|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
86.26.6.211
In Reply to: RE: Changing internal output wiring of DAC posted by DAVID on August 09, 2014 at 23:53:33
Changing to silver wire will have no demonstrable effect, except on the wallet.
Chris
Follow Ups:
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: