|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
198.23.103.70
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?
Edits: 08/09/14 08/09/14Follow Ups:
I'll give you my spin on your questions. I have a Juicy Music Peach 2 that originally had 3 Alps blue velvet controls, left gain, right gain and volume. After about 4 years or so I found that the left gain pot needed constant cleaning or it got scratchy sounding. The gain controls are up off of the board connected via three 2" silver 24awg jumper wires for each. I ordered 2 100k mono attenuators from Goldpoint. They were great to deal with and I had them quickly. After slight mods to the faceplate I installed and connected them. There was a positive change. It wasn't earth shattering or nite and day but it was there. Everything was focused just a little better. In retrospect the less than $200.00 and about 4 hours of my time that I spent was well worth it. The only reason that the stock volume pot is still in there is it is a major undertaking to replace as it is soldered directly to the board and as the Goldpoint control is physically larger, the hole for the shaft would need to be relocated about 10mm higher. I will get to this but is a much more time consuming project.
As far as wire goes I'm about to completely rebuild the Hafler DH-200 which powers my 2nd system using Musical Concepts Elite level components. I will be wiring this with some good Vampire cast chassis wire that is no longer made due to it's cost to manufacture. I have this in 18awg and 14awg, both are too large for the input signal wiring. I called Jeff at Sonic Craft and had a long talk with him about wire. To make a long story short he advised me that ultra pure silver takes on the best qualities of silver and copper, the detail and bass control of silver and the body and warmth of copper. He defined ultra pure silver as 7/9's or better. He advises me that 4/9 or even 5/9 will have the "silver sound". Jeff has NEVER steered me wrong, so I ordered some Neotech 7/9 solid core silver in teflon wire for my project. I encourage you to call Jeff as he not only will give you his opinion but he will always explain why.
...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.
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.
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
Try EBay.
They sometimes have good prices on stepped attenuators with Dale resistors and bulk silver wire.
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
I imagine, millions of years ago, two groups of proto-humans encountering one another on the savanna.
Two particularly robust and hairy males lock eyes and glare at one another. After a brief hesitation during which they size one another up, the two creatures throw themselves into tooth-and-claw battle. Some time later, bloodied and wounded, the lesser of the two combatants hobbles away to die, alone, in the wilderness. The victor takes charge of the remaining members of the loser's tribe and proceeds to impregnate all of its females.
After millions of years of evolution, the now-hairless apes have become modern humans. But they still engage in this primitive chest-beating conflict behavior. It's all so... quaintly primitive, LOL.
Mea culpa.
The sad thing about our modern equivalent to the ancient male dominance ritual is that on the internet, the loser just keeps coming back, and coming back, and coming back. Like one of those plastic blow-up clown punching bags with the stupid grinning face painted on it. Knock it down and it bounces right back. Knock it down again, and it bounces back... Always in your face.
And I'm not even going to say which side is the clown.
We are all clowns here... And hairy apes.
-Henry
"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."I've found very few people during my life who were capable of such thinking, let alone able to describe it. Very impressive!
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Edits: 08/14/14
A quick note on intelligence before I reply.If I were, say, roughly twice as intelligent as I am now (e.g., speed, accuracy, and scale of short- and long-term memory, ability to filter, sort, and associate random facts, and general attention and focus) it would be much easier for me to earn a living, I would have more free time to entertain myself, and I would be able to schooze with groups of elite thinkers who are just too smart to be bothered with the likes of me in my current sad state.
When I look at what I write, more often than not I say to myself, "My god! This is pathetic!" That said, I think as a general rule, the smarter a person is, the more likely he is to say, "I am such an idiot!" So, when I encounter a person who is totally assured of himself and what he knows, and unwilling to question his self-assurance, it is an immediate hint to me that maybe he isn't all that bright. All of which gives me some small hope that, in spite of not being a genius, I am at least I'm not hopelessly stupid. And that's important to know, because if I'm hopelessly stupid, then I'm making a fool of myself, and I do have some pride, after all.
Anyway...
