When I make a magnet using very high purity annealed copper (5 or 6 nines), extreme care is required to not work it. There are no room temperature tests I can perform to determine if I've altered the metal structure or conductivity. The only test possible is at liquid helium temps where the mean free path climbs to 5 to 10 centimeters and I can measure the resistance.
I wish I could measure at room, finding a problem there is far less expensive.
J
But, as DF96 says, that change of conductivity, even if it occurred, would only cause a problem with a cable in a badly designed system.
Sorry to cause a misunderstanding. I was not in opposition to DF96 view, merely emphsising the lack of references to a complex but seemingly trivial problem and speculating a probable culprit.
Thank you John, valuable information.
Perhaps Matt, available to practitioners like JN. Unfortunately does not seem so to many others in this thread. A clear understanding would have extinguished all the brouhaha we see over the years. The references cited by Lockheed Martin as explanation for RAAF would be interesting.
Last edited:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Upton Sinclair 1935
Upton Sinclair 1935
I am confident that somebody in the RAAF read something about wire directionality, then became fixated on it. Rather than tell the customer they were stupid, some smart upper management person at LM had a engineer come up with a high falutin techy sounding explanation. That tells the customer that they are indeed smart, but that that level of science isn't needed. And, it keeps the production line running.
So, it wasn't scientific skills but rather, people skills.
J
Ps. For the most part, I'll just use google scholar. Work related pubs and articles are generally easy to find. It's only stuff I've reviewed that I cannot discuss in detail, so that would apply to all reviewers as well. Conductor directionality however, has never shown itself in anything I have ever been involved in or reviewed. But perhaps audio is much more demanding?
Last edited:
Twisted pair will be even farther away from rca impedance. It's not a good test for reflections as the results are already predicted.
Capacitance is more signicant.
J
I wasn't referring to definitions in your own mind. You are free to speak a different language but you won't be able to communicate with others who speak the industry standard language.
That must be it. I just wish folks would stop thinking of those poor little electrons trying to get past all those defects, maybe if they get tucked away in a corner the demon has trouble finding them.
Gpapag, I am not here to PROVE anything to you. I found, after many hours of research and a fair amount of cost, a solid measurement that shows how EASY copper and other similar metals can actually migrate, even just being at room temperature. This is what this treatise shows.
First and foremost, I trust my ears and the ears of my associates. From there I have attempted to find measurements in the literature that can show that what my associates and I hear is actually possibly measurable. Gpapag, you have it backwards, you want MEASUREMENTS to prove what you can hear. We hear first, then try to measure or to find a parallel experiment that shows what is possible. After all a clean copper sheet just sitting at room temperature is very far from the many amps insisted on by others here. Now, attempt to extrapolate to what might happen under an electron microscope with electric current flowing. If you cannot, then I will not discuss the situation with you further.
Some people here are trying to PROVE a NEGATIVE. Lots of luck!
First and foremost, I trust my ears and the ears of my associates. From there I have attempted to find measurements in the literature that can show that what my associates and I hear is actually possibly measurable. Gpapag, you have it backwards, you want MEASUREMENTS to prove what you can hear. We hear first, then try to measure or to find a parallel experiment that shows what is possible. After all a clean copper sheet just sitting at room temperature is very far from the many amps insisted on by others here. Now, attempt to extrapolate to what might happen under an electron microscope with electric current flowing. If you cannot, then I will not discuss the situation with you further.
Some people here are trying to PROVE a NEGATIVE. Lots of luck!
What surprises me is the fact that many of those who write about obstacles for electrons must have some education and knowledge in electricity and electrical engineering. So they should know something about signal propagation and Maxwell. Or, is sclerosis so forgetful?
Is there any point asking whether you can prove a positive? I think DBT of any equipment other than speakers should be done using headphones, what do you think?
My comments in red
We don't need a book from 1991 nowadays, the ability to look at electrons and atoms as they are moving in the materials is already possible, movies have been taken and put out there. The technology has significantly improved in the last 28 years. Maybe you can ask your "associates" to use the latest generation of equipment to prove you are right.. IIRC, there is a functional nano materials center near you, no? I recall there being five supported by the DOE.
jn
You on the other hand, have pulled out of context, a result which is not anywhere close to what you are ascribing to it. And claim that it explains what you hear. Which of course, it does not. And then, you want us to prove you are incorrect. Well, that was the easy part, George just read the material you made claims with and underlined what you misread.
We don't need a book from 1991 nowadays, the ability to look at electrons and atoms as they are moving in the materials is already possible, movies have been taken and put out there. The technology has significantly improved in the last 28 years. Maybe you can ask your "associates" to use the latest generation of equipment to prove you are right.. IIRC, there is a functional nano materials center near you, no? I recall there being five supported by the DOE.
jn
Last edited:
What I am doing here is offering my professional and personal opinion as to what makes better audio quality over the typical mid fi performance. My opinions have been formed over many decades with dozens of good listeners, some of whom often heard better than I normally could, but whom I trust. My former business partner, Bob Crump, was such a person. I learned a lot from him, including serious break-in protocols that he implemented when we did CES shows together for many years. I do not go to such extremes, but then I can't duplicate a CTC Blowtorch today for the same reason, and I doubt than anyone else can either. Of course, something different could be better, but we hit on a strong series of decisions that put us up against the entire World in quality preamp design, and we normally won independent 'shootouts' or comparisons with other quality preamps. Without Bob, I cannot accurately reproduce the CTC Blowtorch preamp, but there are about 45+ out there, so one might be available, usually when someone dies and the unit goes on the open market. That is the only way.
Now, of course, I have designed Parasound, Constellation, and Audible Illusions products but they well never match the CTC Blowtorch completely.
Now, of course, I have designed Parasound, Constellation, and Audible Illusions products but they well never match the CTC Blowtorch completely.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.