to decide that a difference can be heard. If the difference automagically disappears when only relying on ears, something else must be going on. Obviously, a difference has been perceived. But in that case, it can't be claimed that it was the result of an auditory difference. Otherwise the organs responsible for picking up and analysing sound would have been able to discriminate all by themselves.
On a different note, it is disappointing that you support goop without ever having even tested it. It shows that you willingly follow blindly any goofball audio fashion. I really hope the only reason you are doing this is to offend the likes of me.
Oak I find is preferable.
That’s my take. Some folks get off throwing a ‘hand grenade’ into a room full of people and watching the ensuing melee.
I mean the story of approaching the girl in the parking lot and offering her some goop, which she apparently accepts, takes the cake. He’s had a whole bunch of engineers, PhD grads, physicists and self appointed guardians of the ‘truth’ frothing at the mouth in rage for three or four years.
My god, manipulation on a grand scale!
This is completely unfounded criticism. Many of Stuarts posts where about technical issues, where his inputs were also highly regarded.
And when he called for a blind test, he was always right.
I understand why you didn't like that, he may have been calling you out.
You want to have the freedom to sit with Mark or another friend in a room and discuss differences you hear, without going through all sorts of protocols. Actually, you can stil do that. But what you can't do is take the results of such a session as proof that you actually heard the differences you were discussing, and present them to an audience that, at least in part, consists of highly trained technicians, engineers and scientists. They don't take crap like that, and they will react. All the more so when they know you have a trailer load of measuring equipment, and fail to put it to use when you stumble across a surprising auditory difference you may think to have discovered.
Last edited:
Video? Yes because I understand how they work and there is no mechanism to improve the characteristics you mentioned. I am talking about modern LCD or OLED displays fed with digital inputs such as HDMI, DisplayPort, or SDI. I am not talking about CRTs fed by composite/S-Video, analog RGB, YPbPr component, or any other uninteresting ancient stuff.
You should have started here, because it is so much easier to prove your goop is effective (or not) on display output. If I could, I would bet every single penny I have that your Goop can't do a thing for an LCD. Actually, I'd bet it all that your Goop doesn't do anything remarkable for any other device either, but it's especially easy on this one.
Calling for scientific rigor is such a buzzkill. What if they discovered the whole thing is a wine-aided illusion? All systems sounds better to me after a few drams.
Last edited:
He was pointing out you should trust your 'ears' not your eyes. JC says he trusts his ears when really he doesn't as he peeks. You peek too. Mark peeks.
But of course you have no test to show that. so anecdote again.
Well, it won’t take long and that well will be poisoned with Myrtle blocks and Bybeelonium . . .
No, it most probably won't; it's the cult section with the opposite belief overthere.... 🙂 (and of course in addition there are some members that are really interested in a scientific/objective approach)!
@Billshurv,
this quote from vacuphile's post above illustrates quite well the dangerous implications from our yesterdays discussion topic:
Do you really think a reader not well versed in sensory testing is able to replace the very incorrect descriptions/conclusions by correct ones?
The first sentence is one of the two correct ones in the paragraph and should have been accompanied by "the argument is also about when to decide that a difference can't be heard" .....
this quote from vacuphile's post above illustrates quite well the dangerous implications from our yesterdays discussion topic:
(Bold feature activated by me)
Do you really think a reader not well versed in sensory testing is able to replace the very incorrect descriptions/conclusions by correct ones?
The first sentence is one of the two correct ones in the paragraph and should have been accompanied by "the argument is also about when to decide that a difference can't be heard" .....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.