[Browntrout]

Ok, my saying the OP has shown that his understanding of electricity is incorrect at a basic level does in no way insinuate that he is stupid. It only seems to infer that because people think they know what electricity is and that it is a simple thing to grasp/understand.
   What I said is actually correct, that electron density does not change, it would have been nice if the OP had verified this before telling me I'm wrong.
  Anyway it does not matter, I agree with you about the DIY forum part of this thread (even if it is true and true to some extent of all internet forums)
 

[Aether Audio]

Guys,
 
I really would like to see the topic return to cables... but I'll "bite" one last time.
 
In that, could somebody please tell me how a simple fuse works and why we need to increase the diameter of our speaker wires when we deliver more power to the speaker... if the electron density doesn't increase?  By the way, has anybody heard of a guy named Kirchoff?  H'e dead now I guess, but he may be watching from another plane and would probably like to know the answer to those questions too.
 
I'm going out with the family for a while so I won't be responding back soon, but you guys go ahead and have fun without me.  I think I can stand the suspense in the meant time. 
 
Thanks, 
-Bob

[Bob Wilcox]

Ok, my saying the OP has shown that his understanding of electricity is incorrect at a basic level does in no way insinuate that he is stupid. It only seems to infer that because people think they know what electricity is and that it is a simple thing to grasp/understand.

Do you mean 'imply'?

http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html

[jimdgoulding]

As usual Bob a great post.  Dont worry about what the orthodoxy thinks - the orthodoxy never made progress.  IMHO the thing that will make this stuff more 'acceptable' is double blind listening texts.  They are very hard to ignore.

Thanks
Bill

I heard a prototype of the "box" at Lance's house months ago with Lance at the control using some Mini's and could spot the change for the positive (to both he and I) easily.  Count me as a fan of double blind testing.  Especially for speakers. 

[*Scotty*]

Everytime I see a discussion about this subject degenerate into condition where two irreconcilable diametrically opposed positions are continuously restated with no possibility or either side proving anything or even posing a convincing argument in their own favor I am stricken with the uncontrollable urge to laugh my a** off. I am firmly in the camp of those who hear the difference. Being able to hear any difference between speakerwires,ICs,powercords or hookup wire however is entirely system dependent. Starting in about 1992 my system resolution improved to the point that speakerwires of different metallurgy and geometry sounded different from one another.
As the years have passed my system's resolution has continued to improve and the difference between various metallic conductors and differing geometries has become even easier to hear. The most recent example of this hit home when I built a SS class A buffer. In my haste to hear hear the fruits of my labor I hardwired my connection from a set of input jacks straight to the DACT pot and I was ready to rock. The buffer sounded great and exceeded my expectations. I had made my connections with 6in. 24 OFC teflon insulated wire because it was easy to solder and ready to hand in my parts bin. I had planned from the get go to make these connections with 12ga. stranded OFC. It has to be cut to exactly the right length and is a pain to solder. It is not flexible and can place a lot strain on the solder joint. For the heck of it I left that set of inputs till the last and wired the rest of the inputs with the 12ga. as planned. I then conducted a listening test between the two differently wired inputs, I didn't expect to hear much if any difference between the two inputs as the this was a high level signal with a maximum of 2volts RMS and it was only traveling 6in.
The difference between the two inputs was unfortunately quite graphically obvious. The 24ga. connection was deficient in dynamics, it lacked extension at the frequency extremes and the size of the soundstage was noticeably smaller than the input wired with 12ga.
The difference was very obvious,six inches of wire could make or break the sound of the buffer,no DBT was required the two by four to the side of the head was more than sufficient.
The point of this post is to illustrate that when you are confronted with such a phenomena without a readily available scientific explanation you can either deny its existence or you can deal with it and exploit this new phenomena to your advantage. Why it happens is not necessary to know in order to deal with it on an empirical basis. The DIY aspects of this hobby in particular would be easier to deal with without this added factor. For me this sort of debate amounts to arguing about whether the sun shining in the sky is real or a shared mass hallucination. Either way it still seems to rise every day. It never ceases to amaze me when so trivial a matter leads to such a polarization of viewpoints.
Scotty

[Browntrout]

Guys,
 
I really would like to see the topic return to cables... but I'll "bite" one last time.
 