Going back to basics, I think this whole argument can be summarized pretty simply. An audiophile seeks to maximize the subjective satisfaction he obtains from the experience of listening to his audio system. He makes certain changes to the system, perceives that his state of internal satisfaction has increased, and proclaims the change to be "good." For many people, like Uncle Stu and Jeff, this is sufficient and as far as the exploration needs to go.
To me, what is an ending point for Stu is really just the starting point of a much more crucial investigation. It demands (but certainly does not "beg," LOL) the question, "How do I know the change in my subjective internal satisfaction is directly attributable to the physical change I made in the audio system, and not to some change, instead, in my sensory apparatus or associated internal cognitive state and sensory processing?"
I mean, the worst possible state of affairs, in my mind, would be to learn, unequivocally, that everything I thought I knew was just a delusion. (Actually, that would be kind of interesting, as it would open up all kinds of hitherto unexpected possibilities. But to most people, such a revelation would be mind-blowingly traumatic.)
Dennett's article looks very closely at theories of how the mind turns sensory stimuli into models of the properties of things. And he exposes just how difficult it is to characterize this process or to draw conclusions about what it means when our perceptions of things change. At the very minimum, we have to concede that what at first seems like a very simple proposition ("I heard a change") is in fact extraordinarily complex.
What is ultimately so disappointing about the Audiophile Debate is how little attention is paid to this glaringly important psychological/philosophical question. How can it be that audiophiles place such stock in this process of listening and evaluating, but have absolutely nothing to say, give no credence whatsoever it seems, to deep introspection on the very nature of hearing?
Though I tend to fall in, of course, with the engineering camp in these arguments, I have to say nothing I learned during my engineering education taught me anything about these questions. So, an appeal to engineering authority doesn't seem convincing. As an engineer, I can evaluate a statement such as, "The magnetic susceptibility of copper is 2.6 times that of silver." I can even, with some difficulty, try to model the effect of a change in the magnetic properties of a conductor on the signal passing through it. But in the end, there is little I can say as an engineer about how that difference in material properties and signal conduction will change the subjective experience of an audiophile listening to his stereo system. This is the domain of psychology and philosophy.
In my old age, I've become far too lazy and senile to make a serious attempt at penetrating this question. I'm pretty sure nobody gives a flying fuck even about the contents of this posting. They're certainly not going to read a hundred-page treatise on the subject, even if I were qualified to write such a thing. So, let's just concede that this is all mental masturbation, and leave it at that.
Still, there is a point to be made. Each of us possesses, within our skulls, a data acquisition, signal processing, and general computing engine of extraordinary capability. (Some of us are more capable than others, ha, ha.) Every time we perform a listening test, the least complex part of the experiment, by far, is the stereo system. Really, what we are doing is experimenting on our own minds.
It seems to me, therefore, that anyone who claims to be serious about hi-fi needs to be thinking hard about the kinds of questions Dennett is asking. As I've said several times in different ways already, to dismiss the question is to concede the argument before it even begins.
Contrary to what Uncle Stu suggested, I am not remiss by virtue of having "given up." What I have actually done is progressed up, through, and beyond the limits of conventional audiophile thinking. In my view, it's actually people like Uncle Stu who have gotten off the escalator on the second floor. What he describes with evident pride and self-satisfaction as the "never ending quest for perfection is the capture of the nuance and the subtlety," I see as wandering aimlessly around the women's underwear section looking for cooking utensils.
So the obvious question in response to all of this is, "So are you going to put your money where your mouth is and actually throw yourself into bona-fide exploration of the philosophy of audio?" And the answer is no. I have my piano, and my motorcycle, and a slew of other diversions, and I'm content to remain a pathetic dabbler-hack with my existing audio components and my pseudo-philosophical musings. But at least I think I'm realistic about it, and about the limits of my own intelligence.
In a wholly related note, after seven months and $9000 spent, I completed rebuilding my 1988 BMW motorcycle on Saturday. Please listen to the linked video for an audio taste of what a BMW 1000cc boxer twin sounds like when you lose a mis-installed wrist pin circlip after only twenty miles on a new rebuild.
-Henry
Edits: 08/14/14
On the subject of the reality of perceptions, read "Quining Qualia" by Daniel Dennett.
Mark Kelly
Thanks, Mark. It'll take me some time to read.
-Henry
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
Edits: 08/13/14 08/13/14
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
thanks for wrecking the job market for my kids...
dave
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
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
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.
Edits: 08/13/14 08/13/14
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
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....
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
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
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!!!
It's been a long time since I took any eastern religion classes, but I don't see any of that in Dennett's paper. Nor do I see him arguing that reality is an illusion. I think, maybe, you read the first paragraph of the paper, made up your mind, and quit right there.
I thought, on first reading, that Dennett's argument as it relates to the discussion here is that we simply can't trust our senses to inform us of the properties of objects in the outside world. But that's not the point at all. Dennett is taking to task a particular philosophical model of perception that essentially portrays perception as private, indescribable models that exist inside our minds. We can (it is supposed) study and understand these models ( "qualia" ) but never share them with others.
Dennett argues, through a series of thought experiments, that no amount of introspection will ever allow us to understand our qualia , that in fact qualia don't exist at all. But he does not go on to conclude that our senses are deluded or that reality is illusional. The argument is much more fundamental than that. It's really about a philosophical explanation of consciousness.
I don't think this paper offers any position that would help us decide whether or not your perceptions of the sounds of different wires are "real." In fact, I get the impression from his discussion of "property detectors" near the end of the paper that Dennett would say that we are actually better equipped to characterize and share our perceptions than traditional philosophers would allow. So, in a way, I see the paper as being mildly supportive of the golden-ear position. But only by a smidgeon.
Here's the thing. It says something that so many philosophers can spend so much time and so many pages trying and failing to come to an agreement about the nature of perception. This says to me that any glib argument you, or Jeff, or J. Gordon Holt might make about the obviousness of subjective perception as it applies to hi-fi has got to be wholly inadequate. If you are not prepared to grapple deeply with questions of the nature of perception and consciousness, then you have no business claiming authority in the Audiophile Debate.
In short, I am not prepared to say whether or not the things you say you hear are "real." I can't even tell you what it means to "hear." So on that basis alone, because you don't even try to answer these questions, I find your claims and positions to be inadequate.
How's that for a blanket brush-off?
-Henry
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
Edits: 08/13/14
we are writing here about a length of wire, It certainly isn't rocket science. What is so difficult about actually trying it?
To sum up, thus far:
1. There are those posters who obviously have not even bothered to try a wire change. However their superior intellect reveals that it can not have an effect, or, if it does, the effect is largely negligible, a very subjective position in my thinking.
2. Then there are those who tire of the "audio game" and discount any difference, if any, which can be discerned. Strange, how they consider their systems high end, though. I do make a difference between high end and high performance, BTW.
3. Then there are those who want to intellectualize it even further and drag in philosophical concepts into the fray.
All fine and dandy, but the truth is human sensory perceptions are the basis for humanity's view of the world. It is the basis for engineering and ultimately for science. We can argue the audibility of certain sonic attributes. But the variation in human individuals is enormous. Some senses can be trained but some senses may never be fully impressed on certain individuals.
But for the great unwashed (meaning me), perhaps you can elucidate exactly what Dennett's writings reveal about audio and in particular to this thread.
I feel that the tread is really unnecessary. You hear it or you do not. QED.If you haven't tried it, then it is ridiculous to state an opinion and then present it as a fact.
of course YMMV and FWIW
PS In regards to much of Dennett's views, I do believe the next two decades will be very telling. Some of it reflects on Gould and even perhaps Dawkins, but the termination of Doublya terms has opened many new venues in molecular biology, and in particular DNA analysis. There are preliminary indications that some research may revolutionize our thought processes in regards to certain fundamental cultural ideas.
Just my opinion, of course, and one gained from long conversations with a couple of molecular biologists doing research in the field. Some aspects, they point out, are pretty much verboten, primarily because it may contradict fundamental concepts in the field of, say, religion. Some are simply economic driven, too.
Certainly his view that religion will die out in 25 years is certainly not borne out in the Mid East or in the Christian right wing movements here in the US. But then, I digress, this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, unless you believe that being an audiophile is a religion ( or maybe it is, hmmmm.....)
Is this really the best you can do?Cripes.
Edit: For god's sake, Stu! Say something truly insightful that bowls me over and gives me something worthwhile and new to think about.
-Henry
Edits: 08/14/14 08/14/14
If the shoe fits........
You get me there, Stu.
Seriously, what I'm feeling right now with respect to this discussion is just frustration and disappointment that you're, well, just an extremely boring person to argue with.
I know you're not impressed with me, and I'm definitely not impressed with you. The difference is, I have something to say, and you don't. Not really.
Why don't you just say it's a matter of faith and drop it?
Are you really that lacking in curiosity?
-Henry
Henry, I took your words. at face value as I assume you do edit your posts.
As for lacking in curiosity, thus far I seem to be the only one to have actually tried different wires.
In several posts, in this thread, I had stated that an opinion can not be argued with. Also I have pointed out that because human sensitivities differ, any one claiming to have tried a wire change and not heard a difference can not be argued with either.
To that end, I am acceptable of differing opinions. But to say I can not hear a difference is something else and to admit to that would be a falsehood.
We can talk about philosophies, but the truth is what is important is purely up to the individual. It is subjective. Measurements can be great but ultimately the only thing important is how the sound suits your tastes and music. after all that is the reason why we all listen to music in th first place.
If you are happy where you're at That is fine. I can not quibble with that and I have said so before.Your system is not my system, however, and whenever I listen to live, unamplified music, there is a certain quality I am always seeking within my system, particularly so if I am on stage next to the performer. Not everyone wants that however, and I can allow for that.
To paraphrase your earlier comment:
Go in Peace.
Well said, Henry! A wonderfully accurate analysis of everything that is wrong with the "subjectivist" audiophiles' claims and arguments.
Chris
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
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!
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
So now I am curious why you even have any interest in participating in the discussion?
Mike
Sorry, Mike. I thought I'd answered your question elsewhere.
Yes, I've tried different wires with inconclusive results. In the end, I've never been able to satisfy myself that if I hear or don't hear a difference that it's not due to something in my ears or my head.
Why do I participate? I think, implicit in that question is the assumption that if someone isn't passionate about "extracting every musical nuance from their recordings" that they cannot be a true DIY audiophile.
I hope we can agree there is pleasure to be had in designing and building audio components, and hooking them up and listening to nice music with equipment you made yourself. And there is pleasure to be had in studying the principles of electronics that allow a collection of hard physical objects to reproduce music that is nice to listen to. And finally, there is pleasure and value to be had in thinking about what it really means to listen to hear, and about what our perceptions can tell us about the world.
-Henry
Thanks Henry. Your findings are somewhat surprising to me but I am glad you are speaking from, and sharing, your own experience.
We are certainly agreed on the remainder of your post!
Mike
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 !!!
I do not believe any thing i do will satisfy you. why don't YOU conduct the experiment?
Sheesh. You said you did "extensive DBT testing." DBT testing, by necessity, requires formal methodology and documentation. So, either the tests you did weren't proper double-blind tests, or you're withholding the data out of spite.
Or let me put it another way. If you conducted extensive double-blind tests, then you must believe in the methodology of double-blind testing. This is a point of commonality between us.
Either way, let's see the data and analysis. That would certainly be progress.
-Henry
my suggestion is unanswered. Are you saying you can not conduct your own test, but that you epect me to do so?
I think Henry is saying that the burden of proof falls on you because you're the one making the extraordinary claim.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"I think Henry is saying that the burden of proof falls on you because you're the one making the extraordinary claim."This is a very key point here, I think. From the EE point of view, the claim about the audibility of the difference between the wire types (to take one example) is implausible. One could invent thousands upon thousands of implausible claims, and in fact a visit to the "tweakers' forum" quickly reveals that there are a lot of people doing just that. (Quantum fuses, the effect of different coloured wires, etc., etc.) None but the most suggestible and gullible will fall for most of that stuff, but it does raise the question of how one should discriminate between the various improbable-sounding claims that are made; how to sort out the wheat (if there is any) from the chaff.
What one clearly cannot do, as becomes abundantly clear if one looks on the tweakers' forum, is to believe something merely because someone reports that he heard it. (Or, as seems to happen suspiciously often, that even his wife in the next-door room heard it and came running in gasping in amazement at the improvement.) An appeal to numbers is not useful either. As was observed by, I think, Anatole France, "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
How, then, is one to recognise the odd genuine claim amongst all the nonsense? Could it be that amongst all the foolishness of quantum fuses, magic pebbles and the like, there might be a valid claim about the difference between copper and silver wire? A few moments of rational thought show that it is certainly an extraordinary claim; there is no plausible-looking reason from an EE point of view why that change of wires in the DAC output should have anything but the most utterly insignificant effect on the sound, and almost certainly below the threshold of hearing. As such, it is a claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
Clearly, as a trip into the fantasy world of the tweakers' forum reveals, the mere fact that one, or even many, people say they can hear the difference is not of much value. Indeed, sometimes those same people who "hear" the differences between wires are the same ones who "hear" the effect of magic pebbles or quantum fuses.
In the end, different people will set the bar at different levels when they decide whether a particular extraordinary claim is worth trying for themselves or not. Those who are more technically minded will typically be more inclined to require some sort of arguments that would make the claim have at least some level of technical plausibility, before they would think it worth trying. That is certainly where I myself stand in this kind of a discussion.
But the technical arguments need to be genuine, not bogus pseudo-technical garbage. Henry expressed this point very eloquently the other day, when he spoke of "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."
On this thread we have, for example, seen the greater conductivity of silver being put forward as the explanation. When the utter insignificance of this in the context of the DAC was pointed out, attention was switched instead to the magnetic properties. There was then a rather confused claim that copper was "2 1/2 times more magnetic" than silver," and that this was an important consideration. Quite apart from the fact that copper is not in fact "2 1/2 times more magnetic than silver," absolutely no plausible arguments were presented for why this would matter in the DAC output wires even if it were true.
I, for one, am happy to take my chances and not spend time, or money, experimenting with wire changes unless someone can give some genuine arguments for why they might actually make a difference. Such arguments could either be "theoretical," in the sense of arguments indicating at least to some level of plausibility that there could be a real physical explanation that stood a chance of being above the threshold of audibility. Or they could be "phenomenological," which really means properly documented experiments involving rigorous double-blind testing.
But I am not impressed with anecdotal claims. ("I hear it, and the difference is like night and day." or "My wife in the kitchen could hear it.") Nor am I impressed by the almost religious fervour of people saying "But if you would only try it, then you would become a believer too."
If, as a result, I am truly missing out on a wonderful new level of audio experience then that is just too bad.
Chris
Edits: 08/14/14 08/14/14 08/15/14
how does one prove or disprove a subjective claim?
i think the bulk of the people here are passionate and genuine. i also feel both extremes in this debate have seen the audio charlatan.
I have discussed with john chapman the possibility of an AB-X box that would randomly swap between samples at the push of a button. The data collection has always been the hard part but now with the magical smart phone and bluetooth the collecting of data is simple.
rather than fight each other, lets all work together to try to collect some data and see how people manipulate it. If we all get involved I'm sure we can arrange dedicated rooms at a few shows to do the comparisons with any device someone wants to bring in.
statistics will show where the anomalies happen and then science can come in to try to explain.
dave
Making a statement bout what I hear n having to provide proof.
LOL!!!!!
Why not dog Audioquest or Nordhost or Kimber or DH Labs or Eichmann or Neotech or the many other cable manufacturers offering silver wire or even silver plated wires. Why hold me to different standard.
