 
|
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 |
68.19.137.67
I made a comment about Steve Eddy and his experimental cables on a post at the Cable Asylum. To allow Steve the opportunity to reply, and clarify his position/s, I am starting a thread here he can reply to.My post was at:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/99235.htmlAnyone wishing to comment on that post, or Steve's reply here, please post it in this thread here at Prop Heads.
Thanks.
Jon Risch
Follow Ups:
All I wanted to do was say what I said in my reply below. That's it.How 'bout deleting all this and your appended post on CA and just forget I said anything.
se
I can not delete posts here.If you want this thread deleted, send a note to Rod.
Jon Risch
Yah, I'm such a troublemaker...I was very impressed with Jon's post, and your subsequent reply. Enough so, that I really had to wonder why, given that nice exchange, why you are banned from cables..
Cheers, John
Hi John:You're dealing with the worst of the worst. Curl and Risch make the the most egregious instances of spin, distortion and character assination from the presidential campaign appear by comparison to be scholarly discourse among men possessed of the wisdom of the ages.
They make us lawyers appear to be the guardians of truth and objectivity.
I can't imagine how you can stoop to carry on with such enemies of truth, englightenment and rational thought.
BTW, I will be in NYC visiting my son over Thanksgiving. Any chance you'll be in the city then?
He's leaving IBM to join a venture capital firm in Boston, so this may be one of my last visits to NYC for a while.
____________________"To dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free."
We love you too Phil.
Jon Risch
Phil, I am sorry that you think that I have said someting 'out of line'.
I tried to be a little fair by slamming lawyers.You certainly could have invoked the "pot calling the kettle black" defense against me.
____________________"To dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free."
Sorry we will miss each other. Thanksgiving is at our place this year, so cannot visit the city..Was there Oct 16 through 22nd, visiting at Mt Sinai Hosp..excellent hosp, I'd recommend it in a nanosec.. all is well, she is back on the bicycle..
How are you doing..how's the new job?
Cheers, John
Thanks, Jon.I'll just reiterate in public what I've already related to you in private.
My problem with what you wrote is twofold.
First, I simply don't feel it appropriate to invoke my name in a discussion on a forum I'm prohibited from posting on and subsequently responding to comments which may be made publically with regard to me. It doesn't matter whether what you said was factual or not. I just don't think it's right.Second, I feel you did misrepresent what I had posted on Prop Heads because it was used to bolster this comment you had made just before you brought my name into it:
"I predict that if you continue to pursue the science of audio cables, that you will find more and more things that can have an effect, and more and more backup for what folks have been hearing all along."
My comment about sounding good to me was never intended to make any sort of case for "what folks have been hearing all along" as it relates to objective, techincal issues such as those you and John were arguing about.
Sounding good to me is nothing more than a relation of my subjective experience which I would never pass off as anything more than that and would never want it to imply any sort of claim of actual audible differences or any sort of credible evidence of actual audible differences.
se
Don't ya just love the way he said this gem:
JR: ""Literally years later, you have just begun to realize that there are all kinds of side issues. Issues such as grounding loops, materials effects, geometry, system synergy and interactions, etc. Even AC power cords are not so unbelievable as having a possible sonic impact. At first, powercords affecting the sound was something that you said was just not possible, no matter what. (This was all over at AR)
""
Pure garbage...plain and simple..It's as if I came into the game, saying nothing was real, it couldn't happen, it isn't so...and then, by some magical "poof" realization, spurred by the pure intellect of Jon Risch, that bingo...I am CHANGED...I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!
Tis a shame that one has to stoop to such lows in a feeble attempt at covering one's ass.
It actually suprised me, I thought better of him..
And lo and behold, the "all over AR" crapola later became "a couple of posts in the beginning"...which was also a bunch of crap. Hedging downward as a result of lack of memory?
Jon, you should know better..truth is far stronger than bringing in lies to the table, even if the lies are a result of not remembering and are unintentional, as you stated over at AH.
Hey, give it a few more years, and you'll be claiming credit for all kinds of things I posted.. (unintentionally, of course) . Ah, such is memory....they say it's the second thing to go...
Cheers, John
PS...it's a shame the archives at AR are such a mess. I've gone through months of posts from my start there when Jon posted that trash about me, and found not a damn thing that even JR with a warped sense of understanding could misconstrue w/r to any position I had taken....hell, it took 3 hours to find posts I put there even when I knew the date of the post ...what a disservice they did over there when they changed systems.
PPS...Should you ever provide an explanation for an effect, which is self consistent, in addition to being consistent with existing science and e/m theory, it would be rather dumb to simply ignore it..should you do so...I will look closely..
You jump to conclusions faster than a parachute addict.First, to set the record straight, you did enter the discussions at AR with a technochip on the shoulder. Power cords were not an issue. You basically agreed with most of what the naysayers said. That was at the very first.
Then, you started finding out about various aspects of audio, ones that you had previously not been aware of, and decided that maybe some things did matter, but they would be minor. I won't claim credit for any of that, but I am certain that if I had not argued so fervently, you would not have been as interested in looking into the matter.
Finally, it has reached the stage where you seem to think you have invented a new speaker cable (folks have been there, done that, sold it), have 'discovered' a reason that speaker cables might have an influence (lateral timing issues), and even figured out a way that power cords can have an adverse effect, or a good one, if the system has some measure of a ground loop in it (most do to some extent).
