In Reply to: "As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 4 inches of the least capacitive cable " posted by E-Stat on June 19, 2010 at 09:19:12:
“I wasn't referring to the box by itself. That is one of the fallacies of testing. Unsupported assumptions become part of the test. I was referring to measuring a cable by itself and at the other end of the box with the other cables connected. Perfect, crosstalk free switches? No control was done on the systematic changes introduced by the testing arrangement.”
First understand what I am saying;
That in engineering, no one claims wires do nothing, but do claim that what wires do is measurable and follows existing theory and the sum of the effect can be examined by comparing the signals at either end.
Those electrical properties causing the change can be measured like in all other areas of electronics by examining the cable open circuit and closed at the far end with a network analyzer is the norm and that this understanding was key in making our telephone systems work.
That the polarized simplistic situation as presented in modern hifi lore, where there are two camps, the meter readers and golden ears, is one THEY constructed to help sell product.
“to introduce bogus topics like magic rocks to somehow bolster an unsubstantiated process? Sorry, I disagree.”
Perhaps you have not tried to address folklore with science or research before, while the demonstrations using exotic speaker wire were the ones I attended, the idea of saying speaker cables have very very small audible differences, would be more heretical than something more can relate to, like magic rocks, magic knobs, pointy feet and so on.
“They don't know what they don't know - yet preach the outcome as gospel. Is that what you support?”
Nope, you get the results the test gives, the test at best can only answer the question it asked. I don’t write in magazines, I am not selling anything to the home market, I have done R&D in electronics and acoustics most of my life and aside from here, don’t promote “my view” of how it is.
My success has been based in finding new ways to do things, often based on measured results so I deliberately don’t pay much attention to what others do.
My specialty now is in horn loaded speaker systems and passive crossovers but used to be in transducer design.. I have couple patents covering RF electromagnetic levitation, acoustic levitation and a number of new types of loudspeaker transducers horns and speaker systems too.
Background noises;
http://www.google.com/patents?q=Tom+Danley&btnG=Search+Patents
While its true I have nothing to do with hifi marketing other than listening to and building speakers being a hobby / living much of my life, I do have some relevant background in the principals involved and have nothing to gain by trying to “trick you”, nothing you want for sale.
Can that be said for the promoters of the other side of the argument?
Best,
Tom
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 4 inches of the least capacitive cable " - tomservo 10:17:01 06/19/10 (86)
- Darn Tom...............I thought you were just a regular guy! {smile} ~NT - Cleantimestream 20:05:05 06/22/10 (0)
- I will definitely agree - E-Stat 11:21:11 06/19/10 (84)
- You're really grasping at straws. - Pat D 16:53:41 06/20/10 (83)
- "burden of proof" thing again...... - Sordidman 09:18:27 06/21/10 (54)
- RE: "burden of proof" thing again...... - Phelonious Ponk 03:59:20 06/28/10 (44)
- Observation cannot be subjective or objective - Sordidman 07:47:05 06/28/10 (43)
- RE: Observation cannot be subjective or objective - Phelonious Ponk 17:34:44 06/28/10 (42)
- No: accuracy has never been defined - Sordidman 08:39:29 06/29/10 (17)
- RE: No: accuracy has never been defined - Phelonious Ponk 10:27:20 06/29/10 (16)
- "faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Sordidman 11:17:06 06/29/10 (15)
- RE: "faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Phelonious Ponk 11:37:19 06/29/10 (14)
- GAMUT CD players - Sordidman 12:27:07 06/29/10 (13)
- RE: GAMUT CD players - Tony Lauck 15:01:15 06/29/10 (4)
- Can you define the "standard?" - Sordidman 15:20:30 06/29/10 (3)
- RE: Can you define the "standard?" - Tony Lauck 15:28:29 06/29/10 (2)
- The GamuT design (at least the CD-1 that I use) - E-Stat 17:33:05 06/29/10 (0)
- If you want to listen to 2 discs - Sordidman 15:46:18 06/29/10 (0)
- RE: GAMUT CD players - Phelonious Ponk 14:42:27 06/29/10 (7)
- Guess you didn't read my post - Sordidman 15:37:53 06/29/10 (6)
- Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 16:16:45 06/29/10 (5)
- RE: Actually, I did... - Sordidman 17:02:01 06/29/10 (4)
- RE: Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 17:44:39 06/29/10 (3)
- sadly: vagaries are all we have -t - Sordidman 18:06:01 06/29/10 (2)
- Well, they're all you have - NT - Phelonious Ponk 05:08:18 06/30/10 (1)
- No correspondance hearing is fallable, and a moving target -t - Sordidman 10:14:20 07/01/10 (0)
- "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 19:05:59 06/28/10 (23)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 20:14:04 06/28/10 (22)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 06:29:17 06/29/10 (21)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 08:02:03 06/29/10 (20)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 08:40:30 06/29/10 (19)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 11:02:56 06/29/10 (18)
- Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Sordidman 11:21:07 06/29/10 (17)
- RE: Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Phelonious Ponk 12:11:42 06/29/10 (16)
- Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Sordidman 12:33:39 06/29/10 (15)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 14:57:40 06/29/10 (14)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 05:29:09 06/30/10 (13)
- Yes, you are right on with that......... -t - Sordidman 10:38:09 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:44:58 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 10:02:20 06/30/10 (2)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 11:59:12 06/30/10 (1)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 16:33:08 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Tony Lauck 06:20:44 06/30/10 (7)
- You said this much better than I did - Sordidman 10:36:59 06/30/10 (0)
- Agreed (nt) - kerr 10:03:13 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:39:45 06/30/10 (4)
- ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Sordidman 10:47:37 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Phelonious Ponk 12:10:24 06/30/10 (2)
- You have made a number of interesting posts - Sordidman 08:03:33 07/02/10 (1)
- RE: You have made a number of interesting posts - Phelonious Ponk 17:19:04 07/02/10 (0)
- Not artistic interpretation, just whether there is an audible difference. - Pat D 11:31:42 06/22/10 (8)
- Sorry to hear that you cannot - E-Stat 16:20:39 06/22/10 (3)
- No wonder you don't understand science! (nt) - Pat D 18:22:23 06/22/10 (2)
- Such a shallow concept of science, as - E-Stat 19:38:29 06/22/10 (1)
- You seem to have no scientific strategies. - Pat D 19:24:23 06/23/10 (0)
- I can - and you cannot. What test in the world would change that? N/T - carcass93 13:08:46 06/22/10 (2)
- Writing again without knowledge, I see. (nt) - Pat D 18:21:03 06/22/10 (1)
- "I see" - that's the thing, Patty... you don't. And that, ... - carcass93 09:14:27 06/23/10 (0)
- Only ever one way to tell: conduct the test -t - Sordidman 12:32:32 06/22/10 (0)
- If you recall - E-Stat 18:30:58 06/20/10 (27)
- What is the objective of the test? - Pat D 18:49:54 06/20/10 (26)
- Look up the concept "control" - E-Stat 19:08:55 06/20/10 (25)
- Not responsive.. - Pat D 19:53:01 06/20/10 (24)
- RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 05:10:01 06/21/10 (15)
- RE: Not responsive.. - tomservo 08:56:27 06/21/10 (12)
- RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:54:36 06/21/10 (8)
- Exactly - E-Stat 11:24:34 06/21/10 (7)
- RE: Exactly - tomservo 14:25:37 06/21/10 (5)
- You have proven that which is already known - E-Stat 14:43:13 06/21/10 (4)
- RE: You have proven that which is already known - tomservo 15:26:01 06/21/10 (3)
- All of that is pretty cool, but - E-Stat 15:33:22 06/21/10 (2)
- RE: All of that is pretty cool, but - tomservo 08:33:01 06/22/10 (1)
- What I was interested in - E-Stat 08:39:27 06/22/10 (0)
- RE: Exactly - kerr 11:59:54 06/21/10 (0)
- The challenge with theory - E-Stat 09:11:34 06/21/10 (2)
- RE: The challenge with theory - tomservo 10:08:29 06/21/10 (1)
- I've done better! - E-Stat 10:43:13 06/21/10 (0)
- RE: Not responsive.. - Pat D 08:33:29 06/21/10 (1)
- RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:28:09 06/21/10 (0)
- Hmmm - E-Stat 20:20:00 06/20/10 (7)
- RE: Hmmm - Pat D 08:38:35 06/21/10 (6)
- The relevant point is that both of them rely upon switch boxes -nt - E-Stat 08:48:01 06/21/10 (5)
- RE: The relevant point is that both of them rely upon switch boxes -nt - tomservo 09:00:02 06/22/10 (4)
- Apparently, I'm just not getting through - E-Stat 09:11:15 06/22/10 (3)
- RE: Apparently, I'm just not getting through - kerr 13:21:53 06/22/10 (0)
- RE: Apparently, I'm just not getting through - tomservo 11:13:26 06/22/10 (1)
- I give up :) -nt - E-Stat 11:29:34 06/22/10 (0)