 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I apologize for not properly registering sooner as promised. However, I am here now and have much to discuss. Hopefully Mr. Risch wont censor posts in this forum.I'd like to know when Jon or any other so called audiophile is going to provide any technical backing to their claims of diode rectification and skin effect on speaker cables. Lets see the data. Thanks.
Follow Ups:
""Hopefully Mr. Risch wont censor posts in this forum.""He won't..DBT's are allowed here, and I'm told he is not the moderator..And, at first glance, while it may suit his agenda, he is following the rules of the forum we all abide by..
""I'd like to know when Jon or any other so called audiophile""
is going to provide any technical backing to their claims of diode rectification and skin effect on speaker cables. Lets see the data. Thanks.""
They are not "so called audiophiles". They are..To varying degrees.
""is going to provide any technical backing to their claims of diode rectification and skin effect on speaker cables. Lets see the data. Thanks.""
They cannot....first, skin.
The effect is a function of current slew rate, and therefore, happens with fast changing signals...The current SOTA for load resistors does not allow the accurate measurement of any effect that could occur as a result..present loads are ridiculously inaccurate, and not up to the task. And, I've not seen anybody attack the problem of measuring it in any useful way..The standard skin equations, freq vs. reactance, are woefully inadequate.IMHO
The standards I would hold anyone to are beyond that which have been demonstrated... I have the easy position..That of shooting down anyone's measurement proof, as they will not be accurate enough or specific enough to meet my criteria...Look at Hawksford...I've essentially shot down his test setup and results because of setup inacuraccies and method shortcomings, but have not yet provided absolute proof that he erred..because it is not as easy as asking for "proof".
I have also failed to meet my criteria so far...All the test setup errors I've encountered will swamp the effect I am looking for..I work to eliminate them.
For diode rectification from strand jumping??
Skin effect absolutely requires radial conduction, which, within stranded wire, means interstrand conduction..and given the contact resistance, who knows...But it still requires test setup rigors that haven't existed before..And once established, may not prove to be real anyway..
Modulation of transport current profile is so far not possible to model, very difficult to provide equations for, and is even conceptually difficult for me to understand, and I'm the one who thought it up..does it exist? Don't know, but many error mechanisms stand in the way..
I admit to having difficulty with the "ridiculous" garbage that is occasionally spewed here...But also realize the very difficult path of providing hard measurement evidence...As the people I would ask the evidence of are not as capable as I am of actually testing for it, and I presently do not know how to test for it accurately..
The same applies to the electron collision/grain boundary thing I faulted Jon for...Yes, I provide theories from the best physics experts on the planet, in direct contradiction with what he spouts...But, I can provide about as much test evidence shooting it down as he can supporting it..He has no experts that can substantiate his suppositions, I have no test evidence to shoot him down...Yet..
I would concur that your posts are designed to stir things up...And I like that..Don't stop...Prop would appear to be the best forum for you to do so.
I wonder about the format and discipline of the forum, though.
If the personalities are totally removed, and the site become one of dry, technical dialogue...I would probably not stay...I get enough of that at work..
Cheers, John
These discussions are in the archives here, but Hawksford and Duncan were discussed.....Almost 200 posts between the two topics here...
Hawksford works regarding skin effect on speaker cables were proven fallable and flat out wrong. I find very little credibility in the man, especially since he refused to repeat his work and admit his errors.
""Hawksford works regarding skin effect on speaker cables were proven fallable and flat out wrong. I find very little credibility in the man, especially since he refused to repeat his work and admit his errors.""I would like to see that proof myself...
Personally, from previous experience, I have duplicated the waveforms he produced in support of his argument, and found those waveforms to be an artifact of an incorrect test setup. So I conclude that his setup indeed suffered from that error mechanism, based on his writeup, and his schematic of his test setup..
In attempting to discuss these possibilities in a professional and courteous manner with Hawksford (John Curl was copied on that correspondence, please do not question me on how courteous and professional I really was, as that would force me to provide a copy of that correspondance without Hawksford's permission); after the second e-mail, where I detailed specifically the test setup errors I met with and corrected, and how they are exactly the same errors he may have encountered: He stopped all correspondance...Complete, total, utter radio silence..
