"And your sex life complications are not my fascinations,
Your private life drama, baby, leave me out"
Danial and Scott, thank you for the links.
The reason I mentioned relaxation time is that for audio systems, I observe readily alterable changes in subjective noise magnitude, subjective noise nature and subjective noise release behaviour for typical consumer systems, IOW faster and deeper blacks, less inter modulations, IOW lower subjective noise floor and hard to believe until shown/hearing AB instant OTF comparisons.
Interesting points are that systems change behaviour according to program embedded noise and these consequential changes are not perfectly instantaneous, system overall changes are not perfectly instantaneous, changes in ears also are similarly not perfectly instantaneous.
Altering the downstream consequences of program embedded noise is what good hier-end/good pro gear is all about but typically is relatively expensive in materials and/or man hours.
There is an 'Amoco Final Filter' that works for audio*, BQP is sorta one, there are others.
Dan.
* Lighting, Cognac and other stuff.
The reason I mentioned relaxation time is that for audio systems, I observe readily alterable changes in subjective noise magnitude, subjective noise nature and subjective noise release behaviour for typical consumer systems, IOW faster and deeper blacks, less inter modulations, IOW lower subjective noise floor and hard to believe until shown/hearing AB instant OTF comparisons.
Interesting points are that systems change behaviour according to program embedded noise and these consequential changes are not perfectly instantaneous, system overall changes are not perfectly instantaneous, changes in ears also are similarly not perfectly instantaneous.
Altering the downstream consequences of program embedded noise is what good hier-end/good pro gear is all about but typically is relatively expensive in materials and/or man hours.
There is an 'Amoco Final Filter' that works for audio*, BQP is sorta one, there are others.
Dan.
* Lighting, Cognac and other stuff.
Last edited:
You bet, Estimation of Free Space Capacitance and Body Potential of a Spacecraft for Charging Analysis - IEEE Journals & Magazine
Free space capacitance of a metal object is a well known subject, now when do we start discussing that you can not stuff extra electrons into a highly conductive metal they always reside on the surface?
Yes, it's surprising after Scott made the claim that he always warned people about the difficulty of blind testing (something I have never seen him do) that we get the same old verbage from him.
It seems some people are beyond learning & prefer their 'safe place' clinging to the beliefs which make them comfortable
Yea but facts won't change people's minds, they prefer their myths
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
Very interesting & not surprising, Jakob - thanks!
Ed thank you for posting this, as Dave says this is wrong. Any number of basic EM texts have the basic solution for this problem (with respect to a balanced line). Equal and opposite EM waves are propagated by the switch closure, AFAIK there was never another view point in 1968 (see Electromagnetic Fields, Energy, and Forces | The MIT Press). Professor Fano is still there (in his 90's) I think.
So if I gather right what you guys have been arguing...
Ed says propagation applies to current.
Everyone else says, no that's wrong current is not "traveling", it simply is just happening upon circuit completion. The only thing propegating is signal (if there is any), as in only frequency can do so, and current itself is or is not based on a completed circuit with charge of any kind.
Ya?
Ed says propagation applies to current.
Everyone else says, no that's wrong current is not "traveling", it simply is just happening upon circuit completion. The only thing propegating is signal (if there is any), as in only frequency can do so, and current itself is or is not based on a completed circuit with charge of any kind.
Ya?
Nay, there is a standard curriculum of this stuff it's not by popular vote.
I'm not asking what the standard curriculum is, or even the right answer. I'm trying to discern the positions that everyone has.
I still can't work out why Ed is pursuing a phenomenon which probably doesn't exist, and even if it does exist it will be well below the thermal noise in a wire which is in itself so small that in almost all circumstances it can be ignored. Surely the first thing to do is estimate the likely magnitude of the alleged effect? You know, use numbers. Meanwhile his experiments seem highly polluted by interference and measurement artifacts.
DF, people tend to believe what they see with their own eyes, and what they hear with their own ears. If something is perceived by the senses then an explanation may be sought for it. If science does not offer an plausible explanation, then something must be wrong with science. It a tendency which is part of being human.