Reminds me of a pack of jackels....
not that i care. As i stated my feeling is that no matter what i write, the pack.will jump on some small facet to negate my observations, which you may have noticed i never stated. It would be far better.for a skeptic to conduct the test, that way he can address procedural issues to his satisfaction. Or is that asking too much?
If it is then why, especially in the light of so many different cables being offered?
talk bout double standards.....
"Why not dog Audioquest or Nordhost or Kimber or DH Labs or Eichmann or Neotech or the many other cable manufacturers offering silver wire or even silver plated wires. Why hold me to different standard."
I'm not. I dog everyone who makes unsubstantiated claims.
"...better for a skeptic to conduct the test....Or is that asking too much?"
Yes. The skeptic is not the one making the extraordinary claim.
As for "......so many different cables being offered"
That proves nothing except a fool and his money are soon parted.
On the other hand, there's more to a cable than the metal used.
I will concede that in the end you might be right about copper vs. silver.
It's just that it's up to you to substantiate your claim.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Well interestingly I make no money from my conclusions, at least not directly. But yes, I have spent a lot of money to investigate many claims. Most of which, you may be interested to know ( you probably are not, but I don't really care as a lot of it is for my satisfaction), have turned out to be negative. Then again, I do not regard incrementally small gains ( to some people) as a waste of time and effort. I find that incrementally small gains can add up significantly, but hey, that's my experience.
I can live with the speaker in my truck, no problem, although it lacks critical amounts of detail, and when you come down to it, all systems regardless of cost come down to the same incremental increase in relative performance. Choosing where to stop is a truly personal issue, but if you have stopped, it is utterly foolish to impose the same limitations on others.
Since you think silver and copper wrs are overpriced ( many are), and that a few inches of wire make insignificant difference, might I suggest you change out your input wires with steel. Yeah the resistance is higher but all you need as others have mentioned is to simply turn up your volume control: no problem, right.
Or use aluminum. After all many miles of high voltage power line employ aluminum cables already. The highly rated ( by some) Magnepans all use aluminum wiring in their voice coils as do Altec and many JBL drivers. Significantly cheaper than either copper or silver, so why not save a lot of money and push for manufacturers to use aluminum wire? There are a few who do use aluminum, although it is copper clad aluminum...(JPS, IIRC)
I have not seen anything you write advocating this so I suspect you are NOT practicing what you write: "a fool and his money are easily parted", hah ! In studios, why bother with copper wire since you use miles of the wire. Aluminum is much cheaper and and you have plenty of gain to compensate for higher resistance. In fact, use steel wire, much stronger and very cheap. Try placing a couple of inches of aluminum or steel wire in your signal path and see what it does for your sound.
Hell, you want to hear what a few inches of wire can make, check out phono cartridges. Moving coils use very little wire but funny how so many sound so different even when from the same factory and seemingly the similar design (take Benz models, for example, and they actually build many of the Van denHull models, too, some of which use gold wire.
I already outlined very basic parameters for wire performance: Composition, purity, insulation, configuration which can cover construction, gauge, etc. Theoretically all wire has only three parameters: capacitance, inductance and resistance. If this was universally true and recognized why do so few companies actually publish their specs. The only company I have seen such figures from is Kimber in a special brochure they once printed off.
Are any of the contributors to this thread following up on such specifications? Hmmm....I don't think so. I listed the wires I compared, but no one even bothered to ask the configuration of the wire, although I listed the gauges. Blanket statements about the inaudibility follow when the naysayers themselves betray their own ignorance of the parameters which an affect sonics.
The issue is one of laziness, if you ask me. Most readers think a simple google search will answer every question in the universe. Its like the head of the US patent office in the late 1800's who proclaimed that everything which needed inventing had already been done ....Or even earlier, when the Church declared everything to be known to be revealed in the Bible....
Most people are too damn lazy to actually try something new. They want to wait till a review comes out or more accurately a bunch of reviews come out with the same conclusion. The let John do it attitude, I find rather irritating, as it points out a fundamental issue with the vast majority of Americans: too lazy to really do a bit of work......
