Audiophile Vindication! - Cables Are Different And Now There's The Science

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 20163 times.

art

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 845
    • Analog Research-Technology
You mean that there is someplace worse than The Insane Asylum? Folks there argue for the sake of arguing. Never gave any thought as to how hateful they are, only how crazy. So, it is possible that they could be more hateful. Sad to think.........

Pat

jwes

Okie dokie -

Hey guys, how about that interesting cable science!!   :thumb:

Maybe time to get back on track and let the problems with other places stay in those other places?

konut

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1574
  • Came for the value, stayed for the drama
Quote
They have no idea how to be civil with anyone

Uh...

A lot of us here are also on DIY.

I have no comment about the original post, but...c'mon.

 :|

I think CW was only referring to only those 2 who found fault with Bobs analogy and semantics and thus rejected his theory out of hand. I have already apologised to Bob for starting the fertiliser storm, but in my defense I did say it would add fuel to the fire. On the + side, John Curl did chime in with his encouragement, and that was good to see. As for the actual science, I am in no position to make an intelligent comment but was hoping to spark pertinent debate and discussion, and that is starting to take place both here and there, so I might better understand the principles involved.

Curly Woods

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 111
Quote
They have no idea how to be civil with anyone

Uh...

A lot of us here are also on DIY.

I have no comment about the original post, but...c'mon.

 :|

I think CW was only referring to only those 2 who found fault with Bobs analogy and semantics and thus rejected his theory out of hand. I have already apologised to Bob for starting the fertiliser storm, but in my defense I did say it would add fuel to the fire. On the + side, John Curl did chime in with his encouragement, and that was good to see. As for the actual science, I am in no position to make an intelligent comment but was hoping to spark pertinent debate and discussion, and that is starting to take place both here and there, so I might better understand the principles involved.

Yes I did not mean to start a crap storm here.  Sy, Syn08, andy_c and a few others over there, seem to wait for Sy to step in and start the negative landslide, then it turns into a pack mentality.  If you do not follow their "dogma" you are immediately and severely meet with rude, outlandish treatment.

  There was just a post over there by KBK, that was meet with disdain and further innuendo of "snake oil" and lunacy.  No response to what he stated as to where he might be wrong, just insinuation of his lack of knowledge.  Sy is a moderator for goodness sake!

  Bob I also apologize for emailing you last night about the treatment your paper had received.  I simply thought that you had the right to know and the right to address these "village idiots".  Smart they are certainly that, but human beings, I fail to see their value as people with the attitude that they show to anyone that does not follow their beliefs, step by step.

JimJ

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 780
  • Ut Prosim
Quote
You either agree with their views or be prepared to be skewered!

To be perfectly fair, I've gotten skewered here in just these kinds of topics ;)

I've just learned not to debate it anymore.


Wind Chaser

The science of anything flies over the head of most people.  Even a simple concept like the earth is round has been subject to debate.  :roll:

jneutron

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 557
A point:

Within the realm of published papers I am involved with, I consider a "model" to be one which:

1.  Verbally provides a reasonable (or even unreasonable) structure of cause and effect using presently accepted (for the most part) entities which do not require faith based belief.
2.  Mathematically describes and constructs a relationship between the cause and the effect.
3.  Provides a well documented and easily duplicated test methodology which allows the ability to prove the model's relationships correct or incorrect.  If the test methodology is not structured so that it can prove the assertion incorrect, then the test methodology is useless.

Given these requirements, I can easily understand the responses afforded (the civil ones of course, the non-civil responses deserve no mention and will be ignored).

While Bob does indeed present a correlation between the debye temperature and anecdotal content, that in itself is not a model.  Without a model presented in a structured format, any paper will be met with scepticism.  Having read it, I can see why some reacted the way they did.

Several individuals at DIY have provided good feedback...do not throw that away.

Hi Bob.  Hope all is going well.

Cheers, John


john curl

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 42
    • Vendetta Research
Well Bob, it is good that you have this space to state your opinions.  Keep up the good work, Jack Bybee is already reading it.  We deal with this stuff all the time.  We are vilified for it as well, by the same people.  It is kind of hopeless, however, I do not like to be muzzled into parroting the 'party line' like I was under some dictatorship. 

funkmonkey

Very interesting read.  I applaud your efforts, and appreciate that you are trying to put some science behind the voodoo.  Very nice work, Bob.  Some of it was over my head, but I think that the basic theory has merit, and may be a good explanation of why people are hearing what they do.

As I was reading the paper I couldn't help but wonder what effect either heating or cooling the conductors would have.  Somebody mentioned cryo'ed copper earlier in this thread, what would happen if a signal were run through copper that is somehow temperature controlled well below freezing.  Would it then take on the characteristics of a different group?

