[Aether Audio]

Curly Woods,
 

I love your response to those people on the DIY Audio forum Bob   They have no idea how to be civil with anyone and I loved the way that you handed them their heads

Mike? thanks for turning me on to that thread? sorry I didn?t write back to you. 
 
Anyway, you have to understand the mentality those guys have.  First, some of them are very educated and intelligent? way beyond me, that?s for sure.  Intelligent people often base their sense of self worth and identity on their intellect.  Messed up as it may be, that?s the way it is.  They have a NEED to be right.  If they are ever found to be wrong? they?re crushed ? and they?ll fight to the end to prevent that, as it?s an internal sense of survival.  On top of that, we all form worldviews in order to make some sense out of life.  The more intelligent a person is, one could say the more likely they are to muse over a subject in order to figure out the truth of it.  Why?  Because they think they can.  If you know nothing of science and astronomy, you?re not likely to spend a lot of time trying to understand the processes going on inside the sun that make it shine.  Some of the guys over there have spent a big chunk of their lives trying to figure this stuff out.  It?s to be expected that if they see no evidence or way such a thing can be, that they?re gonna want proof and hard science/math/measurements, etc.  I suppose that?s the way it should be too.
 
The part I have a problem with is the vanity and condescension.  Nobody knows it all except He that made it all ? and He just left a trail of clues so we could learn and grow? and hopefully see the vanity of it all in the end.  The more you REALLY know, the more you know that you don?t know.  Some fear becoming diminished by that process to the point of the nothingness that we all really are in the face of the Creator that they get angry and mean spirited out of frustration of the fact that they aren?t the gods their vanity desires that they be.  Fear & vanity? fear & vanity? the two great destroyers of mankind.  In the end it is a disservice to them if they are permitted to exercise their wrath at will on the innocent.  As each of us stands up to injustice we save not only ourselves, but also those that have fallen prey to the deceitfulness of their own vanity and fear.  More than to simply defend myself, that?s why I wrote what I did.  I think you?ll see a little more civility in the future from those guys over there? at least for a while and until they have forgotten the lesson and need to be taught once again.

Art/Pat,
 

Interesting to see someone who is as interested in 1/f and phase noise as much as I am.
However..............
I would take issue with some of your explanations and conclusions about them. A minor quibble, though. For instance, I would not state that phase noise has been "vanquished" in modern designs. Merely lowered to a level that most are willing to accept. If you are not cencerned about 1/f noise, then you might conclude that it has been vanquished. But 1/f noise will always be there, and most designs tend to overlook it and its effect.
Pat

You are quite correct and I apologize for using the word vanquished.  I was only referring to the case of oscillators though and in that area, most oscillators now days are stable enough via the PPLs and whatnot that it?s not a big concern in radio like it once was.  Now? clocks in digital converters and such? that?s a whole other ball game.  1/f in amplifier stages?  Same there too.  Sorry for the mix up and keep up the good work!
 
Jneutron,
 
(For those that don?t know, John here is the resident genius of the audio world when it comes to this exact subject ? conductors.  He works in cryogenic super-conductor physics at a big university, so if he says something? you really should listen and I wouldn?t advise arguing with him as you?re bound to loose).
 
Welcome back my friend and thanks for kicking my butt!!!?though you really didn?t need to.  I already know all that stuff and that?s why I?d never try to have something liked that published.  Regardless of whatever insight I might have? I know the rules.
 
1) Well? I kinda thought I covered that part? but maybe not?
 
2) You know me better than that? I can?t do the math.  Algebra & some trig are as far as I can go.  I understand, derivatives, integration/differentiation, limits, etc. from a conceptual standpoint, but I can?t do the equations.  Wanna help?
 
3) Hey? do I get credit for trying?  You did see my suggested test method didn?t you?  Worthless?
 
See what happens when you try to think?  I guess I should follow the advice that, ?If you don?t think too good, don?t think too much.?  OK? let me have it and I?ll shut the heck up.  At least we?ll all know the real scoop.  Hey? I tried.
 
So what you?re saying is that the DIY guys didn?t like the form, irrespective of any merit the idea may have had?  Well, as I already told everybody, it wasn?t like I was submitting the paper for consideration of the Nobel Prize or anything.  It was just a White Paper for the audiophile community that was intended to show where there appeared to be a connection ? which even you have to admit looks pretty intriguing.  I was hoping some REAL smart guy like you would come along, take it under his wing and do a little snooping around.  If I turn out to be right? I?m famous.  If not? nobody cares or remembers anyway ?cause I?m nobody to begin with and everyone has a crap idea once in a while.
 
So far ? so good though as nobody has given any ?first principles? why the idea is fundamentally wrong yet.  I count that as having at least gotten a hit and made it to first base anyway.  Pretty good for a hack, eh?
 
 

[Aether Audio]

john curl,
 

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. 

John? man? as I told you over at DIY ? It?s an honor to have acknowledge me and to have you here? and thanks ever so much for stopping in.  You are more than welcome anytime.  Guys? it?s John Curl from Mark Levinson & Parasound fame!!!  Wohoo?we hit the big time!!!
 
Ok? I?m not trying to pump sunshine up your butt or anything like that; it?s just that, as you know I worked at Crown and I KNOW how hard it is to do good amp design.  That being said I learned to have the greatest respect for guys like you that have refined their designs to such high levels.  Many years ago I remember a hi-fi review that said somebody used one of your amps to weld with as an experiment.  THAT?s an amplifier!
Anyway, I hear where you?re coming from and I can imagine the crap you get over there it DYI.  I already saw the ?you?re a PHD ? you should know better? comment? and that?s a bunch of BS.  I can get away with having such views as ?I don?t know anything anyway,? but you can?t ? at least not without catching serious crap for it.  Without the data to back you up they try to make you look like a fool.  Let?s just keep our fingers crossed that somebody eventually comes up with some hard evidence.  Then we?ll all rub their noses into it at no end.  If any of my musings end up helping in the slightest little way, all I can say is that I?m honored to have helped.  As entrenched in the science as I try to be, I can?t stand arrogant, close-minded people.  Every dog has his day? you?ll see.
 
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?

Thanks! 
 
Well? according to the way I see it, to cool it enough you?d have to hit cryo temperatures.  Cables jacketed with sealed envelopes being fed by liquid nitrogen probably won?t be a big hit.  Going the other way, heating them up enough to push the phonons into a higher vibrational range as though you?d decreased copper?s Debye temperature would probably be a tough one too.  Resistance would go up so you?d need bigger wire to lower the resistance again so as not to saturate it with current from the amp (which would take a big one to do anyway), and then running heater elements down the wire would require some serious precautions, not to mention the increased utility bill.  Nah? I think copper is stuck being copper, so about the best you could hope for is going with single-crystal type ? which is claimed to be pretty good stuff.

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?

I?m going to edit the first paper and post a follow up with the references too.  The correlation I made is in the paper and not necessarily based on my own experience ? just mostly the observations of others.

*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

Did you guys read my test idea at the end of the paper?  I tried.  May not be worth a crap? but I threw one out there.  Maybe Jneutron can advise?

gerald porzio,

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".

Well? your right about the speculation? that?s what it really was all about to begin with.  But? at least the connections I made have some correlation with known physical properties of the metals and they lined up pretty good with claimed observations.  Nobody to my knowledge has made claims of seeing the apparent connection before me... so what the heck? no harm done so why not?  Might not be any connection at all in the end, but I figured it merited looking into in lieu of any other trails to follow.
 
Or I guess? nobody should even try to figure this thing out and then we just keep everything the way it is.  If we do I can tell you one thing, nobody making cables is gonna be any poorer for it and then the audiophile has no option left other than to keep trying different cables with only a wing and a prayer to go by.  Which is the lesser of the two evils?
 
sts9fan,
 
There is data - go here and see EVIDENCE #2:
 
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/15600-i-dont-believe-cables-make-difference-any-input-707.html
 
You may not call it evidence per se... but its a heck of a clue to follow.
 
Take care all! 
-Bob

[Aether Audio]

Arghhh... I wish somebody would fix the way the server interprets text files.     You can't c&p Word without stupid ???s poping up everywhere there's supposed to be a coma or quotes.  Sorry guys.
 
-Bob

[Curly Woods]

Arghhh... I wish somebody would fix the way the server interprets text files.     You can't c&p Word without stupid ???s poping up everywhere there's supposed to be a coma or quotes.  Sorry guys.
 
-Bob

No problem Bob.  Most of us can understand the intent

[Browntrout]

Hello, I don't mind discussing these things with you at all, so no offence taken at you questioning my questioning as it were. You have said...
 
   "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."

Now I can say with certainty that electron density will not increase with either current or voltage increases as it is something that is determined by the atomic structure of the conductor.

[jneutron]

Jneutron,Welcome back my friend and thanks for kicking my butt!!!?

I did no such thing.

I merely pointed out the structure of a typical paper I would referee as part of peer review.  Since your paper did not adhere to that structure, many had problems with it.

So what you?re saying is that the DIY guys didn?t like the form, irrespective of any merit the idea may have had?

Yes.  Basically, what is needed is a design which can be tested for accuracy or refutation.  Your paper has the exact same fault that ALL white papers I have read in the audio world (without exception, as far as I have seen)...the inability to prove via controlled DBT testing the assertion of the paper.  That is a severe flaw which will hinder the acceptance of any written paper, and certainly will result in the skepticism yours has received.

Note that this flaw has little to do with the content of the paper.  The flaw resides in the unfettered acceptance of the use of a DBT without consideration of the confounding variables associated with it,the human subjects, and the available content material. (two channel program content which has been panned via amplitude but not interchannel delay, and humans which automatically adjust the hearing mechanism to accomodate the incorrect localization stimulus).  Using a DBT in any way shape or form to distinguish image placement or accuracy, is like using an autoranging DVM where the decimal point software has been disabled...yes, you get numbers, but you don't know the order of magnitude..

Your correlation is of course speculative, but that's ok..the issue is there was no mechanism provided which can either prove or refute the correlation or the causality.

For your test via impulse measurement across a load resistor...

1.  There is not commercially available, a load resistor which will meet the requirements one would need for your speculative test.  You would have to build it yourself using special design criteria.

2.  Nobody in the audio world yet understands that a special load resistor is required.  It must be very very low inductance, and be capable of zero field intercept at the voltage taps.  Commercial units do not do this, and the engineering community in general does not know that they need this.  For example, the first one I made dissipated 50 watts and was designed to have 60 picohenries of inductance, with a voltage tap inductance intercept of approximately 2 picohenries.  I was unable to measure it below 240 picohenries due to test equipment limitations.

To sum up:
1.  DBT testing of localization to date is seriously flawed.
2.  Source content used within the DBT environment is seriously flawed.
3.  Understanding what JND levels of ITD and IID are for humans vs frequency and angle of incidence is flawed.
4.  Electrical testing of speaker wire interaction is flawed.
5.  Theoretical understandings of how speaker wires work w/r to transmission line theory is flawed.

But other than those eensy teensy little items, all is just wonderful..

Regardless of content, I would just prefer all remain civil.  The best learning is done when others criticize the content, not when they blindly accept it.  I personally prefer discussion with those who disagree, if I want only agreement, I'll get a dog..

Keep on pluggin, accept criticism with a smile and an open ear..

And get back to work making speakers, will ya???

Cheers, John

[sts9fan]

I would also add that to be taken seriously scientificly you should remove the audiophile terms and stick to the facts.  Using terms like "warm: etc detract from your work.  Unless you have other motives with the paper.  One more point is if this is as you say a collection of others observations then I would call it a review as it is all others work except for the gathering of the sources.   

[Aether Audio]

sts9fan,
 

I would also add that to be taken seriously scientificly you should remove the audiophile terms and stick to the facts.

For right now, about all of the seriousness with which I feel the need to be taken is below:
 
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/15600-i-dont-believe-cables-make-difference-any-input-710.html#post1958601
 

Using terms like "warm: etc detract from your work.

I didn't make any specific claims regarding my own observations (even though I do have them).  Rather, I simply quoted those of others that have shown to be a somewhat consistent trend in the consumer audio community.
 

Unless you have other motives with the paper.

My main motive is to get the information/apparent correlation out there with the hope that possibly others of greater means/resources/knowledge may continue the investigation on a deeper level than I am able to at the present.  Of course... it woud also be nice to be known for being the guy that first noticed the correlation - assuming there is one in the end.
 
I already believe there is personally and really don't care if the entire scientific world bows in recognition or not.  This is sort of the same as having cancer and finding a cure for myself and not caring whether or not anybody believes me when I tell them what I took to treat it.  Hey... I'm cured and all the opinions in the world don't mean a hill of beans.  I intend to continue my investegations for my own knowledge's sake whether or not anybody believes, wants to follow or scoffs in my face.  Heck, maybe I'll stumble on something else that causes me to change my mind later on.  That's cool too and at that point "out the window" my present views may very well go.
 
Ya know, once upon a time I was an atheist too, but that changed abruptly one evening when I was 16 and I threw my atheism out as far as I could throw.  Haven't had cause to revisit that decision since and I know what I know in that regard too.  Makes no difference to me what others believe other than the fact that maybe I have something to share that could help them too like it did me.  That's been thrown back in my face and scoffed at many times as well, but never to my own demise.
 
Its the same with this Debye - 1/f thing too.  Ya wanna consider it and think maybe there's some truth to be found in it - that's cool.  If not... that's cool too.  It's just a "thing" man.  Either way I basically threw it out there for others to consider and who knows... maybe it will be of some value.  I don't know about anybody else, but for myself... I'm sure not gonna loose any sleep over it one way or the other.
 

One more point is if this is as you say a collection of others observations then I would call it a review as it is all others work except for the gathering of the sources.   

You are correct sir... it is a review of others observations, but its more than that too.  It's a connection between those observations and those of some basic scientific facts that seem to converge.  Then there's a hypothesis of what may be an underlying mechanism based on those facts that cause them to correlate with the observations and which gives rise to those observations.  Call it what you will... a "model," a great epiphaney... or a bunch of bologna.  Maybe somebody will settle it one way or the other by some scientific means in the end, but for now it remains as it was from the beginning... an idea.  I know those are scary as hell sometimes, but I'm sure we'll all get over it... eventually.
 
-Bob

[mgalusha]

That is because Microsoft chose to use reserved Unicode commands for their "smart" punctuation. Because the server software follows standards it rejects the Microsoft "smart" punctuation. The best thing is to turn it off in Word.

Arghhh... I wish somebody would fix the way the server interprets text files.     You can't c&p Word without stupid ???s poping up everywhere there's supposed to be a coma or quotes.  Sorry guys.

[sts9fan]

Bob
thanks for the thoughtful response.  I wish you luck proving your theory if that is your goal.  Maybe you should contact some universities.  I am sure you could find a grad student that may be interested in this.
Have a great weekend
kris

[maxwalrath]

Bob
thanks for the thoughtful response.  I wish you luck proving your theory if that is your goal.  Maybe you should contact some universities.  I am sure you could find a grad student that may be interested in this.
Have a great weekend
kris

That's a great idea. 

[Browntrout]

I don't think the structure or the words that are used matter one little itsy witsy teeny weeny little bit.
  If the facts are sound and the logic starts from the correct premise and is coherent then it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
  To quibble over the use of words or structure makes me think the people writing are incapable of understanding what has been writen or grasping what was trying to be conveyed. I might well be wrong.
  From what I have read there is some spot on thinking and some slight missunderstandings on the part of the author. The effort and thought given is clear and should be commended, we all think of things differently anyway.
  Cables are different, in many ways from design to manufacture and materials used and so without any doubt they should sound different. I know at the moment our understanding of electricity is very limited and persoanlly I think we will never know due to the gulf between the real world that we feel and the atomic/subatomic world that we imagine.
  I would like to thank matey boy for posting his thoughts and suffering the usual response. For one small moment in time I thought I was going to be involved in a discusion about the science behind why cables do sound so different. Thanks for trying...........there was something in the bottom of Pandoras box after all.
 

