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!
Konut,
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,
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 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!
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,
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,
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
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,
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,
? 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,
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.
