|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.253.179.5
In Reply to: RE: Try changing posted by op48no1 on May 02, 2012 at 13:46:43
that you are the BIBLE?I have quoted others as hearing original effect. I merely pursued it a bit longer after learning of it from them. I have clearly stated what cables I have used, and where I sourced them from ( Belden and Daletech). Daletech, interestingly, manufacturers what they call a LOW LEAKAGE power cable, specifically engineered for medical use. They have since been swallowed up by a larger conglomerate and is no longer as accommodating of smaller orders.
I have postulated a cause, I have stated what I hear. To further illustrate, I have unbraided Kimber's Silver Streak and replaced the two black copper leads with clear TCSS strands, rebraiding the IC as it was. The difference in comparison to a stock model is not small. I once sponsored an audio club and everyone in the club could easily hear the difference, BTW.
I have experimented with a large variety of cables ( BELDEN as well as Daletech, as well as smaller wire companies willing to accommodate my requests), attempting to insure that the manufacture of the various wires were to the identical manufacturing standards in order to make a more meaningful comparison.
I see no more reason to have to prove to you anything. You can accept the basis of my premise, or call me deaf (and Stan Warren, too, as a matter of fact).
Yes, I am not interested in proving anything to you. I hove done extensive experimentation to come to the conclusion I have. As I have said, you can easily check what I have written by changing one input wire on your preamp. Why should I buy the necessary instrumentation to sooth your ego?I have absolutely no economic interest in making my statement. I simply posted it to help others in their search for better sound. I even give credit to others for noticing the effect. I got no monetary compensation from any of the companies I shared this information with. Since I am not asking any compensation from you, I owe you nothing.
Stu
Edits: 05/02/12Follow Ups:
The quote about the bible is from a bumper sticker I saw a few years ago. To me, it epitomizes the sad attitude of people who prefer to take their beliefs from authority figures instead of suffering the inconvenience of thinking for themselves.
Do I think you're deaf? Definitely not. Do I think your perceptions can be fooled, or influenced by expectations? Absolutely. If you think your hearing is an objective measure of the sound that hits your ears, you're already lost the argument. It's a total non-starter.
You insist on ignoring the key distinction in my argument. I believe you 100% that you honestly hear these differences. More anecdotes won't change that. I'm just interested in something else, which is whether or not there is an actual, physical mechanism at work (in the wire) that accounts for what you hear. This is a totally different question.
You've proposed a mechanism and presented it as fact. Speaking as an engineer, I'm telling you your proposal sounds like bollocks to me. You don't seem like an engineer to me -- why bother dressing up your listening experiences with this technical conjecture? The failed attempt to attribute the subjective experience to an objective cause just diminishes your credibility.
By the way, the reason hospital grade power cords are designed for low leakage is that small leakage currents can mess up measurements or even kill a patient. The spec doesn't mean the cords leak less than standard parts, but it does guarantee that they will meet the safety standards. It's just the same as with mil-spec tubes. They're not necessarily better performers than commercial parts, but they are guaranteed to perform.
By the way, the reason hospital grade power plugs are clear is so that you can visually inspect to make sure the ground wire is intact. Some audiophile outfits sell hospital grade outlets and cords as through they will improve sound. It's really pretty useless unless you plan to electrically attach the interconnects to your body and you want to make absolutely sure you won't be killed by a ground fault.
This ultimatum you have offered me -- to accept your premise or call you deaf -- is a total straw man. There is some truth out there on this question. We don't know what it is yet. Whether the effect is real or imagined, the truth is probably more subtle than your black and white ultimatum implies.
-Henry
Mr Engineer, have you checked out the construction of the Daletech power cords? Quite different from the vast majority of power cords on the market, including audiophile ones. I wonder why they went through extra trouble of adding extra insulation when a standard hospital grade cord could work fine.
StuPS: I've stated the reasons why I started this investigation. I have confirmed what I was TOLD by others. I've have advanced a postulate as to why it could have causality in the real world.
Now you write claim that it is impossible. So now please prove to me that it is impossible.
Edits: 05/02/12
I have absolutely no idea how or why Dale Technology power cords are built the way they are. I have to assume because this makes them safer and more reliable. If you're interested, why don't you write to them and ask, then post the answer?
I don't see how this is relevant to your feelings about the sound properties of black-insulated wire.
You seem terribly affronted, but you have to understand I'm really quite dispassionate about this. Black insulated wire may sound worse than white insulated wire. If so, that's interesting. Black insulated wire may sound the same as white insulated wire. That's fine, too. If the former case, I suppose I'd be curious to know the reason why. There has to be a reason, you know.
