Tube DIY Asylum

Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders.

Return to Tube DIY Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Changing internal output wiring of DAC

198.23.103.70
Posted on August 9, 2014 at 23:53:33
DAVID
Audiophile

Posts: 763
Joined: September 26, 1999
 I have the original Eastern Electric Minimax DAC. I've discovered that a Goldpoint stepped attenuator will physically fit in the DAC, replacing the stock volume pot. So I was wondering if changing the wiring to and from the attenuator to solid silver would be of sonic benefit along w/ the attenuator change or is the attenuator change enough? What do you folks think? If changing the wiring is a good idea, any suggestions on who to go to to obtain this wiring?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 10, 2014 at 09:52:10
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Changing to silver wire will have no demonstrable effect, except on the wallet.

Chris

 

RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 10, 2014 at 11:19:27
Vincin
Audiophile

Posts: 200
Joined: October 14, 2005
 This comment however true has absolutely no effect on the mind of a curious audio person.

say the chance of hearing (or feeling) an improvement when changing the 10 inches input wire from pvc stranded copper to teflon solid silver is 1/10, and the cost of doing this experiment is usd 30. I think most people starting out this hobby would still do it. It is relatively a small sum of money.

afew years down the road when people add up the costs of doing all these silly experiments, you will be shocked to realise how much have been spent for curiosity. Whereas what we spend and invest in own real advancement in appreciation of music is almost .... nothing. It is very diffifcult for the average audio person not to get misguided.

 

RE:internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 10, 2014 at 18:08:27
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Any wire change is dependent on the purity,gauge, insulation, configuration,etc. IMHE, though , I can hear changes of a couple inches of wire in inputs of my preamp.

YMMV n FWIW

 

RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 10, 2014 at 18:40:43
MikeWI
Audiophile

Posts: 632
Joined: March 22, 2002
 Can't disagree unequivocally but I have certainly experienced significant improvements when switching from average quality wire to high quality wire. High quality solid copper or silver wire is advisable in my experience.

Mike

 

RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 11, 2014 at 00:57:20
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 I was careful to insert the adjective "demonstrable" in my response to the OP. I doubt very much that the change from copper to silver wire would have any measurable effect of any significance, and I am quite sure it would be undetectable in rigorous double-blind testing.

One can see from simple order of magnitude estimates that the effect of a change from copper to silver in a situation as undemanding as a home stereo system would be quite negligible. Also, when one considers the vast lengths of ordinary copper wire that will have been used in the recording studio and the CD production plant, it is hardly plausible that changing the last few inches to silver in the home CD player is going to have much effect.

Of course, if someone is inclinded towards believing such things do matter, then, especially if they spend enough money on the modification, they may well "hear" a difference.

Chris

 

RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 11, 2014 at 05:53:02
danlaudionut
Audiophile

Posts: 5480
Location: Schenectady
Joined: June 6, 2002
 Chris

I have heard that argument on so many topics ...
It never holds any water though.
By the same rationalle then ...

Feedback in amps would not have any effect
since so much feedback is used in the recording.

Tubes vs SS would have no effect since
so much SS is used in the recording studio.

Since speakers have so much distortion then
the small distortion of the amp shouldn't be heard.

I am sure there are many more applications
but these came off the top of my head.
It is an absurd argument and falls appart
when looked at closely and rationally.

DanL



 

RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 11, 2014 at 06:48:41
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 >Feedback in amps would not have any effect
>since so much feedback is used in the recording.

Lack of feedback certainly has an effect, if it leads to excessive, and noticeable, distortion. But the argument does demonstrate that massive feedback, as used in the modern SS equipment in the recording process, is harmless enough.

>Tubes vs SS would have no effect since
>so much SS is used in the recording studio.

To the extent that tubes give rise to a "tube sound," it is because of colourations they introduce, and so certainly one tube amplifier at the end of a long chain of SS amplification can affect the final sound.

>Since speakers have so much distortion then
>the small distortion of the amp shouldn't be heard.

There are different kinds of distortion, and the kinds introduced by the speaker may well be different, and distinguishable, from those introduced by the amplifier. Having said that, tests seem to indicate that humans have a pretty hard time distinguishing between amplifiers on the basis of their distortion, provided the THD is reasonably, but not incredibly, small.

>It is an absurd argument and falls appart
>when looked at closely and rationally.

I don't agree. How, for example, would you counter the argument that replacing a few inches of copper wire by silver wire at the end of a long chain of prior lengths of copper wire will have a negligible proportionate effect?

Chris

 

RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 11, 2014 at 07:09:31
danlaudionut
Audiophile

Posts: 5480
Location: Schenectady
Joined: June 6, 2002
 Chris

1) I would not assume it is "good" copper wire.
Replacing cheap wire with good wire
will produce audible effects.

2) Silver and copper "sound" different
all the time and where ever you use it.
I rewired my Polk T15 and used silver on one
and copper on the other - it was only 8" long.
I definitely hear a difference.
It is much shorter than the copper speaker wires.

You're saying that "the vast lengths of ordinary copper wire"
will negate using any silver wire.
BUT the huge amount of feedback used in the recording
will not negate the use of feedback in the amp.
AND the extensive use off SS in the recording process
will not negate the use of tubes in the amp.
Finally the relatively high distortion in most speakers
will not negate the minimal distortion in the amp.
Do you see the fallacy of your logic?
Your logic only works in one instance ???
Then the logic is faulty.

DanL



 

RE:internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 11, 2014 at 08:07:42
drlowmu
Manufacturer

Posts: 9730
Location: East of Kansas City
Joined: January 10, 2005
 Absolutely Stu !!

An inch of bad wire can ruin the musical experience !!!

Glad you survived the storm over HI.

Jeff Medwin

 

Agree 100%, posted on August 11, 2014 at 10:20:32
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 We can argue until the cows come home as to the quality of the analogies used here such as feedback vs non-feedback amplifiers.

But the fact remains there is no documented evidence a few inches of silver versus copper wire makes any appreciable difference in waveform fidelity in a preamp application. It is simply not measurable at audio frequencies and very likely unmeasurable at video frequencies for that matter. Microwave RF, perhaps we may see a difference.

As for what people hear, well they hear what they want to hear. And if they don't mind spending the money, go ahead and use silver wire.

But the established electrical engineering community is clearly in the hogwash camp as far as this idea goes.

 

RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC, posted on August 11, 2014 at 10:30:14
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 DanL, I don't think there was anything wrong with my logic. I think you have rather twisted the logic around, in the case of the feedback and the SS stages in the recording chain.

Each one of the issues you have raised can be discussed in its own right, and each one goes over old ground where we all know agreement will never be reached. It is just like arguments about religion; the faithful believe, and the atheists don't.

In the case of the wire, the OP was asking about replacing the internal output leads on a DAC, which will presumably feed into a fairly high impedance input on the audio amplifier. This is a somewhat different situation from the case of connecting leads to a loudspeaker, which is what you alluded to in your recent posting, I think. In each case, one can make order of magnitude estimates of the effect that changing copper to silver should have. It is simply not plausible that there would be any perceptible difference, in the case of the output leads in the DAC. And I am quite confident no rigorous double-blind test would support the idea that silver leads would make a difference.

Chris

 

There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 11:08:45
danlaudionut
Audiophile

Posts: 5480
Location: Schenectady
Joined: June 6, 2002
 DanL



 

RE: There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 11:53:44
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 Dan, it is a matter of record on this forum that you believe any difference in wires makes a sonic difference. I think you once said, "every wire has it's own sonic signature" or something like that.

It's also evident that you have an electronics background, both by your own claim and in the posts you make, we can see you know some tube circuit theory.

So with that in mind, in technical terms, why do you think different wire materials have a sonic difference in these otherwise controversial applications?

Ok, you did some extensive listening tests and heard differences in nearly every case IIRC. So what do you think is going on electrically?

 

RE: There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 12:18:29
danlaudionut
Audiophile

Posts: 5480
Location: Schenectady
Joined: June 6, 2002
 Mostly it is more metalurgy than electrical.

Copper is softer and has more resistance
and therefore has a warmer mellower sound.
Silver is harder and has less resistance
so it has a more strident articulate sound.
Aluminum I have not tried but was a fad years ago.
Some dope gold with the silver to mellow it.

Also the insulator is another factor.
PVC dampens the sound.
Teflon sharpens the sound.
Cotton/Air is in the middle and sounds more neutral.

OCC/Single crystal wire cleans up the sound nicely.

Then there is the shape of the wire.
Round will sound different depending on the gauge.
Flat sounds has the most neutral wide band response.
I have not tried rectangular yet.

Mix and match to your taste and system.

DanL



 

OK, thanks for sharing your views on this. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 12:23:14
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 a

 

RE: There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 12:45:04
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "Mostly it is more metalurgy than electrical.

Copper is softer and has more resistance
and therefore has a warmer mellower sound...
...
Flat sounds has the most neutral wide band response.
I have not tried rectangular yet."


Is this all a joke, or are you being serious? It is hard to tell...

Chris

 

RE: There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 12:46:48
danlaudionut
Audiophile

Posts: 5480
Location: Schenectady
Joined: June 6, 2002
 Serious

DanL



 

RE: There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 12:50:26
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Well it is no wonder, then, that attempts at rational discussion get nowhere.

Chris

 

RE: There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 13:12:50
dave slagle
Manufacturer

Posts: 5430
Location: NYC
Joined: April 27, 2001
 not dan but silver behaves differently when soldered. Unlike copper it melts with the solder giving it more of an alloy than a junction of dissimilar materials.

(not sure exactly how to put it but the way you can be sure your wire is silver is simply dip it is a solder pot and if you keep it in there too long it will dissolve (melt?)

dave

 

RE: Agree 100%, posted on August 11, 2014 at 13:38:54
Triode_Kingdom
Audiophile

Posts: 10044
Location: Central Texas
Joined: September 24, 2006
 "they hear what they want to hear."

Which is exactly the reason we're supposed to be reaching final conclusions with double-blind listening tests. Anything else isn't worth the electricity it takes to turn on the amp.

 

This is like matching wits with an unarmed man (nt), posted on August 11, 2014 at 14:30:11
danlaudionut
Audiophile

Posts: 5480
Location: Schenectady
Joined: June 6, 2002
 DanL



 

You forgot the obvious, posted on August 11, 2014 at 16:48:54
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 silver's resistance is about 6% less than copper (or was it 4%).

Actually, though, for hardness both copper and silver are remarkable alike. That is the principle reason why silver smiths alloy copper with silver to make cheaper silver ware. When working the copper-silver sandwich the metallurgical properties are quite similar and you can hammer and shape the sandwich with little issues from the dissimilar nature of both metals.

Still I find it useless to argue with those who claim no difference. Let them believe what they will. After all after miles of electrical wire coming to your home from the power plant, who needs a PLC?

 

Silver does indeed react to magnetic fields differently from copper..., posted on August 12, 2014 at 14:47:54
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 and it's resistance to electron flow is 8% more efficient than copper {whether that could be heard in a DAC is anyone's guess}
: IT IS a matter of electro-negativity. Silver has several open spots on its orbitals, while maintaining a balanced internal positive and negative talley. So electrons can flow along it without being attracted and slowed by the nucleous. The crystal structure of silver {lattice structure} is such that it basically is formed of fine wires, just a few atoms across, rather than a big chunk all together. This creates a higher efficiency. Its the same principle behind a bundle of tiny wires over one big one. Less freedom of motion in directions other than in the current flow means less bouncing of atoms, and less power lost to heat.


The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Silver does indeed react to magnetic fields differently from copper..., posted on August 12, 2014 at 19:50:26
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "and it's resistance to electron flow is 8% more efficient than copper {whether that could be heard in a DAC is anyone's guess}"

Certainly, it is true that the conductivity of silver is somewhat higher than copper, as you say. But now consider in practice what that might mean. Let's say the copper output lead in the DAC has a resistance of 0.1 ohms, and that the input impedance of the audio amplifier is 20K ohms. Now compare with a silver lead, where the resistance is say 0.09 ohms instead. Can anyone seriously imagine that the difference between the two cases is going to be audible?

Well yes, I can answer my own question; some people apparently can seriously imagine that the difference is audible. I was assured by DanL that he was being serious with his claims that "different wires have different sonic signatures," etc., etc. However, I think the emphasis here has to be on the word "imagine." Humans can very easily imagine that they experience all kinds of bogus phenomena. Not with any dishonest intent; it can all seem real enough to the subject. There are endless examples of this in the arena of optical illusions, and similarly there are lots of examples with aural illusions. The brain can easily be tricked, and it can easily interpolate with what it expects to see, or to hear.

In the face of such "unreliability" of the observer, one has to have more trustworthy ways of trying to establish whether a claimed perceived phenomenon is real or not. Only by such means can one distinguish real science from voodoo science. One way to gain insight is by measurements, with apparatus. Clearly in the case of a silver wire versus a copper wire, there will in principle be a tiny measurable difference between the two. We don't really need to make the actual measurement in this case, since we can calculate the effect of the change. The voltage divider is 0.1 ohms vs 20 Kohms in one case, and 0.09 ohms versus 20 Kohms in the other. Any effects will be utterly negligible, and way below the threshold of audibility.

Maybe, though, someone will dispute the assertion that this is below the threshold of audibility. In that case, there is one other way of objectively testing their claim; the double-blind test. It is useless to do anything other than a double-blind test. If the person knows which setup uses the copper wire and which uses the silver wire, then of course it is only too easy for them to convince themselves that they hear a difference, if they are so minded to believe such things. The only way to avoid the risk of confirmation bias inherent in "sighted" comparisons is to do a proper, rigorous, double-blind test.

The evidence from double-bind listening tests is that humans are remarkably bad at distinguishing between configurations that they claimed were obviously different when they had the benefit of knowing which was which.

In the case under discussion, I would be absolutely confident that no one would be able to distinguish between the copper wire and the silver wire in a double-blind listening test. I doubt that anyone has actually conducted such an experiment, and some people will be happy to continue with their beliefs that different wires have different sonic signatures, even in the DAC example under discussion. It would be a harmless (if somewhat expensive) delusion, but a delusion nonetheless.

Chris

 

Perhaps if I stated in another way, copper HAS magnetic properties... surprised? 2 1/2 times More magnetic , posted on August 12, 2014 at 20:17:17
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 than silver.

An important consideration, far beyond the understanding you have displayed thus far.