Science is the new reality
Science started out as a way to understand observed reality by approximating it with simplified models. That was a long time ago it seems and nowadays some in DIYaudio have come to realize that current scientific models are reality and any observations not explainable by them are mere delusions.
Science started out as a way to understand observed reality by approximating it with simplified models. That was a long time ago it seems and nowadays some in DIYaudio have come to realize that current scientific models are reality and any observations not explainable by them are mere delusions.
We are questioning the observations possibly they are delusions. Many of these experiments have numerous examples of bad practice.
DF,
Nobody said there are observations that defy science.
Regarding what we do understand about LF signals in cables, it is actually quite good, IMHO. But we don't always think to apply our very good models to ground loops as jneutron well points out. KSTR also described some interesting modulation of an audio signal by a USB dac due complex digital issues going on inside a computer, that we might not have ever otherwise considered. Prior to having such mechanisms described to us (even if we learned about them a long time ago), we might have assumed they didn't exist and that human perception delusions could be the only explanation for some reports of what people may describe hearing. Especially so in cases where the effects are so small that only a few people notice them.
In particular, when a fair number of people report hearing the same kinds of things (doesn't have to be a majority), there is likely something there to investigate. Sometimes the investigation may be complicated by complex interactions between some physical stimulus mechanism and associated human perceptual experience.
In our roles as human scientists and engineers we need to be as careful as anyone else to be aware of our own built-in biases and try to compensate for when they can lead us astray. Closed mindedness, jumping to conclusions, confirmation bias, and over confidence are some of the big ones we might consider. There is a long list, as I think we know.
What does the foregoing have to do with Ed's cable experiments? Well, Ed and Dan (Max Headroom) among others claim to hear effects with cable direction. They aren't the only ones I know who do. I don't know why. I don't know if it is mostly an exclusively internal human brain mechanism behind it, or to what extent there may be some associated external physical stimulus. Although no such physical mechanism comes to mind, there are enough reports to make me hesitant to put in same classification bucket as I do wooden cable lifters. It hasn't been studied enough for that. I sure would to see blind test results from someone like Dan, and maybe a few other people who seem to have sensitive hearing. I might consider tentative conclusions after that.
As far as Ed's experiments, I remain skeptical they give a plausible explanation. I might review that position if blind hearing tests were to give positive results.
Nobody said there are observations that defy science.
Regarding what we do understand about LF signals in cables, it is actually quite good, IMHO. But we don't always think to apply our very good models to ground loops as jneutron well points out. KSTR also described some interesting modulation of an audio signal by a USB dac due complex digital issues going on inside a computer, that we might not have ever otherwise considered. Prior to having such mechanisms described to us (even if we learned about them a long time ago), we might have assumed they didn't exist and that human perception delusions could be the only explanation for some reports of what people may describe hearing. Especially so in cases where the effects are so small that only a few people notice them.
In particular, when a fair number of people report hearing the same kinds of things (doesn't have to be a majority), there is likely something there to investigate. Sometimes the investigation may be complicated by complex interactions between some physical stimulus mechanism and associated human perceptual experience.
In our roles as human scientists and engineers we need to be as careful as anyone else to be aware of our own built-in biases and try to compensate for when they can lead us astray. Closed mindedness, jumping to conclusions, confirmation bias, and over confidence are some of the big ones we might consider. There is a long list, as I think we know.
What does the foregoing have to do with Ed's cable experiments? Well, Ed and Dan (Max Headroom) among others claim to hear effects with cable direction. They aren't the only ones I know who do. I don't know why. I don't know if it is mostly an exclusively internal human brain mechanism behind it, or to what extent there may be some associated external physical stimulus. Although no such physical mechanism comes to mind, there are enough reports to make me hesitant to put in same classification bucket as I do wooden cable lifters. It hasn't been studied enough for that. I sure would to see blind test results from someone like Dan, and maybe a few other people who seem to have sensitive hearing. I might consider tentative conclusions after that.
As far as Ed's experiments, I remain skeptical they give a plausible explanation. I might review that position if blind hearing tests were to give positive results.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.