That was a lot of typing to say very little.
I never said that wire doesn't make a difference but I also never said it does.
You did, so you are the one that needs to show the proof when others disagree.
You can state whatever you want as your opinion but when you state things as facts you need to back that up with more than just opinion.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Stu doesn't "need" to back up his opinions with facts. He should just expect that there are some people who will take him to task when he doesn't.
LOL.
-Henry
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Copper has many properties that make it ideal for wiring. For instance, it's soft and easily drawn, flexible, and easy to solder. Aluminum is nearly impossible to solder and is brittle. Steel is stiff and grossly magnetic. And so on.Commercial wire companies do publish their specs. Companies like Kimber don't publish specs for two reasons. First, there's nothing remarkable about the specs that would recommend their wire. Second, doing so wouldn't increase their dollar bottom line. They are selling mystique.
Adding gain always adds noise and distortion. Precisely because they use miles of wire, studios use low-resistance wire to minimize loss.
A cartridge is a delicate, complicated electromechanical transducer with both electrical and magnetic circuits. There are many objective reasons why different wires would make a difference in the performance of a cartridge.
Resistance, inductance, and capacitance are extremely useful but also simplistic models of circuit behavior. Without a deep understanding of what R, L, and C really mean, and the principles of circuit analysis, it's a gross oversimplification to say that "theoretically" the only properties of a wire are resistance, inductance, and capacitance.
You are committing several logical fallacies here, including Begging the Question and Appeal to Ignorance.
Again, it's important to remain calm and to focus on the real question at hand. And the question is, "How do we know that the differences we hear are due to the physical changes we make in our equipment, and not to some other change in the state of our minds?"
Nothing you have said here comes close to answering that question. Trust me when I say I'm not a lazy person. I started out at a very young age with a simple desire: to know how to design and build my own hi-fi amplifier, and to understand how it works. Certainly, this is a very different goal than the one you set for yourself. But trust me when I say, I have not been lazy in the pursuit of my goal. Even now, I seem to be putting a lot more effort into this discussion than you are.
-Henry
Edits: 08/16/14
"How do we know that the differences we hear are due to the physical changes we make in our equipment, and not to some other change in the state of our minds?"
Yes, that is the question.
I wonder if Stu has ever watched the TV show "Brain Games"?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
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
> 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
Changing to silver wire will have no demonstrable effect, except on the wallet.
Chris
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
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
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
> 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
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.
Edits: 08/11/14 08/11/14
"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.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
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
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
Edits: 08/11/14
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.
"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
than silver.
An important consideration, far beyond the understanding you have displayed thus far.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
"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
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 ?
Edits: 08/12/14
"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
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.
"...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.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
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.
It's too bad you've chosen to substitute insults and misinformation for real discussion. Of course, this is a common scenario at the Asylum when someone attempts to forward their personal opinion as though it were scientific fact, and then to validate it with hearsay. I don't envy anyone who's been called to task to explain statements for which there is no scientific basis.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Tis a bad day when I don't learn something, you have heard me type that more than once. My asking you to learn is an insult? Um, okay. Either the sizable minority is mistakenly hypnotized en mass by said transformer winding technique and materials or some people have no way of explaining the phenomena. Where do you stand?
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
"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
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.
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
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.
what seems to be your problem?
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
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
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
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
"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"
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
"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"
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
"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
BENGHAAAZZZZIIII!
That's why.
-Henry
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.
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
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.
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
Edits: 08/13/14
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.
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
Edits: 08/13/14
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.
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
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.
"Because silver repels magnetism 2.6 times better than copper"It sounds like you are now agreeing that the magnetisation in silver is larger than the magnetisation in copper, by that factor 2.6, as I was saying all along yesterday. I was very clear and precise in what I said, emphasising repeatedly that I was talking about the magnetisation.
And we can all agree, of course, that because silver and copper are diamagnetic, the magnetisation vector is antiparallel to the applied magnetic field, and thus it tends to oppose it.