If I can try to summarize, you have postulated that the signal traveling through the black-insulated wire enters and exits the insulation layer at many random points along the length of the wire. The signal traveling through the resistive insulation material is delayed relative to the signal in the conductor, and this results in a "smearing" of the signal across the audible frequency band. The smearing effect is barely detectable except with the most exotic equipment, but is readily apparent to the human ear. You have discounted the possibility that expectation has colored perception.
I have here pieces of white and black teflon insulated wire. I also have a Fluke 187 digital multimeter which has a conductance scale with a resolution of 0.01nS. That's one divided by 100,000,000,000 Ohms. I am pressing the probes down hard on the insulation about 1/16" of an inch apart. I see no change in the reading for either color wire, beyond the random fluctuation due to noise in the instrument.
Can you quantify for me how much conductance are you talking about here in properly manufactured black wire?
I am trying to understand what potential differences along the length of the wire would cause electrons to flow into this super low-conductance insulation layer in preference to moving through the copper conductor.
I am trying to understand how this postulated flow of electrons into the insulation layer would influence the electromagnetic field around the wire, which is where the information actually propagates. (The electrons themselves only move at a speed of a fraction of a millimeter per second -- did you know that?)
I am trying to understand how this tiny amount of incidental current hypothesized to be flowing in the insulation could cause a random variation in the propagation delay of the signal through the wire that would be audible in any normal hi-fi application.
I'm trying to understand how you can be immune to subjective bias.
I studied electrical engineering. You (and a few others) seem to think that's a crime. Go figure. I studied Maxwell's equations, electromagnetics, and semiconductor physics. But the bulk of my training was in the realm of circuit analysis. Circuit analysis imposes simplifying constraints to make problems tractable. You can't readily analyze a schematic if you have to solve everything in terms of field behavior. Have you got a lumped circuit model for this effect you propose, or does it require that we go all the way back to the field equations to get a solution?
Do you actually, really know what group delay is? Even after reading my earlier explanation?
Show me your model and crank some numbers through it so I can get a sense of the magnitude of the effect. Give me some equations I can puzzle over so I can figure out what you're really talking about.
OK, now this is the part where you tell me again that you trust your ears and you don't have to prove anything to me because the evidence speaks for itself. Right. Got it.
So you were the one who came out with this engineering explanation, and I took you seriously enough to take time out of my day to think about it. And now, you're angry at me because I have pointed out some flaws and omissions in your analysis. Is it because you wanted to appear smart to people, and I came along and rained on the parade?
Remember, I never said you didn't hear the difference. I didn't even claim the difference was impossible. That's YOUR word. All I said was your explanation made no sense.
Stop being indignant and reading things into my words that I didn't say. You want to be taken seriously or not? Yes? You have been taken seriously.
Deal with it.
-Henry
Henry,
Your erudite arguments are pearls before swine, IMHO. For years now, a cabal of quacks has been trying to subvert this forum in order to push its own agenda and peddle its weird brand of snake oil to the gullible. In the hope of stifling opposition, these charlatans continually attempt to discredit qualified technicians, engineers and scientists. I don't think there is anything to gain by arguing with them (other than to point out the fallacies the preach, for the sake of maintaining a balance of fact vs fiction).
get on the suggestions of Tim Fox, and Dave Slagle...ok
If there is a dynamic effect relative to different dielectric constants, this is the next one I would check...how will you check it???
and as for as I am concerned those who need explanations need to do the proving...i.e. very capable people have already done the experiments by listening...Henry: the Church (i.e.you and Gusser) needs to prove to Galileo why the Earth is the center of the Heavens....
and you need to prove why the Earth is Flat...ok....the rest i.e. the users, understand already that the Earth is Round, and that the Sun is the center of the Solar System....like that....then you are in service.
ok have fun,
Sincerely,
-3db
Thanks for the notes. Again, a lot of misunderstanding here.1) Galileo was a scientist. His conflict with the church pitted him against the religious and political establishment who had a powerful incentive to stop the spread of science and reason. Same thing today, when much of the hi-fi industry depends on keeping people from thinking clearly about the value of what they're buying. In this analogy, I am Galileo and the hi-fi tweakers represent the church. The flat-earthers were the ones saying, "Don't think! Trust your senses: the ground is flat and the sun circles the earth!"