In that, could somebody please tell me how a simple fuse works and why we need to increase the diameter of our speaker wires when we deliver more power to the speaker... if the electron density doesn't increase?  By the way, has anybody heard of a guy named Kirchoff?  H'e dead now I guess, but he may be watching from another plane and would probably like to know the answer to those questions too.
 
I'm going out with the family for a while so I won't be responding back soon, but you guys go ahead and have fun without me.  I think I can stand the suspense in the meant time. 
 
Thanks, 
-Bob

So you have changed your statement. You are unable to admit you were wrong when you said electron density increases with current, I can qoute that sentance again if you like? Now you are saying it will increase with diameter of conductor which is also incorrect as density of electrons is per volume.
  If you increase the diameter of conductor you will increase the actual number of electrons in a cross sectional area but the density of electrons will remain the same. As I said earlier it is determined by the atomic structure of the conductor.
  Your atempt to change what you said and shift the topic to something else is embarasing.
  I have no wish to converse with such a dishonest person any more.

[JDUBS]

Ok, my saying the OP has shown that his understanding of electricity is incorrect at a basic level does in no way insinuate that he is stupid. It only seems to infer that because people think they know what electricity is and that it is a simple thing to grasp/understand.

Do you mean 'imply'?

http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html

Uhh, Browntrout is a genius.  He said so himself:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=67362.msg626418#msg626418

I think he knows the difference between imply and infer.

[Browntrout]

Interesting. I never was especially good at English. If I say 'it only seems to infer that....' am I speaking from the perspective of the 'receiver' as used as an example in the link explaining the correct uses of infer and imply? I am always open to improving my writing.
  You can take the piss all you want I've spent my whole life putting up with people that ridicule me for many reasons, the way I speak, the music I listen to, my appreciation of beauty etc what I have found is that when I speak the truth people choose an alternative motive for the truth being spoken other than the one I have always had.
  What I said in your link is true, and much more is true also, things you would not believe, should I be fearfull to write it on here? Do you think I am a fool for writing that? I wonder myself, it was an emotional reaction. As is this.

P.S Good post Scotty.

[Curly Woods]

Browntrout,

  I think that you and Bob are basically after the same thing in that cable differences are audible.  Maybe the exact scientific wordings are slightly different, but I really feel that the differences between you both are relatively minor, as the goal is similar in the end. 

[Aether Audio]

Browntrout,
 
I guess that one went right over your head.  I would have thought a "genius" would have understood the basic inference in the speaker wire example.  The question was not how many electrons are contained in a given volume of metal, but WHY the cross sectional area needs to be increased when more power is being delivered to the speaker.  In a static condition where the wire is just sitting there with no connections made to it you are correct... the number of electrons is a constant based on the volume of the metal.  But what happens when current flows to a load through it?  WHY does the cross sectional areea need to be increased at some point?  I hate to use the old "water in a pipe" analogy... but it does make the issue pretty easy to understand.  I could go on and on...like... a volt-meter measures voltage so what does an ammeter measure?  Well... I guess even geniuses are allowed to miss the point once in a while.
 

Your atempt to change what you said and shift the topic to something else is embarasing.
  I have no wish to converse with such a dishonest person any more.

Yeah... didn't you know.  OK - you can really trust I'm honestly telling the truth on this one:  "Everything I say is a lie."    
 
Now... go ponder that one a while and leave the discussion to what is was intended for - the difference in the sound of cables and if they are audible or not - and possibly "why" if there is a difference.  Calling me a liar just got you evicted from the club.  Sorry man, but you don't piss on the front porch of your host.  I guess being a genius doesn't apply to the concept of courtesy.  Now don't go away mad... just go away.
 
-Bob

[Niteshade]

Your system sounds very interesting- could you describe it?