Of course, the extent to which this occurs is really tiny, both in copper and in silver. But because the magnetisation in silver is larger than that in copper (by a factor of 2.6), it happens to a slightly greater extent with silver than with copper.
So, both silver and copper have an extremely small effect on the strength of the applied field, but silver has the larger effect because it is more magnetised.
The upshot is that the ratio of the magnetic field inside copper to the magnetic field inside silver is about 1.00002.
I have yet to see a proposal for why this should have any significant effect on the audio signal coming out of the DAC if silver rather than copper wires are used.
Chris
Edits: 08/14/14 08/14/14
"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
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
"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
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.
"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
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,
Is your post supposed to be logically related to what I said? I think you must have missed the point somewhere here.
Chris
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.
"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
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.
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.
Edits: 08/13/14
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.
I thought that was pretty much debunked here years ago. I guess not in your case.
well not to you apparently, but personally I really don't care. Yeah it ain't in IEC or UL or Bema or IEEE journals, and I have actually additional confirmation on the university research level, but hell if i'm going to bother with you. You have already made up your mind., despite John Curl's publishing the belden cable test results....or did you forget that?
I too am aware of John Curl and his Bybee ramblings. He has no credibility with me either.
Edits: 08/16/14 08/16/14
John Curl. Hahahahahaha.
You should read some of his Bybee threads on DiyAudio.
-Henry
"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"
Edits: 08/13/14
and if only one channel is changed I can tell within seconds and have done so on numerous occasions (used to sponsor an audio club and we used to do things like DBT a lot).
Its a lot like absolute polarity, which can hear it within seconds, usually within 30 secs. I don't claim better hearing than anyone, because I have stated many times, it took me a decade to understand it and to be able to recognize it.
Again another pretty simple example, can you hear the change in ends of your interconnects. That's about an inch of connector. Again, why not use a steel connector?
I'd like to see your score sheets from those DBTs and a full disclosure of how the tests were done.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"and if only one channel is changed I can tell within seconds and have done so on numerous occasions (used to sponsor an audio club and we used to do things like DBT a lot).
Its a lot like absolute polarity, which can hear it within seconds, usually within 30 secs. I don't claim better hearing than anyone, because I have stated many times, it took me a decade to understand it and to be able to recognize it."I became curious, and looked up some of the other things you claim to hear. I was struck by this one, on the "tweakers' forum":
"In playing with the Alexandrite. I am building a flashing LED circuit.
Very simple: resistor inline with the LED and then hooked up to a battery (I am awaiting some AC power supplies).
The curious thing I once I turn the circuit on even without any crystals nearby I hear an improvement in my system. Background becomes quieter and more fine detail becomes evident. Dynamics improve and sound from top through bottom becomes "tighter" for lack of a better word."In reply to another fellow traveller, you then added:
"I use the diodes in pairs. Anywhere in tbe listening room makes a difference. but i like to place them close to indicator LEDs in components. You can often solder them in parallel to existing LEDs. If your component has a low voltage PS ,you can piggy back tbe flashing u.units off of it. On mYDAC it increases bass and actually lowers the noise floor."
Are we supposed to take any of this stuff seriously? Do you take it seriously? I mean, do you actually believe any of it, or are you just dreaming up outlandish and ridiculous claims in order to wind people up? Why should we believe anything you report hearing, when some of the things you report are such manifest nonsense?
Chris
[PS: Sorry, accidentally hit the "post" button too soon! I've edited the rest of it in.]
Edits: 08/16/14 08/16/14 08/16/14 08/16/14 08/16/14 08/17/14
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
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"
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
Edits: 08/14/14
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
Hi Dave,
Absolutely! Nicely summarised.
Chris
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"
DanL
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?
Edits: 08/11/14
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
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.
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
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?
"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
Serious
DanL
Well it is no wonder, then, that attempts at rational discussion get nowhere.
Chris
DanL
a
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.
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
Absolutely Stu !!
An inch of bad wire can ruin the musical experience !!!
Glad you survived the storm over HI.
Jeff Medwin
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: