[gerald porzio]

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/dielectric-absorption-in-cables-debunked

[groovybassist]

jneutron:

You've got your numbers switched on the 8 - it's 10pf/300nH.  When you mention their numbers as way off, do you mean their measurements or that the characteristics of their cables emulate zip cord?  Just a curious consumer of course!  For the record, the improvement from Naim cables to the River's was clearly audible.  I don't know whether that means the Naim's were poor or the River's were good. 

Just as another side question (and feel free to move this to another forum if appropriate), have you identified any cable mfgs you think really have their act together?  You can PM me if needed.  Thanks!

[jneutron]

jneutron:

You've got your numbers switched on the 8 - it's 10pf/300nH.  When you mention their numbers as way off, do you mean their measurements or that the characteristics of their cables emulate zip cord?  Just a curious consumer of course!  For the record, the improvement from Naim cables to the River's was clearly audible.  I don't know whether that means the Naim's were poor or the River's were good. 

Just as another side question (and feel free to move this to another forum if appropriate), have you identified any cable mfgs you think really have their act together?  You can PM me if needed.  Thanks!

Augghhh!!!..you're right...good pickup..

Cable Z is 173 ohms.

They state velocity factor, which is percentage of lightspeed.

For a cable of 300nh and 10 pf, apply the LC=1034 EDC...

300 nh * 10 pf = 1034 EDC

3000/1034 = EDC

EDC = 2.9

V prop = 1/sqr (EDC)

Vprop = 1/sqr(2.9) = 1/1.7 = .58

The prop velocity is 58% of the speed of light, they have 85%.

As for cable vendors who have got their act together...I really can't say.

Because it's a buyers market, many cable vendors tilt their marketing toward what they perceive to be their market and their market's interests and educational strengths (meaning non EE geek types).  So geeks like me really don't see too much ad stuff that would appeal to us.  In fact, many geeky types tend to trash the vendors for the non technical nature of the ads.  (Some deserve it if course, for applying nonsensical science to the descriptors).

Honestly, all I could recommend is build quality, vendor quality, you know, the standard metrics..  Having a vendor that will let you listen to the product certainly is a plus, along with money back guarantee frills.  (I occasionally wonder why the vendors don't charge a re-stocking fee).

As for pricing, while I can make any cable I want, with any L or C I desire (within constraints of course, lightspeed is invariant) dirt cheap...  if I were to charge labor, well, let's just say that "exorbitant cable pricing" may not be that exorbitant..  My double braid coax for example, used about 2 dollars worth of materials yet it took me about 3 hours to build..

I couldn't afford to hire myself...

Bob is the only vendor I am aware of that uses the equations I developed.  Others may, or they may use their own design rules, I can't say. 

Cheers, John

[audiotart]

Audio is more of an art than a science.  The fact remains that even with the most sophisticated measurement equipment and advanced theoretical knowledge it is IMPOSSIBLE to state most anything is absolute terms in regards to audio.

Perception, mood, perference, hearing (anatomically and pyschologically) are all parameters in which we cannot measure.  This is precisely the reason that there are so many manufacturers in the audio game.  

Even if your River Cables were the mathematical equivelant of zip cord, the mere fact that they sound better than the Naim cords is all that matters.  Measurements aside, your opinion is what counts.  

It has also been proven that even though two things may measure the same (this is in reply to the article that Gerald has referenced) that is doesnt mean they are the same.  One hundred pounds of poo poo is still not the same thing as 100 pounds of gold.  I'll take the gold!!  Yes, they are both 100 pounds but one has a perceived value and the other just plain old stinks!  In relation to audio, I believe just as I do in Jesus, that certain things in life are not measureable, just becasue we caant mathematically prove that there are not major variances with most properly designed cables for audio does not mean they dont sound different.  Just becasue we cannot measure the amount of love we have for someone does not mean that love does not exist to varying degrees.

[miklorsmith]

No politics, no religion.  Carry on.

[audiotart]

Sorry, no more politics.  I promise.

[audiotart]

Just to state this for the record, I just typed a five minute burst of madness to post here and I wound up restraining myself.  I really am retarded.  I have this penchant toward saying outrageous things like that I invented the question mark.  I just cant help myself.

[gerald porzio]

Why not avail oneself of the math & measurements that do exist rather than shrouding cable attributes with a mystique. This then seems to get 2nded by golden eared gurus priding themselves on uber resolving systems under the correct conditions (the 1st 4 hrs. of the summer & winter solstice, for exmple)

[groovybassist]

jneutron:  Thanks for the feedback.  I was just curious if there were mfgs who "had their act together" in the eyes of the EE community.  I'm sure there are - as we all know it's a jungle out there for mere consumer mortals.

audiotart:  I agree the proof is in the listening.  The River's have withstood a number of gear/speaker changes and fared well, so I'm not ditching them.  Thanks.

[audiotart]

Gerald.  Since I am unable to further debate mathematicaly why it is that we hear what we hear, I ask you this:  why do we exist?  For thousands of years the most advanced thinkers in the world have pondered this simple yet profound concept.  Some have come up with the theory that we exist because of some sort of string of chemical collisions/reactions that took place over billions of years.  Some say that we exist becasue we were created.  Who is right.

I say that audible differences within cable designs do exist.  I know it is true because I can hear it.  Now wheteher or not you hear the same thing as me is immaterial becasue I say I can hear it.  If you dont hear the differences between different cable technologies than might it be that your system does not reveal the slight audible difference between different designs or does it exist the possibility that you JUST DONT WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG DIFFERENT CABLES!!!

[audiotart]

miklorsmith, does my last statement border to closely on religion or politics?  Or both maybe!  Either way, I felt that more of a philosophic explanation for Gerald might have been in order.  Sorry sir.

[jneutron]

Why not avail oneself of the math & measurements that do exist rather than shrouding cable attributes with a mystique.

Because for all the math and measurements, there exists no standardized test regime to determine the impact a set of cables will have on the localization parameters that humans use for visualization of an audible source within space.

To date, all the two channel musical product you buy (with some exceptions of course), are mixed down using pan pots which utterly destroy the localization parametric known as Inter-aural Time Delay, ITD.  This is done primarily to keep the two channel product backwards compatable with mono.   MONO, believe it or not..sheesh.  If ITD were introduced, or even maintained, the mono result would be heavily combed and rather distorted.

To properly measure how amps, cables, whatever, impact a two channel visualized soundstage, what is required is a correlated two channel spectral analysis.  To date, everybody is content with ONLY single channel FFT magnitude analysis.  As a product rep from B and K stated (actually, I got him to admit it on a forum... ), there are an infinite number of signals that can have the same FFT magnitude spectrum.  So even though two independent signals look good by spectra, that doesn't necessarily mean that they sound the same when analyzed by the human brain in a stereophonic application.  JND studies have been done along these lines for single channel only, but nobody has done correlation studies interchannel with complex signals  (like music), nor even I/O studies with magnitude/phase correlation.

Edit:  btw, while dbt's are rather sensitive instruments, how many are performed using a source program which has been tailored to a speaker system that is a specific distance from the subject and a specific angle with a specific horizontal dispersion characteristic?  The human brain is wondrously adaptable, that is why we "see" a sound image off center even though the right-left delay in the source program may be zero.


With a dearth of measurements which actually can determine audibility of localization issues, what metrics are left for the high end audiophiles to use to determine the suitability of a sound system for their needs?

Cheers, John

[audiotart]

Yes John, yes.  So eloquently stated.

The human spirit and its interaction with the universe that surrounds us.  An infinite amout of variables exist as to how we process certain stimulae.  We all certainly hear different, listen different.  Do two people that have all hearing parameters  from 20Hz to 20kHz process the incoming stimulae the exact same way.  The human spirit, emotion, mood, processing speed and so forth determine what we hear and what it is that we like.  All of these things are not measureable by any test equipment that I know of.

Have a good weekend all. 

 

[Aether Audio]

Why not avail oneself of the math & measurements that do exist rather than shrouding cable attributes with a mystique.

Why not... exclude the "rather than"... and do both (in a sense) - i.e. why shouldn't we avail ourselves to both the objective science AND the subjective experience in making the decision with regards to our purchases?

There are plenty of options that span the gamut of pricing and perceived value.  You don't "buy into" the subjective observations?  Purchase some cheap zip cord and be done with it.  On the other hand, if you're open minded enough to consider the subjective observations of others, try the various options out and see for yourself.  We live in a capitalistic free society (how much longer is anybody's guess), so I simply don't see what the problem is with and the rabid enthusiasm of the naysayers.

It's almost as if that type "needs" to be right in order to re-enforce their world view.  Can there be things we don't understand and for the present, evade our subjective tests and possibly... all of our perceptive abilities?  What if there really are parallel universes residing right along side of our own that we can't perceive?  Even now orthodox physics is finding itself at a loss to explain our perceived reality without them.

What if we are essentially at the mercy of the unknown?  What if our humble species is not really in control?  Does our sense of security collapse as a result?  If so...maybe we need to find another source of said security beyond that resulting from our sense of control.  Either that, or otherwise it seems that all we have left is to continue to fight against the possibility of that reality.  Maybe if we can just "prove" (more like "convince") at least one other person that we are correct in our world view, then it remains intact and we can once again lay our heads down at night with the assurance that we are in control of our universe.

If that works for you, by all means... keep beating that drum.  For the rest of us, the "unknown" does not represent something to be feared, but rather an opportunity for further growth and discovery.  No... we do not fear  Pascal's Terror http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/2001/ben0104.htm rather...we embrace it.  If you cannot do the same, then please do not attempt to prevent us from doing so... as you will never succeed.

-Bob

[jneutron]

Geeeze, guys...it's gettin waaaay to philisophical around here..

Let's keep it simple, eh?  All that is needed is two things.

1.  A standard for reproduction that reflects absolute localization parameters such that a system "class" as it were, is determined by the ability of that system to maintain a desired sound source image coherent and locked in 2 dimensional space.  For example, a system that can keep the localization parameter errors low enough that a sound stays within 10 cm of the desired location would be a class 10..20 cm, class 20.

2. A method of measuring that.

Simple, right?

Cheers, John

[satfrat]

Audio is more of an art than a science.  The fact remains that even with the most sophisticated measurement equipment and advanced theoretical knowledge it is IMPOSSIBLE to state most anything is absolute terms in regards to audio.

Perception, mood, perference, hearing (anatomically and pyschologically) are all parameters in which we cannot measure.  This is precisely the reason that there are so many manufacturers in the audio game.  

Even if your River Cables were the mathematical equivelant of zip cord, the mere fact that they sound better than the Naim cords is all that matters.  Measurements aside, your opinion is what counts.  

It has also been proven that even though two things may measure the same (this is in reply to the article that Gerald has referenced) that is doesnt mean they are the same.  One hundred pounds of poo poo is still not the same thing as 100 pounds of gold.  I'll take the gold!!  Yes, they are both 100 pounds but one has a perceived value and the other just plain old stinks!  In relation to audio, I believe just as I do in Jesus, that certain things in life are not measureable, just becasue we caant mathematically prove that there are not major variances with most properly designed cables for audio does not mean they dont sound different.  Just becasue we cannot measure the amount of love we have for someone does not mean that love does not exist to varying degrees.

Looks like I had you pegged all wrong Sir AudioTart,,,,,,, this post alone is enough to have won over my respect.  And besides that, I totally agree with your perception on audio in general. 

Personally I love it when I've misjudged someone and can apologise for misreading them. 

Cheers,
Robin

[Zero]

Anyone else feel like playing with their Tonka trucks after reading this thread.. or am I the only stupid one here?   

[mcullinan]

No I feel retarded too.. and may actually be.. lol. I skipped engineering and went straight to music appreciation class... heh. But I have 2 things that I excel at when it comes to audio, my ears.

Playing in sandbox with Tonkas, now strapping an M80 to a defenseless worm, me with a sadistic grin.

Mike

[jneutron]

Sorry about that.  It's just guys like porzio get my dander up...

I used to be like that about 30 years ago.

Presently, I work with guys that are waaaaaay above me..So trust me...I know exactly what you're talking about..

I just love attending meetings where I have no clue what they are talking about, with all that technical physics mumbo-jumbo..

Cheers, John

[satfrat]

No I feel retarded too.. and may actually be.. lol. I skipped engineering and went straight to music appreciation class... heh. But I have 2 things that I excel at when it comes to audio, my ears.

Playing in sandbox with Tonkas, now strapping an M80 to a defenseless worm, me with a sadistic grin.

Mike

Hey,,, you forgot the beer!  I can't picture you in a sandbox w/o one in your hand Mike. 

Cheers,
Robin