Everytime I see a discussion about this subject degenerate into condition where two irreconcilable diametrically opposed positions are continuously restated with no possibility or either side proving anything or even posing a convincing argument in their own favor I am stricken with the uncontrollable urge to laugh my a** off. I am firmly in the camp of those who hear the difference. Being able to hear any difference between speakerwires,ICs,powercords or hookup wire however is entirely system dependent. Starting in about 1992 my system resolution improved to the point that speakerwires of different metallurgy and geometry sounded different from one another.
As the years have passed my system's resolution has continued to improve and the difference between various metallic conductors and differing geometries has become even easier to hear. The most recent example of this hit home when I built a SS class A buffer. In my haste to hear hear the fruits of my labor I hardwired my connection from a set of input jacks straight to the DACT pot and I was ready to rock. The buffer sounded great and exceeded my expectations. I had made my connections with 6in. 24 OFC teflon insulated wire because it was easy to solder and ready to hand in my parts bin. I had planned from the get go to make these connections with 12ga. stranded OFC. It has to be cut to exactly the right length and is a pain to solder. It is not flexible and can place a lot strain on the solder joint. For the heck of it I left that set of inputs till the last and wired the rest of the inputs with the 12ga. as planned. I then conducted a listening test between the two differently wired inputs, I didn't expect to hear much if any difference between the two inputs as the this was a high level signal with a maximum of 2volts RMS and it was only traveling 6in.
The difference between the two inputs was unfortunately quite graphically obvious. The 24ga. connection was deficient in dynamics, it lacked extension at the frequency extremes and the size of the soundstage was noticeably smaller than the input wired with 12ga.
The difference was very obvious,six inches of wire could make or break the sound of the buffer,no DBT was required the two by four to the side of the head was more than sufficient.
The point of this post is to illustrate that when you are confronted with such a phenomena without a readily available scientific explanation you can either deny its existence or you can deal with it and exploit this new phenomena to your advantage. Why it happens is not necessary to know in order to deal with it on an empirical basis. The DIY aspects of this hobby in particular would be easier to deal with without this added factor. For me this sort of debate amounts to arguing about whether the sun shining in the sky is real or a shared mass hallucination. Either way it still seems to rise every day. It never ceases to amaze me when so trivial a matter leads to such a polarization of viewpoints.
Scotty

[Bob Wilcox]

Interesting. I never was especially good at English. If I say 'it only seems to infer that....' am I speaking from the perspective of the 'receiver' as used as an example in the link explaining the correct uses of infer and imply? I am always open to improving my writing.

In the context of the original statement, it can be presumptious for the person who implies to explain to the actual receiver what inference he should draw. Since 'it' refers to your own statement, your speaking from the perspective of the 'receiver' is an unlikely explanation.

[*Scotty*]

Hi Blair, I have been using a combination of DIY executions of Stan Warren's designs and Stan's custom amplifiers and preamplifiers for nearly 20 years. I have also been using various digital sources that have been modified by Stan.The speakers are a three way WMTMW design with quasi-second order series network. See  link to 6moons road tour http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/roadtour10/roadtour10.html  More information about my current system can be found in the links below my signature. I would be happy to correspond with you further about this subject via PM or email. 
Scotty

[gitarretyp]

I guess that one went right over your head.  I would have thought a "genius" would have understood the basic inference in the speaker wire example.  The question was not how many electrons are contained in a given volume of metal, but WHY the cross sectional area needs to be increased when more power is being delivered to the speaker.  In a static condition where the wire is just sitting there with no connections made to it you are correct... the number of electrons is a constant based on the volume of the metal.  But what happens when current flows to a load through it?  WHY does the cross sectional areea need to be increased at some point?  I hate to use the old "water in a pipe" analogy... but it does make the issue pretty easy to understand.  I could go on and on...like... a volt-meter measures voltage so what does an ammeter measure?  Well... I guess even geniuses are allowed to miss the point once in a while.
 
 
Yeah... didn't you know.  OK - you can really trust I'm honestly telling the truth on this one:  "Everything I say is a lie."    
 
Now... go ponder that one a while and leave the discussion to what is was intended for - the difference in the sound of cables and if they are audible or not - and possibly "why" if there is a difference.  Calling me a liar just got you evicted from the club.  Sorry man, but you don't piss on the front porch of your host.  I guess being a genius doesn't apply to the concept of courtesy.  Now don't go away mad... just go away.
 
-Bob

The area needs of the wire needs to increase to decrease the resistive losses (heating) of the cable. The water in the pipe analogy is not a very good one, for a variety of reasons. It's useful for creating a mental picture, but that's about all it's good for.

The electrons in a copper wire only have a drift velocity of less than a millimeter per second, so you don't need a bigger 'pipe' to let more through because they're barely moving in a coherent fashion. The electron density in a conductor does not increase under the application of a voltage potential.

Also, as another physicist, I have to agree with jneutron's critiques. You have an interesting idea, but that's really all it is at this point. I hope you can add some data to verify your ideas.

[JDUBS]

Interesting. I never was especially good at English. If I say 'it only seems to infer that....' am I speaking from the perspective of the 'receiver' as used as an example in the link explaining the correct uses of infer and imply? I am always open to improving my writing.
  You can take the piss all you want I've spent my whole life putting up with people that ridicule me for many reasons, the way I speak, the music I listen to, my appreciation of beauty etc what I have found is that when I speak the truth people choose an alternative motive for the truth being spoken other than the one I have always had.
  What I said in your link is true, and much more is true also, things you would not believe, should I be fearfull to write it on here? Do you think I am a fool for writing that? I wonder myself, it was an emotional reaction. As is this.

P.S Good post Scotty.

  or 

[Aether Audio]

Gitarretyp & Everyone,

The electron density in a conductor does not increase under the application of a voltage potential.

Thanks for jarring my thinking processes out of the "engineering mode."  We're talking core science now and that takes a slightly different set of brain cells, ones which I haven't exercised much for a long time... until just recently.  The stronger, more exercised ones keep wanting to take over and kick the little weaklings back in the basement.

You are quite correct (but you already knew that), and believe it or not I already knew this fact to be true myself.  That's why I intuitively said I didn't like using the "water in a pipe" analogy (I was in a hurry to post as well because the wife was tapping her foot waiting to leave).  Being stuck in engineering mode for so long, in my mind I was "transforming" charge density in vector space into density per unit time.  In electronics engineering, electrons are always on the move in the form of current and that's where my brain gets stuck.

I already know that you can't pump extra electrons into a conductor in excess of those that are already in the conduction band.  Don't ask me why it didn't dawn on me as to what Browntrout was trying to say.  Although -  he is a bit convoluted in his explanations, so that's probably part of what threw me off.  On top of that, in one of his earlier posts he was pretty "out there" too, so I kinda read between the lines and figured him to be one of those types that takes bits and pieces of science and constructs his own reality.  Nevertheless, I should have caught his meaning and in that context, he was correct.  So everybody - mark you calendars - Bob was WRONG!!! 

On a subconscious level, I guess that's why I continued the debate despite others' suggestions that we were getting off topic.  I was willing to go back and forth until we sorted it out, even after he implied I was stupid.  In that, had I come to the realization of his meaning sooner, I would have conceded to him and apologized for my error.  As it is though he accused me of moral failing before we ever got that far and without cause, so I guess he shot himself in the foot - as even though he was right - he still ain't get'n no apology from me.  If he's reading this though he is free to come back and apologize to me and if he does so, he is also free to post in my circle again.  Feel free to pass the word guys.

Ya know... I can tolerate being called ignorant because we all are to an infinite degree - the only difference being the order thereof.  When it comes to knowledge we're all piss-ants on this hill we call earth, with the differences from one piss-ant to the next not being all that obvious or significant.  In my belief system, issues of morality separate piss-ants from men though, and therefore I'm not about to be falsely accused of a moral failing by anyone and put up with it in "my house."