2) I keep saying (and I'll say it again) that I'm not declaring the claimed effects are "impossible." Anyone who thinks I said that isn't reading what I've written. What I have said is that the burden is on the people making claims to provide the proof. The burden is not on the audience to prove the claimants wrong.
3) Science is by nature an adversarial process. Scientists propose hypotheses and publish experimental results to justify them. The scientific community's job is to try to shoot holes in the research. It's a process of trial by fire. Good experiments get duplicated and validated. Bad ideas get trashed, or evolve and are reborn to start the process again. The fact that many scientists are skeptical of new theories that are eventually proven out does not mean the scientists were fools, or that the process of science doesn't work. The same is true when accepted scientific theories are forced to change in the face of new research. This is all part of the process.
4) There is way too much valid scientific data showing how fallible human hearing is for me ever to accept at face value that just because one or a bunch of audiophiles "heard" something that this means the "something" they heard was real and not an artifact created in their heads. Do some studying on the topic of psychoacoustics and blind testing methodologies and you'll see what I mean. There is a hell of a lot of neural processing going on in the auditory part of your brain, and it's just naive to think that conscious and subconscious biases don't affect perception.
5) I'm not criticising Stu for saying that black insulated wire sounds different. I'm questioning the engineering explanation he's given us to try to substantiate his claim. His technical reasoning is insufficient to prove the case.
All this makes me think of arguments about evolution I've read on news sites and discussion boards. The creationists like to say that science is just an atheist religion as though this proves the whole issue is purely a question of philosophical relativism. And therefore, belief in science is just another kind of "faith" that is no more valid than religious faith. This is all bunk. There are fundamental, deep philosophical differences between science and religion. If this isn't clear to you, you also need to spend some time reading about the philosophy of science.
Finally, the idea that asking for explanations of surprising claims is somehow wrong is just totally backwards, IMHO. If what you are saying is that all perceptions are valid, and that any lay technical speculation based on subjective observation must be accepted as true by default, then I have a big, fat spaghetti monster to sell you...
(If you don't know what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, then you can add that to your research list.)
-Henry
Edits: 05/03/12
1) please look again at why I said it the way I did Henry...the history is what I am referring to, and your statements here are typical of the Church...it is true because I said it was , etc....
The Flatland analogy applies because you can show a Flatlander a high mountain, and all perspective lines curved (i.e. an actual experience), and demonstrate a FlatLand having noncurving perspective lines, and he is still going to deliver some positional nonsense....i.e. Dahlquist/imaging, non believing engineers and CD/Nyquist nonsense...I am intentionally eroding that stance of any authority Henry...It has been blown already ...ok
You have to recover here by having some fresh willingness in tone...this is the middle ground, which I don't hear so much...ok
2)Yes the Church hates it of course when I say No...I mean NO Henry because of the nonsense...the Audience that has some problem, even with their Tweekers assigning causes inaccurately, is now burden with showing the proof.
You need to grasp this: this is what Galileo incorrectly died for...why should he have to prove the truth to the Church Henry??? This is a problem...as far as I am concerned listening is now way closer, and the denial problem on the engineering side so great that the situation needs to be reversed...if fact authority incorrectly assumed is the problem here....
3) Thank you Henry, I agree here, and am actually just doing my job.
4) and I agree...and I have done the work here...examining one's own perceptions is the primary work...measurements help,but actual insight into the colorations of one's own senses is the most important...and Henry how do you do this...by actual listening and examing one's listening directly, seeing, and actually examing one's seeing (I am a photographer also, the same colorations come into play, just different),
touch, smell, etc...actually I have done a lot of research. I also have no problem with double blind listening ...it tells a lot, particularily with "educated, able to make distinction, listeners"
5) and again, I have no problem I wasn't criticizing: I agree directly, and was saying arrogantly yes (no further use), and move on: because what Dave Slagle, and Tim Fox have to say might get closer to what the distinction is, and real measurements might offer... and Stu is fine and correct about what he is hearing...I actually appreciate his comments..
ok...I am busy and on vacation...so please you and Gusser rip me a new one while I am gone...
thanks
-3db
listening is not the only way of course, but I am honestly interested in getting to some sort of middle....It is not hard...
I had to listen all kinds of nonsense from lots of engineers during the beginning of Dahlquists work....and how many would just go listen and then, ...begin to evaluate , question, challenge...etc? few...
(Tell me Henry: how do you quantify "Imaging"...is Group Delay sufficient?)