[sts9fan]

The words matter very much.  Some are marketing bs and others are science.  This was presented as the later.  You may not believe this but if you have ever presnted a paper tobthe science community then you would understand.  My main point is that if the science is sound then don't shoot yourself in the foot.  Sure you believers have no issues.  Why do you even care?  You do not require proof.

[Curly Woods]

I listen and use a reference cable (my standard cable that I normally use).  I listen to the new cables in my system for at least one week.  If I feel that there might have been any differences to the good, I reinsert the "reference for another week of listening.  If I still feel that the new cable might really make my system sound better, I reinsert it and listen for another week.  I do this until I can make a valid decision one way or the other.  I have had few that have displaced my current reference in a long while, that I could afford. 

  Is this scientific?  No.  Do I think that I have done a good job of being open minded?  Absolutely.  I hear differences in the cables, but it all about the whole effect to me.  Has it made my system more musically satisfying.  Bottom line. 

  In this day and age, I can not believe that we are still debating that cables sound different.  I want to know why, but it seems that all the scientific community wants to do is tell all of us, that hear these differences, are that we are delusional because we will not submit to bogus DBT, which have never proven anything.  I am just thankful that some people are trying to look past what we know today and seek to find the answers to this issue.  There can not be this many delusional people on the planet! 

[sts9fan]

In this day and age?   What do you mean by that.  Do you mean that because people keep making claims we should submit?

[Curly Woods]

In this day and age?   What do you mean by that.  Do you mean that because people keep making claims we should submit?

Aren't we ever going to get past the continual "claims" BS. If people can not hear the differences, then that is not an issue.  It only seems to be an issue for those that say they hear the differences and the scientific community.  That I find hard to believe.  If they do not agree, why put up such a fuss!  I am just amazed at their vileness and ridicule leveled at the "listening crowd".

  I never said "submit", I said find out why we are hearing these differences and find a way to quantify them.  All that I see is the scientific community putting their heads in the sand, claiming that we can't hear and then trying to ridicule.  People will not stop listening and hearing differences!  It is time to look deeper and find the reasons.  I guess we still haven't cured cancer though so this is probably not a high priority in the big scheme of life. 

[Browntrout]

This gets my goat. The 'scientific community' does not hold the view that all cables sound the same and never has.
  Who claims to be 'the scientific community' on internet forums? There are very few people I've talked to on hifi forums who have any idea what electricity is, people consistantly show to me they don't understand in what they write, like the original poster saying electron density changes as current increases this is wrong and shows that his understanding of electricity is incorrect at the BASIC LEVEL. This however does not invalidate what he is trying to say,even a person who does not know his left from his right can communicate directions well enough IF he first states that he does not know his left from right, yes?
  What I would like is people to discuss what has been writen, what the author is trying to convey and it's merits not ignore it and just say it's not valid because it does not follow the form of a scientific paper. As far as I'm concerened someoen who marks scientific papers might as well be a graduate in English as opposed to being so broadly studied as to claim to understand each paper and mark it on it's findings rather than it's gramma.
   So, for me science has always indicated and suggested that cables sound differerent, if someone thinks that the science of electricity is based upon arbitary units such as current, voltage, time then they have a very abstract understanding of the real world as none of these terms means anything in reality, they are merely conjurings of a postulating mind.

[gerald porzio]

Current & voltage are hardly arbitrary units. To label them as such shows littlle regard for what is scientifically valid. No wonder Objectionist get their hackles up & shift into attack mode.

[Browntrout]

If they are not what is? Give me an example so I can understand what you think are arbitary units.
  Here is THE definition of the Ampere (current)
   ""ampere (A) - The base unit of electrical current; constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circuit cross-section, and placed 1 meter apart in vacuum, would produce between those conductors a force equal to 2 x 10-7 newtons per meter of length. ""

 Here is the definition of arbitary...
  ""adj.
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.""

   I can understand how somone would assume or even hope a base SI unit would be anything other than arbitary without knowing what it actually was of course. If something has requirements for infinity and vacuum in it's definition then to my mind it has to be arbitary by it's own definition, for the unit to be charge passing a point in time then the unit defined as occuring in a infinate length conductor then by that statement alone we are denying the existance of time itself, no?

[sts9fan]

So by your thinking all units are arbitary?  You got to be kidding.