The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Perhaps if I stated in another way, copper HAS magnetic properties... surprised? 2 1/2 times More magnetic , posted on August 12, 2014 at 20:21:54
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "An important consideration, far beyond the understanding you have displayed thus far."

Well, I suggest you present a calculation, demonstrating how you think this is going to produce an audible effect.

Chris

 

LOL !!!!!, posted on August 12, 2014 at 20:47:26
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Perhaps you should.provide documentation as to the limits of human hearing and resolution. We know through spectrographic analysis the best noses can detect one part per trillion. What is the equivalent for hearing ? We all.about individuals w perfect pitch, but what about other aspects of hearing ?

 

RE: LOL !!!!!, posted on August 12, 2014 at 21:32:27
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "Perhaps you should.provide documentation as to the limits of human hearing and resolution. We know through spectrographic analysis the best noses can detect one part per trillion. What is the equivalent for hearing ? We all.about individuals w perfect pitch, but what about other aspects of hearing ?"

What difference between the copper wire and the silver wire are you supposing that the human ear might be able to discern? Are you talking about the tiny change in the audio signal level between the two cases, because of their different conductivities? This would in any case be utterly overwhelmed by a small adjustment of the volume control.

Are you talking about some supposed effect based on their different magnetic properties, as referred to by cleantimestream? I think he is, by the way, talking about the factor of 2.6 between the (very small) magnetic susceptibilities of the two metals. This means that while copper has a relative magnetic permeability of 0.999990, silver has a relative permeability of 0.999974. He asserted, without any argument to back it up, that this is an important consideration for the discussion in hand. I doubt this very much, but it will be interesting to see if he can provide a supporting argument. What effect is a difference in the tiny magnetic susceptibility of the the conductor supposed to have?

I just don't see what mechanism is being proposed that could possibly affect, in any material way, the sound resulting from a copper wire versus a silver wire. If you could identify what particular difference you think will arise, we can then discuss what are the known limits on the human ear's ability to discern that particular quantity.

Chris

 

numbers, posted on August 12, 2014 at 22:00:28
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 You keep throwing numbers which in reality have NO meaning, at least not without defining the limits of human resolution. How much distortion is audible, how mucj ld deviation in frequency response...., etc., etc.

Your attempt to bowl over readers with undefinable parameters (the numbers you give), is meaningless, totally so.

Your assertions need proof, the same you ask for. But simply from anectdotal experiences, you seem to be mistaken.

Of courseYMMV

 

RE: numbers, posted on August 12, 2014 at 22:16:53
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "You keep throwing numbers which in reality have NO meaning, at least not without defining the limits of human resolution. How much distortion is audible, how mucj ld deviation in frequency response...., etc., etc.

Your attempt to bowl over readers with undefinable parameters (the numbers you give), is meaningless, totally so."

On the contrary, I think it was you who first started introducing numbers in this thread, in your post headed "You forgot the obvious," in which you quoted figures about the relative conductivity of silver versus copper. Cleantimestream then followed up on that, first with another figure for the relative conductivity, and then with figures for the relative magnetic susceptibilities for the two metals.

Since you and he seemed to be proposing that these figures were of significance for the discussion in hand, I then tried to respond to that suggestion.

Chris

 

more LOL, posted on August 12, 2014 at 23:29:46
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 You wrote there is no measureable effect befween silver and copper. I merely responded but I did not say resistivity was the cause of any perceived difference. In fact I made a short list of parametets which have affected sound IMHE.

The truth is, intellectualizing about wires, without really understanding all possibilities is not truth in any form.

 

RE: more LOL, posted on August 13, 2014 at 01:24:20
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "You wrote there is no measureable effect befween silver and copper. I merely responded but I did not say resistivity was the cause of any perceived difference. In fact I made a short list of parametets which have affected sound IMHE."

Well, your post with the leading sentence "You forgot the obvious, silver's resistance is about 6% less than copper (or was it 4%)" [First four words in the Subject line] certainly gave the impression that you considered it to be of significance. And I didn't say that there would be no measurable difference; I said that any measured difference would be
negligible and of no significance (as far as the human ear is concerned).

By the way, in your previous comment, you said "Your attempt to bowl over readers with undefinable parameters (the numbers you give), is meaningless, totally so." The numbers I gave, I believe, were the relative permeability of copper and silver, the estimated resistance of the wire in the DAC, and the estimated input impedance of the amplifier. In what sense are they "undefinable"? In what sense "meaningless"?

Anyway, if you are now saying that the relative conductivities is not, in your opinion, a significant factor, then we can at least agree on that one.

But you surely must have *some* physical mechanism or mechanisms in mind for how the various parameters you previously listed might be affecting the sound?

Cleantimestream, for example, has asserted that the different magnetic properties of copper versus silver are an important consideration when discussing the comparitive audio properties of the two wires. I cannot think of any plausible phenomenon along these lines that could conceivably make an audible difference, but I'm happy to wait and hear his proposed explanation before commenting further on that one.

But if you can propose a characteristic in the sound that you think will depend upon the physical properties of the two different connecting wires, then we can maybe discuss whether it is likely to be within the limits of human resolution. That is, I think, what you were asking for?

Chris

 

RE: There's none so blind as those who will not see. (nt), posted on August 13, 2014 at 05:59:49
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12359
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
 Copper too alloys with or dissolves in solder. This is why plain copper soldering iron tips pit and need frequent dressing. Iron plated tips pretty much eliminate the problem and are much longer lasting.

 

RE: LOL !!!!!, posted on August 13, 2014 at 06:15:53
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 I just don't see what mechanism is being proposed that could possibly affect, in any material way, the sound resulting from a copper wire versus a silver wire"

The magnetic vortex, specifically concerning Anhysteretic remanent magnetization within a wound output transformer utilizing silver instead of copper has been attested to sound different {superior?} by many too many people.

Different wound geometries of wire yield different sound {this is known}.

To quote Sir Francis Bacon {who is and Was Shakespeare} "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

Or perhaps tis as simple as you lack an open mind. When am confronted by something new... I say... "I do not know". Is quite possible one does NOT know what to measure yet to qualify let alone quantify.

You would do well to take a page from the late and Brilliant Richard C. Heyser. A meter reader who has done more to advance this hobby than almost any man.

"You out there, Golden Ears, the person who couldn't care less about present technical measurements but thinks of sound as a holistic experience. You're right, you know."


The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: LOL !!!!!, posted on August 13, 2014 at 06:32:54
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "The magnetic vortex,.."

Nothing very specific there.

But your contention was, I think, that copper is "2 1/2 times more magnetic" than silver, and that this would play an important role in explaining why silver wire would sound better than copper wire? Do I have that right?

Chris

 

Documentation needed, posted on August 13, 2014 at 10:43:04
Triode_Kingdom
Audiophile

Posts: 10044
Location: Central Texas
Joined: September 24, 2006
 "...Anhysteretic remanent magnetization within a wound output transformer utilizing silver instead of copper has been attested to sound different {superior?} by many too many people."

Please cite any text(s) you know of that objectively support this claim.

 

This thread is an embarrassment on so many levels, posted on August 13, 2014 at 11:14:16
op48no1
 This is the never-ending audiophile debate and I don't expect to be able to change it. But, seriously folks, this is an embarrassment.

There are really two questions here:

1) Are subjectivist perceptions "real," or do they exist only in the minds of the listeners?
2) Regardless of the answer to question (1), what do we make of the rigor of the arguments on both sides?

With respect to question (1), my personal answer is, "I don't care." These are very subtle differences, that most listeners wouldn't even notice. As I've explained elsewhere, it's just not important to me. It may be important to others, though, and I'm fine with that.

So the real question, in my opinion, is the quality of the arguments being put forth to justify the different claims being made. This is not a symmetrical argument (though some will try to portray it that way). The subjectivists make extraordinary claims, and the burden is on them is to prove their cases. It is not the responsibility of skeptics to prove anything.

Subjectivist thinking is plagued by confirmation bias. Obviously (and we see this in all kinds of groups -- religious zealots, conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and on and on) people cling tightly to their cherished beliefs and no amount of contrary evidence or reasoned argument will sway them. This clinging to beliefs and selective filtering of information is documented and proven human behavior. It's sad, scary, and pathetic, but ultimately forgivable, I suppose, because this is how our brains evolved to work.

A note on the human brain. Contrary to what many claim, human senses and perception are not precise and infinitely resolving. Our senses exist to promote our survival, and the brain does not need, nor is it capable of maintaining, a real-time, comprehensive map of every stimulus captured by our senses. The picture inside our heads of what's happening in the world around us is patched together from incomplete and often flawed raw data. The brain fills in the gaps to produce the illusion of a big picture. The brain fools itself, in other words. Constantly.

I've said this before. Any audiophile who starts an argument with the premise that human hearing is the most precise measuring instrument imaginable has lost the argument before it even begins. Any audiophile who tries to justify his perceptions without taking into account just how frail and fallible the sense of hearing is has no business expecting thinking people to take him seriously.

Another incredible embarrassment is the way audiophiles seize upon random, disconnected semi-technical facts and put them forth as proof of their beliefs. Facts they do not understand and cannot place in the context of their real-world significance. So, the magnetic permeability of silver is a smidgeon different from that of copper. And therefore, those of us who are skeptics are expected to take this as proof that claimed audible differences between silver and copper wire are due to the properties of the wire (and not of the listeners and their expectations). Hogwash. Without offering a plausible, legitimate, verifiable chain of cause-and-effect to demonstrate how a difference in material properties leads to the perceptual change, the entire argument is a non-starter. In other words, hogwash.

There's probably no point in going further. It's fine to experiment with tweaks, and you are guaranteed to hear differences. That's just the way your brain works. If you take care to eliminate subjective biases, the perceived differences will go away (or at least the ones that have no cause, or where the physical difference is below the threshold of perception). You are free to continue to believe the difference you believe you hear are real, but lacking experimental proof or a plausible explanation for what you're hearing, this ultimately becomes a matter of faith.

There are many faiths in the world. I don't believe in god, I don't believe the moon landings were faked, I don't believe vaccinations cause autism. And so on. I'm not opposed to faith; it serves its purposes. In an ideal world, IMHO, people would understand the difference between faith and reason, and compartmentalize their thinking appropriately, recognizing that faith and reason occupy different domains of thought.

What saddens and frustrates and scares me is that so many people are so incapable of keeping faith and reason straight in their heads. And, unfortunately, there are many pressing issues in the world, far more important than whether or not "wire makes a difference," issues on which human lives and maybe even the survival of the species depend, and people are responding to these issues based on unreasoned faith.

Scary, indeed.

-Henry

 

RE: This thread is an embarrassment on so many levels, posted on August 13, 2014 at 11:33:41
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Well said, Henry! A wonderfully accurate analysis of everything that is wrong with the "subjectivist" audiophiles' claims and arguments.

Chris

 

RE: This thread is an embarrassment on so many levels, posted on August 13, 2014 at 12:26:57
op48no1
 > Well said, Henry! A wonderfully accurate analysis of everything that is wrong with the
> "subjectivist" audiophiles' claims and arguments.

Which is precisely why what I said will make no difference. LOL!

-Henry

 

sigh, , posted on August 13, 2014 at 12:46:52
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 Triode, am not going to spoon feed information to you. IF you can not understand what I am saying... Learn. The lack of magnetism is indeed what lends silver its superior properties in output transformers. Consult Electraprint. Metallurgy and chemistry are rather deep subjects to be schooled in a day.

You had all the information necessary in our last discussion and still wanted to debate how fast Fourier analysis was incorrect {am surmising you had the dignity to read the discourse with Tre'} I like some forms of distortion, so do you, {even if you do not grasp what distortion is}.

When the Radiotron handbook {3rd edition} said the highest fidelity in sound is achieved through a push/pull DHT, I understood and agreed with them.


I still like SE the best... most of the time.


The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

Just curious ..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 12:50:16
MikeWI
Audiophile

Posts: 632
Joined: March 22, 2002
 Have either of you tried different wire materials or construction methodologies in various audio wiring or interconnect applications?

Maybe you just know there is no technical possibility of them sounding different?

I believe I paid more for my copper OCC magnet wire than my silver coax so I can't see any reason for me to have an observer bias there. I'm an EE but DIY audio is just a hobby. I don't have a great deal of concern to prove why something sounds better.

This application may be very insensitive to material choice but I chose silver in a similar application because I thought silver oxide would behave better over the long term than copper oxide.

Mike

 

RE: sigh, , posted on August 13, 2014 at 13:19:23
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "The lack of magnetism is indeed what lends silver its superior properties in output transformers."

It is interesting that you should say that. As a matter of fact, the magnitude of the magnetic susceptibility of silver is actually *larger* than that of copper (by that factor of 2 1/2 or so that you spoke about earlier). You had it the wrong way round.

Presumably your "theories" about what is going on are sufficiently malleable that you will accommodate this inconvenient fact without difficulty.

Chris

 

Changing your tune a bit, posted on August 13, 2014 at 13:54:16
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 aren't you. Better to just leave it as "I haven't tried it but it can't be so." As an opinion it becomes unassailable. Trying to make it a fact simply exposes your lack of knowledge on certain electrical parameters , the minimum which includes magnetic fields.

BTW, you do know that every AC signal generates a magnetic and electric field, right? Again, not saying that it is the only important parameter.

Again bear in mind the OP was changing out the volume control to a DACT ladder pot. He wished to maximize the performance. Even if subtle at best, as deemed by you and some others, a pot is a pot is a pot by your logic. It all simply changes resistance, so you should have jumped on the fact that a pot change would do little to change the sound....at least in your world,


 

RE: sigh, , posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:07:23
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 Re-read till you are able to inculcate what I said, perhaps if I say it another way you can grasp the same thing.

copper is 2 and 1/2 times more magnetic than silver.


you are in way over your head.


The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Changing your tune a bit, posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:07:44
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Is your post supposed to be logically related to what I said? I think you must have missed the point somewhere here.

Chris

 

RE: sigh, , posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:12:06
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Perhaps you should define what you mean by how "magnetic" a substance is. I took your rather imprecise usage to mean the magnetic susceptibility. This characterises the magnetisation that is produced in the substance by a given applied magnetic field. The magnetisation is greater for silver than for copper.

Chris

 

You're right, posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:13:37
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 It is silly. After all subtlety is not necessary in music is it?
There is little difference between a high school violinist and some one like Heifetz, after all they can all play the same notes.

I once had a customer who brought in his girl friend to do some final auditioning, Her comment "I can hear the words just as clearly as my cock radio, why spend the money?" still reverberates. Yep, Music is important to some and not important to others

Sure, music is not one of the fundamental needs of mankind, usually defined as food, shelter, and clothing as being considered the great needs. Funny, though, how all major cultures on the planet, well, I take that back, how every culture incorporate music. It is certainly not necessary for life, but it certainly augments life as we know it whether we like it or not.

In fact, Daniel Levitin has some interesting theories about the necessity of music for human culture. Read his This is Your Brain on Music and the World in Six Songs. His postulates are most interesting.

One of his contentions is that the Renaissance started when Gregorian chants gave way to harmonies (in the West, at least) and it promoted alternate thinking. Controversial, at the least, and it becomes a little like the chicken or the egg saying, but no doubt that alternate reasoning paths in mainstream thinking did start off at the roughly the same time.

To discount any tweak or audio advancement as being too subtle is to ignore what makes a virtuoso a true artist. Its what marks the difference between a Stradivarius and a student model instrument. The greatest music and musicians are marked by the subtlety they infuse in their performance.
If you can do something to increase the awareness of that subtlety, then I would greatly disagree with you, as I find it greatly enhances my appreciation for the piece being performed.

Of course YMMV

 

RE: sigh, , posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:20:00
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 Good God are you dense, and I do not mean weeds when one is fishing for musky. Gee, I guess since silver is 2.6, am NOT prone to exaggeration. Look, I thought Dan was being a bit rude, but you really are um, er, not too bright.



Material χv (× 10−5)
Superconductor −105
Pyrolytic carbon −40.9
Bismuth −16.6
Mercury −2.9
Silver −2.6
Carbon (diamond) −2.1
Lead −1.8
Carbon (graphite) −1.6
Copper −1.0
Water −0.91
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Just curious ..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:22:32
op48no1
 If you look at my recent posting history, you'll see a couple of messages where I explain why I've lost interest in audiophile listening tests. Basically, I agree with golden-ears who say, "Everything sounds different." The problem is, I don't know any way short of rigorous blind testing to verify whether the differences I hear are real or imaginary. For the level of effort I'm willing to put in, the answer is basically unknowable. There is music, and then there are audiophile games, and I've given up on the latter.

With so many things in the world to learn, why waste time chasing the unknowable? This is why I make the distinction between Question (1) and Question (2) above. Philosophers may debate and argue whether belief in the power of reason is just another kind of faith. I understand that, and I'm no philosopher, but I'm satisfied that my best hope for understanding the world is rational materialism.

Given all that, my answer to your question is, "Yes, and so what?"

No offense intended. It's just that your question is kind of like the response of a religious nut when you challenge him to prove the existence of God: "Have you ever tried praying to god for an answer to your question?"

-Henry

 

RE: sigh, , posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:24:45
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 The value for silver is -2.6 x 10^{-5}, and the value for copper is -1.0 x 10^{-5}. This means that the magnitude of the magnetisation produced by a given applied magnetic field is 2.6 times larger for silver than for copper.

That is to say, the magnitude of the induced magnetic moment per unit volume is larger by the factor 2.6 for silver than for copper.

Chris

 

Ridiculous, posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:25:54
op48no1
 Remember, I'm a pianist, right?

Not only are the differences between a good and a great performance easy to hear, they are easy to measure as well.

The mistake you and others make is to conflate audiophile tweaking with musical art. They are very different things.

Actually, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, your reply merely highlights how little you understand my argument.

Are you a musician, by the way?

-Henry

 

You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:41:31
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 ~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:48:09
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 We are clearly talking at cross purposes. What is your calculation that gives you a factor of 2 1/2 *larger* for copper than for silver? My calculation is (using X for chi):

X(silver) = -2.6 x 10^{-5}
X(copper) = -1.0 x 10^{-5}

Therefore X(silver)/X(copper) = 2.6

In other words, the susceptibility of silver is larger than that of copper by the factor 2.6. This means for a given applied magnetic field, the silver will have an induced magnetisation that is larger by the factor 2.6.

What is your calculation?

Chris

 

Silly, posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:48:45
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 me I only played on the collegiate level for a decade. That being said being a musician has nothing to do with this discussion. After all , I know of several tone deaf musicians, well they are not very good but they still call themselves musicians..

My point is that if changing a wire shows more detail then I am all for it. I don't care if you find this perpetual chase too fatiguing and confusing, After all, wasn't it the great Pablo Casals who when asked why he was practicing even at age 90, replied that he thought he was improving?

The fact that you have given up says a lot about you. Do you bother to practice any more, or do you take classes or even master classes? repetition and incrementally small gains are an important part of any performer, as you should well know.

 

Lord have mercy..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:50:55
DAVID
Audiophile

Posts: 763
Joined: September 26, 1999
 ...I didn't know my simple question would erupt into such a war. I've been here long enough, I guess I should have known this would start a grand argument. Thanks, though, for all the thots. I will, for now, just replace the volume control from the stock pot to a Goldpoint.

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 14:54:18
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 Diamagnetism is the property of an object which causes it to create a magnetic field in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field, thus causing a repulsive effect. Specifically, an external magnetic field alters the orbital velocity of electrons around their nuclei, thus changing the magnetic dipole moment. According to Lenz's law, this opposes the external field. Diamagnets are materials with a magnetic permeability less than μ0 (a relative permeability less than 1).

Consequently, diamagnetism is a form of magnetism that is only exhibited by a substance in the presence of an externally applied magnetic field. It is generally quite a weak effect in most materials, although superconductors exhibit a strong effect.

Diamagnetic materials cause lines of magnetic flux to curve away from the material, and superconductors can exclude them completely (except for a very thin layer at the surface).
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Just curious ..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:01:39
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 I perhaps have done the most extensive DBT of wire of any one I know. Of course , I am a dealer so I have certain advantages; access to various wire and manufacturers, a platform on which to experiment with, and blind testers (my customers).

I had wired my demo Conrad Johnson preamp: PV-12 with five inputs with different wire at every input. I had so called 6N 24 gauge copper FEP coated on one input, 24 gauge 4N silver FEP coated on another, I had Cardas 24 gauge, on another, and Kimber SF23 on yet another. The fifth input I would change as I got curious about other wires and their configurations. All inputs were broken in for 7 hours using the PAD break in disc before evaluation (as recommended) followed by a 20 minute break in period to tone down the inevitable brightness which followed playing the disc.

Thus by merely switching the IC I could evaluate the various input wires, the longest of which was a mere 2 inches (Left jack to mother board). There were audible differences between all wires evaluated in this manner. I could offer to play any wire for the customer based on his sound preferences. All could hear differences (well to be perfectly honest a couple could barely distinguish certain wires from each other, but all could hear the difference between Cardas and kimber SF 23, however).

Thus, for me, cable changes is definitely not a mind game. I have already done the testing to my satisfaction. To simply intellectualize and come to a conclusion is merely a throw back to the days before Galileo: Of course a heavier object will fall faster than a light one: it is only common sense !

LOL!

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:05:28
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Right, I agree about what diamagnetism is. The magnetisation vector is equal to the susceptibility chi times the magnetic field vector. So it will be antiparallel to the applied external magnetic field vector in the diamagnetic case.

The magnetisation characterises the extent to which the substance is responding to the external applied field. The vacuum, for example, has chi=0, and so the external magnetic field produces no magnetisation at all in that case.

The larger the magnitude of chi, the larger the magnetisation that is induced by the given external magnetic field.

The magnetisation of silver will be larger by the factor 2.6 than the magnetisation of copper. Thus silver is being "more influenced" by the magnetic field than copper is.

How are you arriving at a figure of something being 2 1/2 times larger for copper? What is that "something" you are calculating? What is your calculation?

Chris

 

RE: Changing your tune a bit, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:06:32
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 NOT at all. You claimed that there would be no measurable differences. However you did not state what measurements you were referring to. There are a lot of measurements which can be made.

QED.

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:10:58
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 The magnetisation of silver will be larger by the factor 2.6 than the magnetisation of copper. Thus silver is being "more influenced" by the magnetic field than copper is...

No.

sigh, you do not understand. Do you not see -2.6? Copper being -1? ergo

Silver is 'less magnetic'. Sure am glad we are not discussing quantum mechanics and differential equations.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Changing your tune a bit, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:14:20
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "NOT at all. You claimed that there would be no measurable differences."

No, I said

"I doubt very much that the change from copper to silver wire would have any measurable effect of any significance, and I am quite sure it would be undetectable in rigorous double-blind testing."

I inserted the phrase "of any significance" for precisely the reason that I was not asserting there would be literally no measurable differences. Rather, I was saying that there would be no differences that would be of sufficient magnitude, or significance, to be relevant to the discussion of audibility to the human ear.

Chris

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:21:09
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 So you would say that the vacuum is even more magnetic than copper? By what factor would you say the vacuum is more magnetic than silver?

I would still like to see your calculation, whereby you claim that copper is more magnetic than copper by a factor of 2 1/2. Are you saying 2.6, in fact? How does the ratio copper/silver end up with the 2.6 in the numerator in your calculation? (If that is what you are claiming.)

Chris

 

Quining Qualia, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:24:33
Mark Kelly
Manufacturer

Posts: 7175
Location: Willy, VIC
Joined: February 28, 2002
 On the subject of the reality of perceptions, read "Quining Qualia" by Daniel Dennett.


Mark Kelly

 

AsI wrote earlier, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:27:48
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 better to change your position to I haven't tried it but it can't be true.

That way no one can dispute your opinion.

and with that, I find it of no use to continue this thread with you. You can believe what you want to, and that is fine with me. But please to do not try to impose your opinion on everyone else.

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:34:23
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 sigh, if you understood electron spin we would not be having this conversation... you do understand that, correct?



please scroll down to diamagnetism

Please follow the link.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:37:37
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Please just present your calculation where you obtained the result that copper is 2 1/2 times more magnetic than silver. I think all our discussions that at present seem to be at cross purposes will be resolved if you will do that.

Thanks,

Chris

 

RE: check EBay ..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:50:48
deathtube 667
 Try EBay.

They sometimes have good prices on stepped attenuators with Dale resistors and bulk silver wire.





 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 15:56:28
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 The facts have been shown to you time and again.

Wow. I pointedly gave you BEDROCK information for you to grasp the basic premise. Still. It is okay if you dig ditches for a living, there is no shame if you do so with your best effort.


You could just say, "I am sorry Ken. I do not understand"


I would respect you far more than I do now.

good night.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

Cpotl:, posted on August 13, 2014 at 16:00:34
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 3649
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 Cpotl,

You have to keep in mind here that UncleStu is an avid believer in extreme tweaks. Just look at his posts over on the tweakers (magic pebbles) forum.

He is also the one here who argued with me years ago that he could hear the difference between using the red insulated wire over the black insulated wire in common Romex house wiring, meaning he could hear the color of the AC power cable insulation. Now how do you reason EE theory with that train of thought.

I also applaud your logic above with Cleanstream. You have put forth some mathematics to uphold your understanding or possibly a mis-understanding of the technology in discussion. All Cleanstream has posted is links to university course pages.

Pretty clear to me who the real EE's are on this forum.

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 16:05:19
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 I would politely like to ask you again, to present your calculation of the ratio for copper to silver. You gave a rather definite figure for what you claim the ratio is, and I presume you are claiming to calculate that from the data for the susceptibilities for copper and silver. I am sure that if you will please present your calculation, it will clarify a lot of things.

I can assure you that I understand the principles at play here perfectly well. I also think that we are simply talking at cross purposes, so please humour me, and show how you are arriving at your ratio.

Thanks, Chris

 

RE: Lord have mercy..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 16:06:55
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 Quite a sh*tstorm, eh?

I haven't read it all, but did anyone mention the effect the greater number of solder junctions MIGHT have?
Too much is never enough

 

RE: Silly, posted on August 13, 2014 at 16:11:34
op48no1
 The subject was whether or not the reported subjective differences between short lengths of different kinds of wires, and other similar tweaks, are due to actual physical changes in the sound, or to perceptual bias in the listeners.

You have changed the subject to the question of whether or not subtlety in music is important. That's quite a leap.

Of course subtlety is important. Since you have experience with master classes, then you know that the feedback and advice given by the teacher are concrete and specific: changes in timing, dynamics, phrases, voicing, and so on. All of these things are real, easily perceived, and if you were to capture the performances electronically, measurable.

The differences between a good and an outstanding performance are not so subtle that one has to strain to hear them. But even if they escape the notice of a casual listener, there can be no doubt that the sound itself is different. Moreover, we understand and accept that, by varying the pressure, velocity, and timing of the motion of his hands and fingers, the musician makes these changes happen. There is no mystery or dispute. There is no highly speculative and logically dubious chain of cause and effect at work here. No crisis in the accepted laws of nature or perception.

The only mystery (and I think science has made some progress on this as well) is why the listener judges some performances to be better than others, even if the basic presentation of the notes is the same. This is a very interesting question that has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Somehow, you are trying to make a logical leap here, and it falls flat on its face. The reasoning goes something like this:

1) Subtle differences in the way music is played are crucial to the subjective value of a performance.
2) There is no disagreement among listeners that some performances are clearly better than others.
3) I plainly hear a difference in the sound of [some tweak].
4) Therefore, this tweak is "real."
5) Moreover, [some pseudoscientific blather] proves my perceptions are valid.

It's hard for me to go further with this, and no doubt a waste of time, because (as is always the case) nothing you have said in reply to my original posting in this thread comes close to addressing the actual points I made. Nor is there any perceivable logic to your reply. I'm at a loss.

As far as I'm concerned, you might as well have said, "The differences are real because... BENGHAZI!!!"

Let me say this in conclusion. I think a lot of audiophiles have this vicarious desire to experience the sense of artistic creation that a real performer does. So, somehow, they conflate the act of building and tweaking a stereo system with that of actually playing an instrument or even composing music. I think it's nonsense. I can't imagine, if you asked a competent performer or, better yet, music teacher, how to improve one's music artistry that they would tell you to waste your time on meaningless voodoo of the sort that audiophiles hold in such high esteem.

Can you imagine? If I put quarters on the corners of my piano and hung a bag of crystals inside, I could suddenly play like Danill Trifonov?

-Henry

 

RE: Quining Qualia, posted on August 13, 2014 at 16:15:18
op48no1
 Thanks, Mark. It'll take me some time to read.

-Henry

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 17:18:03
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17294
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
 "I am sorry Ken. I do not understand"

-2.6 vs -1, with those numbers being negative wouldn't that mean that silver is less susceptible and will have an induced magnetisation that is smaller by the factor 2.6 than copper in the presents of the same given applied magnetic field?

WRT transformer secondaries, what does this mean in terms of induced voltage?

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

RE: Cpotl:, posted on August 13, 2014 at 17:28:53
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Hi Gusser,

Thanks! Yes, it is an uphill struggle with some of these guys.

The debate with cleantimestream is hampered by the fact that he simply won't define terms, and won't attempt to explain his argument, resorting instead to bluster and insults. The key question, really, is what does one mean by "how magnetic" a non-permanently magnetised material like copper or silver is? I think a reasonable definition, and I suspect the one that he really might have in mind too, is the magnetisation M induced by putting the object in an external magnetic field. It is the quantity that measures how much the substance is reacting to the external field; how much it is being affected by the external field.

But then, it is clear that the one with the greater strength of magnetisation is the one whose absolute value of susceptibility is larger. I think he is getting confused by the fact that the objects here are diamagnetic, and so the susceptiblities are negative. I think maybe he has somehow decided that because they are negative, he should turn the ratio upside down...

But if he would only (a) give his definition of "magneticness", and (b) present his calculation, it would all become instantly clear.

Oh well...

Chris

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:02:29
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Hi Tre,

The induced magnetisation M is proportional to the applied field times the susceptibility. For a given applied field, the *strength* of the magnetisation is proportional to the absolute value of the susceptibility. M will be parallel to the applied field if the susceptibility is positive, and anti-parallel if it is negative. But the strength of the magnetic polarisation induced by the external field will be proportional to the absolute value of the susceptibility.

Thus silver will have a larger magnitude of induced magnetisation than copper.

If you used your definition, then you would also say that a pure vacuum (susceptibility =0) had a larger induced magnetisation than silver, and by your arithmetic the magnetisation of the vacuum would be -2.6/0 = infinity times bigger than the magnetisation for silver. Even though the vacuum cannot magnetise at all!

You need to take the absolute values here, in order to discuss which material magnetises more than another. And you shouldn't turn the fraction upside down just because the quantities are negative.

This is all really pretty academic, since the susceptibilities in both cases are tiny! I don't for one moment imagine that there will be any observable audible effects in the OP's set-up due to this!

Chris

 

RE: Cpotl:, posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:06:37
dave slagle
Manufacturer

Posts: 5430
Location: NYC
Joined: April 27, 2001
 to simplify this.

in the units being discussed:

negative numbers going away from zero are diamagnetic and are repelled by a magnet. the larger the negative number, the more the magnetic field has an effect.
zero represents no effect by a magnetic field (an ideal vacuum)

positive numbers represent paramagnetic which are attracted to magnetic fields.

therefore the larger the number on either side of zero, the more effect the magnetic field has.

I would love to see some documentation on what the net result of this effect is in conductors.

dave




 

RE: Cpotl:, posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:19:27
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 Hi Dave,

Absolutely! Nicely summarised.

Chris

 

C'mon Henry..........., posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:26:10
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 My five inch speaker in my truck has pretty good reproduction of music. I can get the gist of pretty much any performance, pop or classical. Is that good enough? Does it enable me to distinguish Perlman playing his Strad or his Guarneri? When I listen to Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, can I her her breath control and throat tones ? No I can't. They are not necessary for enjoyment but I find that it all adds to an appreciation for the skill of the performer, though.

Why do you even bother to read posts on this asylum (or any audio forum for that matter, if you no longer wish to experiment or explore audio options? If you are satisfied with what you have so be it. No one is going to argue that point. I do think it is hubris to impose your view of being good enough on everyone else, though. If you notice I did post about doing DBT but I did not post any conclusions, BTW (which might surprise you).

Going even further, why bother buying a Steinway or Fazioli, if you aren't of the caliber of the great soloists? Is buying a better instrument going to improve your playing skill? Does owning a Steinway make you a virtuoso? Maybe you'd better off with a simple Yamaha electronic keyboard and just practicing.....

The whole reason many of us are in audio and this never ending quest for perfection is the capture of the nuance and the subtlety. I don't play piano but there are moments when I can hear the pedal action clearly and that adds a certain greater dimension to the performer's rendition, IMHE.

If you say that that is unimportant to you, then fine: so be it. I can not argue subjective taste. But when seemingly little tweaks can make what I consider important sonic changes, why even bother to post a disagreement, particularly if such changes are what you deem subtle at best.

Being human we all have different standards and different goals.
C'est la vie....

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:29:54
dave slagle
Manufacturer

Posts: 5430
Location: NYC
Joined: April 27, 2001
 hey

This is all really pretty academic,

description nicely put from a factual perspective... but then...

since the susceptibilities in both cases are tiny!

I agree the numbers here are insanely small, but unless you have put in the effort to quantify what is audible or inaudible your "tiny" has no connection to the real world.

I don't for one moment imagine that there will be any observable audible effects in the OP's set-up due to this!

so you have formed your opinion and are using opinions of facts to justify it.

I guess I have to ask is how do you draw the line between audible and inaudible changes?

dave




 

Well, posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:30:49
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 I guess you haven't tried it, then. So be it.

I have and noted a considerable difference. I also notice a lot of manufacturers are also following suit. As one manufacturer wrote back, he had to purchase a $100K real time analyzer (one of five in the world at that time) to measure what everyone in his test lab could hear in 30 seconds. But no matter. I post what I hear and determine and if you don't like it, just ignore it. It ain't no skin off my back.

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:45:03
cpotl
Audiophile

Posts: 1002
Location: Texas
Joined: December 6, 2009
 "I guess I have to ask is how do you draw the line between audible and inaudible changes?"

Good question. OK, so we are agreed that silver magnetises more than copper does, by that factor 2.6 that we are probably by now sick of hearing about. But nobody here has yet proposed any mechanism by which this is supposed to be able to affect the signal passing through the wires. I was really waiting earlier to hear somebody's proposal for what effect we were supposed to be discussing. What magnetic fields, for example, are being imagined here as being the relevant ones? The magnetic fields generated by the audio currents flowing in the wires? Stray magnetic fields from nearby power transformers? The earth's magnetic field? And then, how is any of this supposed to affect the passage of the audio signal through the wires? By what mechanism is it supposed to depend on "how magnetic" the wires are?

Since I have no idea what mechanism anybody has in mind, I don't see how one can yet begin to make specific estimates. All I can say is that with these effects, whatever they are, going on in a short piece of wire with about 0.1 ohms resistance, and the audio signal feeding into a high impedance input in the audio amplifier, I just can't see how any conceivable effect, yet to be proposed, is going to be anything other than utterly insignificant.

Chris

 

RE: C'mon Henry..........., posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:45:57
op48no1
 Again, irrelevant.

The five-inch speaker in your truck isn't hi-fi. The differences between your truck speaker and a real hi-fi system are both audible and measurable.

The differences between two inches of silver and copper wire are neither audible nor measurable.

I have played both Steinways and Faziolis. So much of how a piano sounds is attributable to its prep, but as much as I dislike Steinway the company, I do enjoy their grands. Especially older ones with a lot of character. I have played Steinways I hated, though. The Fazioli didn't impress me. But it was new on the showroom floor and probably hadn't been voiced. IMHO, it's a piano for rich bastards who want to show off their wealth.

A good instrument makes any performer better, regardless of his or her skill. The consistency, level of control, and range of expression means you get more music for less effort.

How any of this bears on the current topic escapes me.

The "never ending quest for nuance and subtlety" is just one rather self-aggrandizing standard that you seek to impose on me and anyone else who doesn't share your hyperbolic vision of what it means to be an audio enthusiast. I might ask you in return why you even bother to read posts on this forum if you have no interest in exploring the objective reality of audio engineering?

I'm not even sure I remember what this argument is about. Honestly, it's drivel.

Go in peace, Uncle Stu.

-Henry

 

In a word..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 18:47:21
op48no1
 BENGHAAAZZZZIIII!

That's why.

-Henry

 

RE: Quining Qualia, posted on August 13, 2014 at 20:21:33
op48no1
 Interesting article. Though of course I've often wondered whether or not other people's sensory experiences are the same or completely different from my own, I never realized what a huge philosophical subject this question of qualia really was.

I would be an ass to try to say anything intelligent about Dennett's analysis. But I can say confidently that the paper shows just how superficial the Audiophile Debate really is -- and affirms for me how ridiculous people are who claim to actually know what they are hearing.

-Henry

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 13, 2014 at 20:24:14
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17294
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
 "This is all really pretty academic, since the susceptibilities in both cases are tiny! "

I don't understand this stuff but I assumed that.

I still don't understand this stuff but thanks for trying.

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

Quining qualia, posted on August 13, 2014 at 20:36:59
op48no1
 Uncle Stu, you should read the Dennett paper Mark linked.

Even if you don't understand a word of it (and I admit, I probably understand only every other word of it) you should come away convinced that any conclusion you hope to derive about the properties of the outside world from what you experience with your senses is hopelessly simplistic.

In a nutshell: To really get to the bottom of the Audiophile Debate opens a can of worms so large that only a genius philosopher -- or an idiot -- could claim to make sense of it.

-Henry

 

RE: Just curious ..., posted on August 13, 2014 at 20:51:22
op48no1
 Until you have documented your methodology, data, and conclusions, and they have been repeated and verified by other researchers, your claims with respect to having performed double-blind tests are meaningless.

-Henry

 

RE: Cpotl:, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:16:23
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17294
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
 Yes, thanks Dave.

Even I understood that. :-)

But, as Dave asked, what difference does it make in a wire's ability to conduct audio signal?

That's the question!

Tre'

Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

RE: Well, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:27:47
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17294
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
 "I have and noted a considerable difference."

Then if someone changed 2" of red wire to black on one channel of your stereo you should be able to tell which one without knowing, right?

And if this person did this every day for 20 days you should be able to tell, correctly each time, which side he messed with?

Unless or until you have successfully done so there's nothing to prove to me that you're not just fooling yourself.

"I guess you haven't tried it, then."

What if I did and claim to hear what you hear, or claim not to hear what you hear?

Who's to say I'm not just fooling myself?

Either one of us needs to prove it before we start making claims.

I mean, red, black, green...I use all colors in my builds and they all sound great to me....but what the hell do I know?

BTW It ain't no skin off my back.

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

typical, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:29:08
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Response. why not throw in a Phd in EE too while you're at it. LOL!! Seems to me you n your buddies are anxious to avoid a certain reality.

As i said, fine with me, you don't have to believe. That's your prerogative. After all every thing to know about physics was contained in my college texts. LOL !!!

 

Agreed entirely, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:29:34
Mark Kelly
Manufacturer

Posts: 7175
Location: Willy, VIC
Joined: February 28, 2002
 I like Dennett's approach and his fundamental groundedness. His book "Consciousness Explained" is not the latest thing in the field but it's still a worthwhile read.

The philosophy of consciousness was going to be my field until I worked out that the only available jobs were teaching Philosophy 101 to bunches of snotty undergrads.


Mark Kelly

 

on second thought, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:37:15
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 I do not believe any thing i do will satisfy you. why don't YOU conduct the experiment?

 

very good pot, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:41:31
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 I used help front them for the North American distributor. Don't let them tell you a pot is a pot.

also your query would be better served on cable asylum.

 

RE: Well, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:43:57
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 I would have proposed a similar test. Someone changes or NOT, a critical interconnect and the system owner says 'original' or 'modified' each day when they come in.
Based on reasonable statistical technique, you should be able to tell in 20 trials.
Too much is never enough

 

nah...., posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:51:11
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Sounds like a Western rehashing of Eastern philosophies, of which i studied for many years (decades, actually). Nature of reality and all that c*#p. I'll remember or maybe you ought to remember all that while enjoying a meal at a five star restaurant w the appropriate wine.

It's all an illusion.....


LOL!!!

 

RE: Well, posted on August 13, 2014 at 21:56:05
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17294
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
 Yes, that is my point.

My apologies for mixing, copper vs. silver (that's what most of this thread have been about) and red insulation vs. black, but I hope my point is still understood.

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

Really, Stu., posted on August 13, 2014 at 22:18:28
Mark Kelly
Manufacturer

Posts: 7175
Location: Willy, VIC
Joined: February 28, 2002
 Dennett is an active practitioner of the the Western analytical tradition, having studied under Ryle.

If you were familiar with the field, you would know this from his use of "to Quine" as a verb, an obvious reference to WVO Quine, another of the great minds of Western philosophy.

If you are not familiar with the field, to dismiss one of its standout practitioners as not worth reading doesn't encourage anyone to take what you write seriously.




Mark Kelly

 

RE: Agreed entirely, posted on August 13, 2014 at 22:28:29
dave slagle
Manufacturer

Posts: 5430
Location: NYC
Joined: April 27, 2001
 thanks for wrecking the job market for my kids...

dave

 

RE: You poor man~nT, posted on August 14, 2014 at 04:06:40
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 The ratios for all substances were set up long ago as you should already Know. Silver IS one of only two natural elements {that are stable} that go 'negative'.

The following is taking applied physics and explaining to You why it matters in our real world. The following is MY opinion and not fact {although facts ARE laced through it}.
Remanence is remanent magnetization {memory in time} left behind in a ferromagnetic material after an external magnetic field has been removed.
Within an output transformer A magnetic field is constantly being created and collapsing on itself @ the speed of light... at multiple frequencies...far more data than most surmise.
Because silver repels magnetism 2.6 times better than copper and CONSEQUENTLY has remanence smaller than any other FEASIBLE element on the planet. It has the ability to deliver the e n e r g y ... and get the hell out of the way... leaving no fingerprints on the sound... so to speak. A direct coupled amplifier via SS has it's own foibles, as does OTL. Let's just say Tubes sound more organic. Do silver transformers sound superior? My ears say yes. Can the math prove it? NOPE.

Has any testing been designed to show what I already KNOW. Not yet

Do I thing that little bit of silver added on for the DAC will make a difference? I don't know, I have been gobsmacked too many times in the past to arrogantly say ... no way.




The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Page processed in 0.061 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]