Big Red Machine

Very interesting read.  I applaud your efforts, and appreciate that you are trying to put some science behind the voodoo.  Very nice work, Bob.  Some of it was over my head, but I think that the basic theory has merit, and may be a good explanation of why people are hearing what they do.

As I was reading the paper I couldn't help but wonder what effect either heating or cooling the conductors would have.  Somebody mentioned cryo'ed copper earlier in this thread, what would happen if a signal were run through copper that is somehow temperature controlled well below freezing.  Would it then take on the characteristics of a different group?

Oooh, awesome product idea!  Mini-coolers for cabling.  I'm on it.

sts9fan

Can we have your list of references?
Do you have any data that you have generated?
How do you correlate your observation with sound? 
« Last Edit: 22 Oct 2009, 09:20 pm by sts9fan »

*Scotty*

John, your comments regarding the the lack of a testing methodology by which the assertions contained Bob's paper could be tested
resonated with my own thoughts about his papers content. Without the means of establishing a cause and effect relationship between Debye temperature and anecdotal reports the paper becomes speculation. Every scientific advance starts with an idea. I would like to see Bob flesh this one out with the necessary mathematical structure to make a testable hypothesis. It would be nice to have a working mathematical model firmly grounded in physics that could be tested by independent researchers and that could account for the anecdotal reports concerning the sound of conductors made from different metals.
Scotty

gerald porzio

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 412
Altho I have no dog in this fight, most cable "White Papers" rely on speculation to cure nonexistant audible problems. The touted benefits don't neccessarily lend themselves to audible metrics, allowing no shortage of players in an already overcrowded cable arena. I can't fathom any end to it, nor will there be any. To me the only question is do the endless cable debates fuel "new" designs, or do the "new" designs fuel endless controversy? I guess as the old song goes, "You can't have one without the other".

Curly Woods

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 111
What amazes me is do those that think that the people that listen and can hear differences in capacitors, cables, etc., pay attention to what nay sayers say?  I think that it is more of a talking point for those that say that others could not possibly hear differences. 

The people that listen could care less what the other side thinks.  It has never stopped the listeners, but the nay sayers continue to think that they will somehow change the mind set somehow by talking about how delusional the other side is.  It is very one sided to me.  Do the nay sayers enjoy talking to the walls (themselves)?

 It boils down to the nay sayers must want to feel that they know it all and feel the need to "educate" the listening crowd.  Why else would they spend endless hours "schooling" the listeners as to how delusional that they are and they need to take a sedative and get immediate therapy.  They must believe that listers must be one step away from joining religious clans, personal injury or causing public safety issues.

 I am always amazed to the depths that they go to to belittle, chastise and ridicule the listening crowd.  It is a wonder that any of the listening crowd can function in everyday life.  I mean they must need supervision to just get through each day without driving into brick walls :-)
« Last Edit: 23 Oct 2009, 11:38 am by Curly Woods »

jneutron

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 557
John, your comments regarding the the lack of a testing methodology by which the assertions contained Bob's paper could be tested
resonated with my own thoughts about his papers content. Without the means of establishing a cause and effect relationship between Debye temperature and anecdotal reports the paper becomes speculation. Every scientific advance starts with an idea. I would like to see Bob flesh this one out with the necessary mathematical structure to make a testable hypothesis. It would be nice to have a working mathematical model firmly grounded in physics that could be tested by independent researchers and that could account for the anecdotal reports concerning the sound of conductors made from different metals.
Scotty

Unfortunately, there is no real methodology in place to put numbers to what is heard w/r to speaker cables and stereo imaging.  I can detail what is missing, what confounds, and even present test methodologies for both the audibility as well as the engineering aspects necessary for imaging accuracy, but they are really not wanted either by the audiophile community nor the audio engineering community..  Most prefer the argument that is ongoing between "yaysayers and naysayers", and the stance on the pedestal.  And many in fact, fan the flames of this divide by categorization of people via the terms "naysayer and yaysayer".  I admonished Jon Risch years ago for such behaviour.

There are real methods currently established to calculate, predict, and measure for example, the mean free path of electrons within copper from 1.8 Kelvin up to about 300 degrees C, with the inclusion of lattice defects such as impurities, work hardening, grain boundaries and the such.  I've used a 5th order polynomial with good results from 1.8 kelvin to room temp on 4 nines copper.

I've also had occasion to hear my system "breathing", which was indeed current driven noise of a bass signal being heard in the tweeters...an 11 band P.O.S. equilizer I owned from '77 made with the noisiest components known to man (hand selected for poor noise performance of course :duh:)  But as Scott W shows, the noise level within the speaker wires is awfully low (.1 ohm/.04nV/hz) with respect to the drive signal.

Personally, I enjoy the discussion.  But refrain from the arguments as best as possible.

Cheers, John

PS..For reasons unknown to me, I am unable to PM anybody.  sigh..


sts9fan

Quote
What amazes me is do those that think that the people that listen and can hear differences in capacitors, cables, etc., pay attention to what nay sayers say?  I think that it is more of a talking point for those that say that others could not possibly hear differences. 

The people that listen could care less what the other side thinks.  It has never stopped the listeners, but the nay sayers continue to think that they will somehow change the mind set somehow by talking about how delusional the other side is.  It is very one sided to me.  Do the nay sayers enjoy talking to the walls (themselves)?

 It boils down to the nay sayers must want to feel that they know it all and feel the need to "educate" the listening crowd.  Why else would they spend endless hours "schooling" the listeners as to how delusional that they are and they need to take a sedative and get immediate therapy.  They must believe that listers must be one step away from joining religious clans, personal injury or causing public safety issues.

 I am always amazed to the depths that they go to to belittle, chastise and ridicule the listening crowd.  It is a wonder that any of the listening crowd can function in everyday life.  I mean they must need supervision to just get through each day without driving into brick walls

I think people come out just as much if you say you do not hear a difference in cables.  Would you like to see some thread links?
I am not putting this speculation paper down but without data there is no correlation.


Curly Woods

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 111
I understand your position, but I have the greatest gifts ever given to mankind.  A brain and two ears.  I trust the combination to tell me everything that science refuses to believe. Besides the nay sayers are so vehement to the point of ridicule.  I guess I have never heard some one bash another because they said that they did not hear difference before.  Who am I to tell another that they "have to hear" anything.  I just do not want someone telling me that I could not as science says otherwise.  I trust my defective standard equipment more than anything else.

rollo

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 5466
  • Rollo Audio Consulting -
Interesting stuff there Bob.

(Oh, you have brass listed in the class A materials twice)

Now who sells tin wires?  aa

-Tony

 FYI, Supra sells tin coated 4N copper cables [ Ply 5.1] wound in a oval Litz shielded with a drain wire. A wonderfull cable neutral in character and $5.50 / ft. I use no connectors, the bare wire fits perfectly in the binding posts hole.



charles

sts9fan

Quote
I understand your position, but I have the greatest gifts ever given to mankind.  A brain and two ears.  I trust the combination to tell me everything that science refuses to believe. Besides the nay sayers are so vehement to the point of ridicule.  I guess I have never heard some one bash another because they said that they did not hear difference before.  Who am I to tell another that they "have to hear" anything.  I just do not want someone telling me that I could not as science says otherwise.  I trust my defective standard equipment more than anything else.

The human brain has developed test equiptment more powerful then your ears and with out the bias of the brain. 

Aether Audio

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 775
    • http://www.aetheraudio.com
Friends,
 
Sorry I haven?t gotten back to you sooner.  Nevertheless I never forget all of your efforts to contribute and eventually get back to you.  Here?s a long list of my responses to each of you up to the latest postings.
 
Richidoo,
 
Thanks!  :thumb:

Konut,
 
Quote
When you recover from this initial effort, could you comment on the effect the Smith Cell has on this phenomena? Thanks Bob!

Sorry Ted? can?t do that yet.  We still have to get the patent thing resolved.

Ted_B,
 
Quote

You are indeed living up to my "mad scientist" label of you.   
You need to get together with Frank Tchang (ASI Liveline), the guy who pioneered the small metallic bowls as resonance control within the room treatment category.  Frank's latest cables are incredible, and he espouses the use of various metals (I think 5 or 6 per cable) to form a synergy that, well, the proof is in the listening.  With your empirical discoveries, and his recipe...who knows how great a cable can be made!   

& jwes
 
Quote
Agreed - would be an interesting combination of the "alchemist" and the "scientist". 

Guys,
 
Thanks Ted!  Assuming I?m even close to being correct in the first place, I think I know what Frank is doing.  It looks to me like his use of different metals is an effort to ?mix? the different acoustic phonon modes of vibration such that there is a greater total dispersal of modes ? sort of like building a listening room where you use different room dimensions and angles to break up standing wave modes.  They are still there, but there? a lot more of them such that they don?t pile up at just a few frequencies of higher volume.  The word diffusion comes to mind.  If his cables really do sound better than others, then that?s the only explanation I can think of.  I doubt we?ll ever get together though? every cook has his own recipe.
 

EDS_,
 
Thanks!  :thumb:
 
Bhobba,
 
Thanks!? and I?m not worried.  That?s just the way orthodoxy works.  If a guy really is on to something he just has to wait it out.
 
TRADERXFAN,

Quote

Interesting stuff there Bob.
(Oh, you have brass listed in the class A materials twice)
Now who sells tin wires? 
 
-Tony

Thanks!  I know about the typos and there are more.  Now there?s new info so I have to go back and edit it anyway.

rockadanny,
 
Quote

Does cryo treating the metal change its properties enough, therefore reducing its Debye point? In other words, for example, making copper wire more detailed than a non-cryo treated copper?

Ask Jneutron? he works in cryo research.  Last I heard he said they?ve studied every possible aspect and see no changes in non-ferrous materials whatsoever after cryo-treatment.  I sure as heck don?t know one way or the other myself.

JAMn Joe
 
Quote

Ted,
When Bob brought up his "Black Box" (without the box at the time) here for a weekend of relaxation and a little testing we used the Liveline cables for the test. I can tell you first hand it's a wonderful combination and I now use a finished version of the "Black Box" in combination with my Liveline speaker cables in the demo room.

Thanks for the plug Joe!  The odds are Frank and I won?t be working together in the future ? see above.  Besides, I?m FAR from being anything resembling a materials guru.  Just a guy seeing lines of connection, is all? and pointing them out.  As others have so vehemently pointed out? without data and/or mathematical proofs, I?m just guessing on this thing for the most part.  In my own defense though, the existing data sure does seem compelling when compared to observations.  But what do I know?

KBK,
 
Quote

FYI:
Group C does exist - as an audio cable......

Yeah? I know? and now I?ve been made aware of the fact that there are at least 2 sources.

Browntrout,
 
Quote
? From this I have two things to say, the higher signal level corresponds (if I understand the meaning correctly) to a higher swing in voltages which usually corresponds to a lower current for the signal so to state that there is more charge carriers in a higher strength signal would be incorrect there would be less charge carriers (per cross sectioanl area at any instance) but each one would possess more energy resulting in less collisions (in theory) and each collision changing the path of the electron less as it posseses more energy. This is not necessarily the case as we are (both you and I) applying a Newtonian model to things that do not adhere to this way of thinking. However for the sake of talking about it it works fine for me.
  Secondly the vibrational rates of these 'phonons' being in the light spectrum is irrelevant as to whether they affect signals that are transmitted in the 'audio range'. The mechanism is not such that the vibrations within the metal become part of the oscilation that determines the frequency of the elctrical signal rather that the vibrations in the metal are in the THREE DEGREES OF FREEDOM which the atoms move in, this three dimensional oscillation interferes with the (for most intense and puposes to aid my explaination, please forgive.) two dimensional nature of the electrical signal. This therefore means that the vibrations of the metal do not have to be in any particular frequency range to affect an audio signal in a wire (or anything else) in fact the higher the frequency of vibration within the metal the more it will affect any signal. I hope you don't mind me writing this, I shall continue to read the rest of the paper later and post further on this wicked topic which is really cool. Thanks.

Uh? I sure don?t like pointing out other folk?s oversights, so please don?t take offense to the following.  Believe me, I get as confused as anybody most of the time.
Anyway, Ohm?s Law states that if the load resistance (i.e., speaker impedance) remains the same and the voltage across it increases, the current through the load (and any connecting wires) will increase proportionally.  Current = charge carriers = electrons, so electron density in the conductor will increase when the voltage increases? assuming the load impedance stays the same.
 
You are correct in that the higher phonon vibrational frequency will affect the signal more? it?s just a matter of form.  In the case of thermal vibrations, the effect is predominantly (as far as anybody has ever even suggested, let alone proven) one of reducing the signal?s voltage magnitude due to the loss of energy resulting from the electrons transferring a bit of their kinetic energy to the phonon ? which ends up as heat.  That?s why it?s called thermal in the first place, and is the very source of resistance.  I assume that if one had access to an oscilloscope that could operate out to say? at least ultraviolet frequencies (don?t hold your breath), and which the time-base could be decreased to observe a VERY VERY VERY  (add quite a few more verys) small part of an audio signal? there may be a chance you could actually see some sort of modulation effects.  The again, due to the infinitely diffuse nature of such I really doubt it.  Boy? I can?t wait for the scientists out there to chime in on this one though.

Jwes & ted_b,
 
Quote

Hey Joe,
So how does that work in implementation?  Do I need an extra pair of speaker cables as the black box introduces another connection point between the amp and speaker, or does it come with it's own connectors?  Also, I have two pairs of Livelines because I bi-wire out of monoblocks - would I have to buy four of these black boxes?  Thanks for helping think through - also I didn't see the price on the website...

Guys? NO!!! ? Only in Ted?s case where you have an external crossover and access to its outputs to the drivers can you use 2 BBs on one amplifier output.  After the crossover you have its impedance buffering the BBs from the amp.  Before the crossover you don?t have that, so you can only use one standard BB per amp ? regardless of whether or not you are bi-wiring.  Now? I can build them such that you can use two in that way, but I have to change component values specifically for that application.