In Reply to: Better take a read of posted by unclestu on July 6, 2011 at 13:47:22:
>> "It is nice to see you finally admit that the world of electronics has created an RF nightmare," <<
Please DO NOT misrepresent what I say !! For over 30 years, Peter and I have been saying that the modern environment is A MESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not FINALLY (in your words) admitting an "RF nightmare".
>> "Modern transistors, in particular are specifically designed to have very high frequency response, primarily because many are specifically engineered for RF work, particularly in computerized applications. They are unusually prone to picking up RF, especially when compared to the tubed type amplification devices or even early transistors ( the 2N3055 comes to mind here)." <<
What has any effect (or no effect) from RF on certain components in an audio chain got to do with such as the (reported by you) effect of a sugar cube on the sound ?
I don't challenge what can be ACTUAL effects on components and the audio signal caused by RF interference, electromagnetism etc. You suddenly want to bring into the discussion some effect on a component (i.e an effect on the audio signal) when the general discussion (and possible disagreement) has been around "numerous other things in the listening environment having an effect on the sound" – like a sugar cube - coated or not !!
It was you who introduced the sugar cube (and lumps of rock sugar) and their effect on the sound (good and bad) into the discussions.
>> "Surprisingly a reshaped sugar cube (spherical) proved to be overall superior to the above two, having a slight upper bass hump but good dynamics and a fairly even frequency response. Lumps of rock sugar sounded terrible, BTW. However, a cubical sugar cube also sounded very bad so a lot may have to do with the actual physical configuration of the crystal structure itself." <<
>> "Coating the sugar cube was predictable to me to be inferior sounding. I went ahead simply to confirm my prediction." <<
YES, lumps of rock sugar DO have an effect on the sound as do lumps of rock salt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is WHY and HOW they affect the sound which is what is crucial to the whole issue.
Let me attempt to outline the ‘nitty, gritty' basics.
1) IF improvements in the sound can be observed by doing certain things in the environment, then PRIOR to doing those things, there must have been adverse conditions in the environment and that there ARE some things which can be done to alleviate those adverse conditions. Pure logic !!!!
2) Some people do not believe (or do not want to believe) that there is ANYTHING adverse in their listening environment which can possibly have any effect on THEIR sound.
3) Most of the time it is not possible to have any meaningful discussion with such people because they will usually not have actually tried anything which could be regarded as unusual (i.e regarded as ‘way out') and therefore will not have observed changes in their sound taking place !! Or they fully believe that they are hearing everything which their equipment is capable of producing and that only a change of actual audio equipment would provide further improvements.
4) For the people who HAVE observed changes taking place , then it is a matter of trying to work out what is having an effect on what, to create the changes in the sound being experienced!!
5) If the sound has got worse, then what has made it worse and why ? If the sound has got better, then what adverse effect has been alleviated and how ?
THIS (5) is the point where you and I take some different paths.
>> "So now according to your dictates and pronouncements, we are to eliminate all plastics, all capacitors, all batteries, all magnets. Yeah by eliminating all electronics in a room I'm sure the silence will be exquisite. Just how do we eliminate the Earth's magnetic field, BTW, or perhaps you have a means of treating the planet." <<
That statement is facetious !! It is facetious because of course all plastics, all capacitors, all batteries, all magnets etc cannot be eliminated from the modern environment!!!!! It is facetious because, by saying it, you imply I don't know such basic things !!!!
We cannot eliminate such things from the modern environment but we CAN go to some lengths to alleviate the problems caused by them. But first you have to gain an understanding as to WHY they are a cause of problems regarding sound and then HOW to go about alleviating the problems.
>> "For example, I have never claimed the dielectric of a table lamp cord will affect the sound of your stereo components." <<
But you HAVE stated that static, present on a passive power cord on a passive table lamp, (not connected to the AC supply) just sitting passively on a table, and positioned metres and metres away from any Hi FI equipment could be a problem for "sound" and, as you are always associating any changes to the ‘sound' as being from ‘something affecting the audio signal', then believing that static present on a passive power cord of a passive table lamp can affect the sound implies that it must be affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio system.
You saying that static (anywhere in the room) could be a problem for sound took place during a previous discussion on problems caused by static. After you had claimed that static can be a problem regarding ‘sound' I introduced into the discussion the Nordost chemical. Nordost claim that applying the Nordost chemical to the label side of a CD, to the labels of a vinyl record, to the outer insulation of cables (including power cables) one can obtain an improvement in the sound.
Their explanation is that their chemical is ‘alleviating problems caused by static'. Knowing you want every change in the sound to "be an effect on the audio signal" I described how one can apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of a passive power cord of a passive table lamp, sitting passively on a table, metres and metres away from any Hi Fi equipment and one will gain an identical improvement in the sound to the improvement gained by applying the very same Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of cables which are physically associated with the Hi Fi equipment.
Using those observations, I asked, therefore, if you still believed that any "static" problem on the passive power cord on the table lamp, metres and metres away from any Hi Fi equipment could possibly have any effect on the actual audio signal travelling through the audio equipment and you replied YES – static anywhere in the environment can be a problem for ‘sound' !!!!!!!!! THAT is why I keep bringing up the example of a passive cable on a passive table lamp, sitting passively on a table, metres and metres away from any audio equipment !!!!!!
You can achieve an improvement in the sound by applying a specific chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE power cord (one not connected to the AC power supply, just dangling passively from a table lamp), sitting passively on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.
Because you can achieve an improvement in the sound by changing the colour of the insulation on a PASSIVE power cord just dangling from a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.
Because you can achieve an improvement in the sound by tying a REEf Knot in the passive power cord of a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.
Because you can put that passive power cord of a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal through the freezing/slow defrost procedure and achieve an improvement in the sound !!!!!!!!!!!
Because you can have identical improvements in the sound by doing the things I have just described – i.e identical to the improvements you would experience if the same things were done to cables which are actively carrying an audio signal. THIS has to be explained - which I don't think can be explained by such things "having an effect on the audio signal".
>> "So now I understand you frame is attributing the advances in sonics due to the chemicals in plastics affecting those neural transmitters?" <<
I am not suggesting that the chemicals in plastics DIRECTLY affect the neural transmitters. Please don't (again) misquote my words. What I suggest is that the very presence of certain chemicals, in the environment, can cause a reaction in us (human beings) and it is the subsequent REACTION which alters the sound !!
Throughout evolution, Nature has used certain chemicals as ‘danger signals' and other chemicals as ‘reassuring signals' (beneficial chemicals ?)
Human beings can be reacting to the presence of RF in their environment but the RF does not have to actually be DIRECTLY penetrating their brain to present a problem!!
Human beings can be reacting to the presence of certain chemicals in their environment but those chemicals do not have to be having a DIRECT effect on the chemicals carrying information in the brain to present a problem.
Human beings can be reacting to the presence of certain polarities in their environment but those polarities do not have to be having a DIRECT effect on their brain to present a problem.
All you seem to wish to see associated with the different chemical mixtures used in plastic insulation materials is their dielectric effect !! And for that dielectric effect to then be affecting the audio signal travelling through the cable.
Surely, given what chemicals Nature has used for signaling ‘danger', there is more than a slight possibility that some, (or even many) of the following chemicals (mixtures of chemicals used in the plastic insulation of cables) may be still "sensed", in that (danger) role, by us (human beings)?
Chemicals such as Bextrene., P.V.C., polythene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyalkene, P.T.F.E, Teflon. To then add other chemical mixtures found in both audio equipment and the listening environment :- acrylic, nylon, polyester, vinyl, polycarbonate, Perspex, BAF, glues (adhesives), paints, lacquers and so on !!
Ditto colours. Because different colours are more than mere visual colours, they are also different frequencies !!
To give one brief example. Scientists at the Applied Physics department at the University of Bonn have discovered that when a leaf or a stem is sliced or damaged, the plant signals pain (or perhaps dismay –to use the scientists own words !!!) by releasing the gas ethylene over it's entire surface. The scientific team also thinks plants warn each other about approaching danger. That the "alarm signal" is a chemical message.
And, it is also known that when a tobacco plant is attacked by the tobacco leaf virus, it warns the other healthy tobacco plants !!!
I would suggest that you look at the possibility of chemicals such as ethylene based ones, used in the plastic insulation materials of so many audio and AC power cables, as being behind 30 years of "the cable controversy" – i.e. reports of different audio cables (including different AC power cables) sounding different when no measurements of changes in the audio signal can be produced.
I would make the suggestion that such as the Nordost chemical which they claim to be dealing with static that they, Nordost, may, quite possibly, have actually "stumbled on" one of Nature's "reassuring" chemicals, which when applied to the outer insulation of cables – anywhere in the listening room – could be alleviating to some extent the problem caused by "danger" chemicals being used in the making of the plastic insulation. Which, incidentally, (as is well known) was our own experience some 30 years ago !!!!!!!!!
Let me make myself clear – YET AGAIN. I am not saying that there is nothing in the environment which can ‘affect the audio signal' or which can ‘affect the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room'. I am saying that not EVERYTHING which changes the sound can be attributed to changing the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment or attributed to changing the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room. I am saying that there is another dimension worth looking at – a reaction or reactions, by the human being, to what is going on in the modern environment!!
Quite a few people respond to that concept with "Oh, in that case, MRI scans should be able to show what might be taking place in the brain." i.e. one should be able to ‘measure' what is going on.
MRI scans may show which areas of the brain are activated when listening to the music of Dvorak's New World. But, no MRI scans will SHOW the following differences in the sound when, after listening to Dvorak's New World on the Sunday, then carrying out some ‘tweaks', then listening to the same Dvorak's New World on the Monday and hearing such improvements in the same music as :-
>> "Reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - This is clearly discernable with bronze instruments like cymbals, which were at once rendered with a more "creamy" voice, and had more focus.
While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines and seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off.
More "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized." <<
I can describe bringing the electric kettle power lead from the kitchen into the listening room and laying it on the floor. The sound of Dvorak's New World will be observed as being ‘worse'. You would suggest that the electric kettle power lead might be acting as an aerial, receiving RF and that it why the sound is worse.
>> "All lengths of wire act as an antenna. Bob Fulton in the 80's manufactured cables of usual lengths because he claimed that the standard one meter length of an interconnect just happens to conform to the length of a car antenna, making it an ideal antenna for RF.
As any wire acts as an antenna, whether terminated or not, an since power cords are not coaxial, there is a certain amount of charge which two parallel wires running side by side can store as capacitance." <<
I get the impression that if you attached one of your crystals to that particular passive kettle power cord and could no longer describe the sound as ‘worse', that you would explain that result as :- The crystal was absorbing (or deflecting) the RF, therefore preventing the cable from acting as an aerial, therefore reducing any adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio system.
However, you can have exactly the same electric kettle power cord in exactly the same position on the floor and apply a certain chemical to the outer insulation of that power cord and the sound will no longer be described as ‘worse'. And YET, the cable would STILL BE ACTING as an aerial, so the sound SHOULD still be worse (as per your reasoning) !!!!!!!!!!!!! But it isn't !!!!!!
Ditto changing the colour of it's insulation. Ditto putting the electric kettle power cord through the freezing/slow defrost procedure. The same power cord, in the same position will still be acting as an aerial (as per your reasoning) so the sound should be worse!!! But it isn't !!!
>> "Chemical nature of smell is interesting because it is the only sense that bypasses the LGN portion of the brain. However, we don't really smell our stereo, and, as a matter of fact, you will notice a great deal of our auditory vocabulary employs visual terms." <<
Who is claiming that we can ONLY detect chemicals by smell ????????????
Since when did Nature need a creature (or plants) to have the sense of smell in order to detect "danger" signals (or reassuring signals) ?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - unclestu 16:41:19 05/27/11 (31)
- Cool! (I am on sabbatical) and am just mellowing out on music, holiday from all that stuff - Elizabeth 20:04:40 06/01/11 (1)
- I'll - unclestu 15:22:49 06/02/11 (0)
- RE: More observations - unclestu 13:18:51 06/01/11 (3)
- RE: More observations - edbk 17:02:51 06/01/11 (2)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - May Belt 08:39:02 05/29/11 (24)
- Seems we've - unclestu 13:13:58 06/01/11 (2)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - edbk 05:10:46 05/30/11 (20)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - May Belt 06:49:48 05/30/11 (19)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - edbk 07:06:47 05/30/11 (18)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - May Belt 10:09:12 05/30/11 (17)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - edbk 01:10:11 05/31/11 (16)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - May Belt 04:45:18 05/31/11 (15)
- Take civilization, - unclestu 20:54:56 06/12/11 (6)
- RE: Take civilization, - May Belt 08:31:57 06/26/11 (4)
- Better take a read of - unclestu 13:47:22 07/06/11 (3)
- Wood gets all soggy like and hard to light - geoffkait 11:42:24 06/14/11 (0)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - edbk 04:52:56 05/31/11 (7)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - May Belt 06:47:22 05/31/11 (6)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - edbk 06:56:04 05/31/11 (5)
- White insulation - unclestu 20:30:45 06/12/11 (3)
- That's weird - geoffkait 18:24:47 06/13/11 (2)
- RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) - May Belt 14:43:11 05/31/11 (0)