My personal opinion: he inadvertantly embraced one test result, one which was just a test setup error artifact; he did not baseline the test setup, to see if indeed the setup was correct; he did not repeat the same test (or at least present data) for several different guages of wire, showing without any doubt the fact that wire diameter has an effect on the snapback he presented as proof. If what he purveyed was indeed skin effect, testing a range of wire sizes, from #30 awg all the way up to #4 guage welding wire, would have strengthened his argument.
I personally have not "proven" to a high degree of confidence, that he was wrong...I will in the near future, duplicate his setup at home and contrast it with my own corrected version, to do so...
My view of Hawksford's credibility: Given the possibility of error within his work, I would view the rejection of my legitimate questioning of that work based on my experience and education, is something a credible researcher would never do.. And I would be forced to conclude that he has no desire to entertain any views that would require him to publicly acknowledge a previously undetected error. That type of attitude, one of tying one's credibility to the permanent acceptance of one's published work with complete disregard for any and all conflicting evidence, is an attitude which would be untenable within the work environment I personally enjoy. That of the high energy physics community, within all the national labs on the planet..
I find, unfortunately, that Hawksford is not the only one to present that image to the public...And that is unfortunate, given all the other contributions he and others afford the public. For me, it casts a shadow over all the other contributions, as I may not have a thorough enough understanding of the work to easily accept the conclusions..That results in a slowing down of acceptance of new ideas, because you end up not trusting the source.
Cheers, John
In response to the post directly above this..John Curl had copied it and sent it to him..That was nice of you John, Dr. Hawksford should be aware of public discourse involving his research.Dr. Hawksford is very pleasant to converse with..Perhaps in the future, he will have an update on his test..
In the meantime, I persist in my test setup..Gettin there..
Cheers, John
"In attempting to discuss these possibilities in a professional and courteous manner with Hawksford (John Curl was copied on that correspondence, please do not question me on how courteous and professional I really was, as that would force me to provide a copy of that correspondance without Hawksford's permission); after the second e-mail, where I detailed specifically the test setup errors I met with and corrected, and how they are exactly the same errors he may have encountered: He stopped all correspondance...Complete, total, utter radio silence.."John;
I would never question how courteous you treat people as I have never seen you be anything but courteous to people on here, even those who may attack you. Many people, myself included could learn from your example.
Thank you...But I was a bad boy recently at cable...It was one of those days..I essentially accused Jon of having a convienient computer "failure" so that he did not have to provide phase data in support of one of his arguments..
He hasn't provided the data to date,,but my statement was somewhat unprofessional...And he has said the hard drive was essentially lost..
Cheers, John
Well I say proof is in the pudding and I think Jon's pudding cup is empty ;)One cannot provide proof in which they don't have. Anyone one who is the least bit tech saavy would have a back up via another harddrive, or zip drive or CD rom, or combo of all.
""Anyone one who is the least bit tech saavy would have a back up via another harddrive, or zip drive or CD rom, or combo of all. ""Somebody who does not have backup storage of all his important data is preddy damn stupid....
I cringe when I think of all MY stuff that fits that description, that is not properly backed up...
Good practice does not always meet up with reality..Although I've not had a problem yet, I still am guilty of being in the same category as Jon (at least, with respect to computer data integrity).
Would you believe, the music I have at home is better backed up than my work files. Three cd rom copies deep, vs occasional zip disks..
And the network at work?? difficult, slow...and confiscated by the FBI when some hacker breaks into the server.. So far, only once..and they never gave us back the server..
Cheers, John
That is pretty much how the earlier thread ended up.....FWIW I have found that directionality is a much more important consideration than gauge in solid core cable construction....
Hawksford works regarding skin effect on speaker cables were proven fallable and flat out wrong. I find very little credibility in the man, especially since he refused to repeat his work and admit his errors.Things like that often happen to those who are not interested in getting at the truth, wherever it may lay, but rather are only interested in "proving" their preconceived notions, pet theories, or beliefs.
se
I can attest to this as my commerical speaker wire should not work worth a darned as made the first of it seven years ago from 16ga solid core silver and it should not work worth a darned and it is one of the better ones available to hear my customers talk about it.....Point is something is wrong with the conclusions drawn or the cable would not be so popular.....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