Then we had it again during the introduction of the CD..." i.e. no , the CD sounds like crap, sorry Nyquist frequency is all you have to do, trash, and who was listening???" etc...how long did we go around that...
(How do you quantify "Digital Nastiness?")
As far as I am concerned if you don't listen, and are not quite capable of making a lot of fine distinctions concerning what you hear, and also an engineer not capable of parsing problems...then in general one is not competent and should be in a different business....I don't mean you directly because I know you do listen...thank you...however the notion that something is Quote "wrong" because it doesn't fit your theory, or someone's published work....just needs to be thrown out on it's head, as surely as the Church needs to thrown out with respect to Galileo or concerning Flatlanders...etc...
i.e. order of relavence:
First Listening
Second Measurements
Third Theories and Explanations...
Have you read Godel yet Henry???
Sincerely,
-3db
What you propose is the typical untrained hobbiest approach.1) Slap some parts together from somebody else's schematic.
2) Listen to it.
3) Hey it sounds great because I built it.
4) Measurements - why? It sounds great!
5) Theory - Why again? It sounds great!I'm sorry but that's not the way audio (or any technology) products are designed and built in the professional world.
1) Model the circuits. Either by calculator, slide rule, pencil and paper, or computer sim.
2) Bread board the design.
3) Measure paramaters and verify the math is correct. Adjust as needed.
4) Listen to it. If somethings not right, then go back to step 1 & 2.
5) Then, design for production and package it.
6) Measure and Listen again to the finished prototype.
7) Tweak the packaging design as needed.
8) Measure and Listen again.
This idea that match, physics are optional is again just a rookie hobbiest myth. So you can get away with it for a while. But sooner or later you are going to hit the wall and have to learn how thus stuff really works.
Edits: 05/03/12
because no one is going to pay you to reinvent these ancient wheels...
You assume 1 through 5 is accurate, but of course it isn't...
because you need to get to the middle Gusser, because
1 through 8 is actually what happens, except that you needed to come back to me with better than 1 through 5, because I have to call you out Gusser on 4,6,8 as being unfortunately steps you never do, and you are going to have to prove it to me now....so, please step up a bit Gusser...Are you blind enough to see that what I have said here is not in the middle, and how it resembles a lot of what you say???
I am saying this because I think you actually mostly do good work Gusser...I'll be blunt, if I were your Boss, I would say: you could simply start to develop a little more experience/time connecting actual sound to circuit characteristics/material properties, and less time to reaction.
Ok so generally 1 through 8 are true if one is doing a decent job, except that I would add that 4 and 3 are usually reversed, because half the time I am hearing things I don't like before I measure. The things I hear wrong are half about taste...and the other half are that I unfortunately have not so much done bad math, as forgotten some fundamental assumptions, like I can't put the switching were I want, and I should already know that....
So good luck
-3db
Here:And here are the newer tube amps built in 2008.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tubesforht/
Edits: 05/04/12
I am out of my league here but all this debate is very similar to debates about the Hogan amps....people like the way they sound despite the fact that John did so many unconventional things.....but whenever you would question it, the wolves would come out....finding out the whys is always a healthy discussion....it is more to it than it just sounds better....kind of like how 12AU7 clear tops sound open and smoked 6SL7s sound dark.....funny.
1) Kimber is told black wire sounds bad.2) Kimber buys a $100K device and finds black wire has problems. So we are told here, Kimber doesn't publish a word about this though.
3) Some audiophile club test a rebuilt Kimber interconnect with black wire replaced and hears "no small difference"
4) Kimber still sells braided interconnects with black wire.
5) What's wrong with this picture?
Doesn't sound to me like Kimber is on board with this idea either!
And I am hardly a Kimber supporter!
Edits: 05/02/12
the following products from Kimber
Power cable: PK-10 and PK-14
Interconnects KCAG, TCTG, Tonik, Timbre, all Select models
Speaker cables: 4TC, 8TC, 12TC, all select models.
Seems to me only the lower models utilize black insulation....
Seems to me you're just plain stubborn, but that's just an opinion, and I have no instrumentation to test that one out.
8^)
Stu
Not using black wire in favor of a different color costs nothing! Why then would Kimber use it at all after investing so much in test equipment to prove it.Like I said there is nothing I could find published by Kimber relating to the black wire test. Nothing....
I'm beginning to think this whole $100K analyzer is just part of the illusion you are trapped in.
Edits: 05/02/12
explain the effects of previous advertising on current marketing and knowledge but I feel such obvious explanations would be largely wasted on you.
Stu
Nt
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: