Besides the yadda yadda babble mentioned in that "paper", which needs a high power electron microscope to find "boundaries" and then imagine increased resistivity across them, for our practical, daily Audio use it boils down to:
* does regular copper have significantly higher resistivity than supposed single crystal type?
* is that supposed extra resistivity nonlinear enough to introduce audible distortion into an Audio signal?
I guess NOT on both counts; those stating otherwise should offer measurements or proof ...
Until then ..... waste of time and bandwidth.
* does regular copper have significantly higher resistivity than supposed single crystal type?
* is that supposed extra resistivity nonlinear enough to introduce audible distortion into an Audio signal?
I guess NOT on both counts; those stating otherwise should offer measurements or proof ...
Until then ..... waste of time and bandwidth.
"So far these are well-settled scientific facts, not audio theory.
The theory is that by allowing the modulating voltage of the signal to move more continuously along a single crystal structure, unimpeded by the normal breakages you'd find in the many-crystal formation of the regular metal material, you will get a smoother signal."
Your facts have nothing to do with audio. YOUR theory is ridiculous, whats a "smoother signal"? How do you measure that? And the signal doesn't move in the copper its in the EM field around the copper.
I doubt you could hear the difference between OCC copper and a pail of mud, maybe if the mud was single crystal.
The theory is that by allowing the modulating voltage of the signal to move more continuously along a single crystal structure, unimpeded by the normal breakages you'd find in the many-crystal formation of the regular metal material, you will get a smoother signal."
Your facts have nothing to do with audio. YOUR theory is ridiculous, whats a "smoother signal"? How do you measure that? And the signal doesn't move in the copper its in the EM field around the copper.
I doubt you could hear the difference between OCC copper and a pail of mud, maybe if the mud was single crystal.
Yeah I’m not sure if I’d be able to hear a difference either. Just wondering what other folks think.
If I were to restate your take without all the emotion, it sounds like you’re saying “I don’t think having a single continuous crystal in the conductor would make a measurable, let alone audible difference.”
And I appreciate the take!
I’m finding that wires sure do get people worked up! I’m not exactly sure why though. I even expect an emotional response to this, even though I do truly appreciate you taking the time to throw in your two cents.
The Hawksford paper had seven fatal flaws in it. The most important one is the fact that he used a steel wire for his final test results, and neglected the permeability of the steel. His test design was also insufficient for what he was trying to measure. Enough said.
The only time the mean free path of electrons is of concern is when the wire is cooled to liquid helium temperatures. There, large grain structures (7 nines copper annealed to within an inch of it's life) allow me to take advantage of mean free paths approaching 10 cm. The resistance of the wire drops three orders of magnitude. But just simple bending of the wire causes a reduction of mean free path due to work hardening. So the application of this phenomena is a real B##CH to get to work. BTW, thermal conductivity also follows the electrical conductivity in this way, using 7 nines copper or aluminum for heat transfer follows the same enhancement and same foibles. The most interesting thing about heat conduction is that all metals lose practically all their heat capacity once you cool the below 50 Kelvin. So the heat diffusion velocity becomes wicked fast.
For room temperature signals, OCC is unimportant in what I do, which is kinda "high end" science goop.
For audio, good connections, careful consideration of current paths, and ground loops play a very big role, worrying about a 2 to 5% difference in wire conductivity is not.
That said, enjoy your hobby.
jn
Dusty: try to understand that. It's the most relevant piece of information in that context.
Ive got little interest in this thread but I have to call this post out.
This post is a disgrace.
This post is a perfect example of trolling. Its a disparaging attack on a person with hype. To then accuse the OP "behave like a clueless troll" while clearly trolling is disingenuous.
Just shameful.
Then help me understand it! Send illustrations, papers, summaries, etc. That’s good input and exactly why I’m here!
The placebo effect is well explained by Emir in the video below, from 32:32 - 35:42
Nice! I love Amir at ASR. I feel like he provides a uniquely valuable service to the audio community on the objective measurement side of things. There’s so much nonsense in the audio world, and he does a great job exposing it.
Single-crystal wire might not actually make a measurable or audible difference. I’m not sure about it yet, which is why I started this topic. The reason this subject has my attention is because the crystal structure within metals is an actual physical difference between materials, with readily available scientific articles about it.
I might reach out to Amir and see what he thinks as well!
If you think that special copper wire sounds better than normal copper wire, then I invite you to try running audio thru a potato, a banana or even thru mud.
I've done just that, and the results are right here on diyAudio. You might be surprised. 😀
I've done just that, and the results are right here on diyAudio. You might be surprised. 😀