Not to carry on about it, but I guess this makes for a good example.  It's been a while now since I last actively posted or there has been this much activity on the SP Tech-now-Aether Audio circle, so there are new folks that don't know me and those that may have forgotten.  Let this be a warning to all from here on out:

I'm not big on political correctness, so I'll tolerate almost any debate and exchange of ideas as long as everybody is civil and treats each other with at least a modicum of dignity and respect.  What I will not tolerate is outright slanderous or demeaning comments from anybody... to and/or about anybody - period.  Ya'all just saw what happened to one guy that tried it... don't think it can't happen again.  So let's all be as civil to each other as we discuss this hotly debated topic... and have fun! 

-Bob

[jneutron]

In my haste to hear hear the fruits of my labor I hardwired my connection from a set of input jacks straight to the DACT pot and I was ready to rock. The buffer sounded great and exceeded my expectations. I had made my connections with 6in. 24 OFC teflon insulated wire because it was easy to solder and ready to hand in my parts bin. I had planned from the get go to make these connections with 12ga. stranded OFC. It has to be cut to exactly the right length and is a pain to solder. It is not flexible and can place a lot strain on the solder joint. For the heck of it I left that set of inputs till the last and wired the rest of the inputs with the 12ga. as planned. I then conducted a listening test between the two differently wired inputs, I didn't expect to hear much if any difference between the two inputs as the this was a high level signal with a maximum of 2volts RMS and it was only traveling 6in.
The difference between the two inputs was unfortunately quite graphically obvious. The 24ga. connection was deficient in dynamics, it lacked extension at the frequency extremes and the size of the soundstage was noticeably smaller than the input wired with 12ga.
The difference was very obvious,six inches of wire could make or break the sound of the buffer,no DBT was required the two by four to the side of the head was more than sufficient.......... Scotty

"snipped for brevity"

Before assuming that the change in sound was caused by the choice of wire, you need to examine the whole.

Ground loop susceptibility is a very difficult issue to contend with.  It is not known if you actually controlled the input currents correctly.  I would examine many other factors as the causes, the wire guage and stranding would certainly not be my first choice.

Cheers, John

[Aether Audio]

Friends,
 
Well... it looks like Bob's not done and has a little more "crow" to eat yet.  I don't mean to belabor the issue but I feel the need to clear the air on the previous argument that took place here between Browntrout and myself.  I don't like the idea that some of you may have gotten from it, as I know it left a bad taste in my mouth.  I copped a bit of a "holier than thou" attitude because I "chose" to take offense, and then blew him off as though he were dispensable.  That's just not who I really am and runs against the grain of everything I believe in.
 
The upshot is that regardless of what may or may not have been said by him or others, I had no business making mockery with my "genius" comments - especially after the FUBAR I made in being totally wrong in the first place.  Talk about feeling like an idiot - 
 
Others may believe I was justified because of the negative comments Browntrout made, and for about 1 minute after posting I felt that way too.  Nevertheless I didn't have peace about it and had to re-examine myself a little.  Rewarding "evil for evil" is not a part of my belief system, but I went ahead and participated in that mentality anyway because I let my emotions get the best of me for a while.
 
After it ate at me for a while I finally contacted Browntrout privately and apologized.  He accepted my apology and he apologized in return.  This is good... and he is more than welcome to participate here on our circle in the future.  In that, I publicly welcome him back.
 
Ya know... it's frustrating being so easily subject to emotions.  While life would be void of meaning without them, they have such great power to do harm as well.  Although I'm nowhere near as vulnerable to having my buttons pushed as I was in my younger days, I guess a little of that must remain if for no other reason than to keep me humble.  Maybe that's true for all of us? 
 
All I know is that I'm thankful that forgiveness can be found if we truly seek it.  For me there's nothing sweeter than being reconciled to a friend. 
 
Bless all of you,
-Bob
 

[jwes]

  Posts like that make me smile...

[bixby]

An interesting chart to say the least!

But it does not show the recent turn of events.  In 2008 the number of pirates has INCREASED to 3234 which puts us back in the 1957 timeframe.  Perhaps the turning point has occurred and now we begin to go the other way

Perhaps the extremely rare "law of 7s" pattern is developing.  But only time will tell.