I think that you honestly believe that you are the first to come across these issues, and to position them as scientific reasons for cable sonics.While you are not exactly president of the yeasayer club, you went from pretty much denial, to "maysayer" (I hate that psuedo-label, as you never were truly impartial, just typical techno-based naysaying spun as if it were maysaying), to "gee, it might sound different" BECAUSE OF .......... "
The ironic thing is, I have been at that last stage myself, and posted same, but what are posted as honest speculations got twisted into claims and 'proof' (I can thank mtry and some of the goons over at AR for some of that, it was repeated endlessly, and apparently, you got to believing it yourself), what were pointed out as real phenomena of physics as a way of showing that there were some possible reasons or explanations for what gets heard, was turned into claims and statements that I never made, like the infamous lies about how I said that a different color of insulation sounds different. Perhaps you remember that one? If I recall correctly, you had jumped on the bandwagon for that one too.
The amount and level of twisting and spin was unmatched at AR when the naysayers were in full cry. The insulation color incident was just one example of what went on, all OVER at AR (the board), and what was considered acceptable behavior. Lies and inuendo were just fine, as long as they weren't aimed at you.
Once you got just a taste of some of the naysayers turning on you, skeptic, and even Radar O got pissed and had words with you, but they laid off after awhile. Ocassionally and only at first, you defended me, but there was an awful lot of "agreement by silence" that occured too.[ and lo and behold, the "all over AR" crapola later became "a couple of posts in the beginning"...which was also a bunch of crap. Hedging downward as a result of lack of memory? ]
Here's a big jump.
I meant that what was posted, what occured, occured over at the AR board, and not here. It was a reference to a LOCATION, not quantity. But you read anything you want into it, you will anyway.You go out of your way to trash me, all the while denying it. You demand incredibly high standards from others, yet fail to live up to them yourself, as well as fail to demand them of those you have chosen to throw in with and defend. Only your opponents are held to this high standard, and your hypocrisy gets more and more ridiculous as time goes on.
You now make blatant claims without even attempting to provide backup, we are all just supposed to take your word for it, because you work at a Lab! The latest bizarre twist is that your "proof" of skin effect not being a time smear issue, is a negative proof, consisting of your unsupported and unsubstantiated attacks on Hawksford's paper. That's it! Your whole proof, all of your evidence, is that you CLAIM that Hawksford's paper was wrong. Period. What ever happened to providing some real evidence, like you DEMAND from others?It's still about audio, not 10,000 amp superconducting toys. You fail to make that connection, and still insist that you know it all when it comes to EM, and even more incredibly, claim I don't have a clue, based on, well, nothing really.
You ignore the work I have done, the results I have garnered, the real world issues and aspects, all the while trying to make me out as some sort of drooling moron, via simple repetition of the same old personal attacks. It is clear where that tactic came from.Now, the latest kick is to say I am a liar, that I have lied about you in some way.
That's fine, you have been lying about me in many small ways for quite a while now, placing words in my mouth, saying that I did or said things that I did not, misconstruing my posts, taking things out of context, misrepresenting what I have posted, in short, doing everything you possibly could to paint a lousy picture.Most folks around here know better, and dismiss your BS out of hand, but there are a few newbies or occasional lurker's who might believe the trash talk you post. That is the only reason I even bother to defend myself from your insane attacks.
Jon Risch
Jon R, I know that you don't personally need this support, but I can't find anything that Jneutron says as useful or even accurate. He goes on and on, but I can't see where he does anything, relative to audio, that helps us learn and grow. Normally, I would just give him the 'benefit of doubt' for what he alleges, but he never stops accusing us and our colleagues with all kinds of nonsense.
I did meet Dr. Hawksford at the show. He basically maintains his position on his work with wires. I did say that, at least he sent us the complete paper, rather than just the magazine article, and, of course, this helped clear up a few points.
If I were a betting man, I would bet on Dr. Hawksford moving us forward, and Jneutron keeping us in the dark.
O
JC: ""If I were a betting man, I would bet on Dr. Hawksford moving us forward, and Jneutron keeping us in the dark.""
Well, you are half right...
Hawksford, with his DSP and signal processing expertise, is a huge asset to us all, and he is indeed advancing the SOTA in that area, being far enough ahead of everyone else that they have to first learn what he is talking about.
But the second part?
I designed a 75 ohm RCA connector..have you...Risch claimed it was impossible...but, don't take my word for it...here is what he said, copied exactly from his seven part post over at AR...
Jon Risch: ""Even if, by some miracle, the RCA plug itself could be made to be a 'true' 75 ohm impedance, which I am not convinced that it can be (nor are quite a few knowledgeable RF folks and engineers), then it would still be a moot point since the RCA female jack is not a 75 ohms Z.
AND:
Jon Risch: ""So it should be clear at this point, that it is not possible for an RCA plug to acheive a true 75 ohms impedance. ""
Of course, tell that to WBT...they applied for a patent exactly 30 days before I designed the same damn thing...in German, of course, but one of the guys here confirmed the date.And, it took me 3 days to figure out how to do this "impossible according to JR" thing, and a grand total of 11 days to get to a complete backwards compatible connector that was true 75 ohms..
Hmmm, 11 days...perhaps the "quite a few knowledgeable RF folks and engineers" that Jon Risch is talking about, aren't real...made up people in a feeble attempt to bolster his own agenda??Hmmm. Or, more likely, perhaps they just didn't figure the problem out..
I carry a slightly different perspective to the table..it's not superior intellect (even if I wanted to believe it), but just a result of my perspective view..
Perhaps we should just trust Jon and you, when either of you claim it can't be done??? And, when you proclaim that something is real??? And Hawksford, when he claims residue that runs at 2.93 meters per second, climbing back outta the wire??
Everybody can be right, John..and can be wrong..
I do not judge a man (woman) by what they can or cannot do..I judge them by their character, their civility, their ability to admit error, apologize, and move on...I do not see that in you, nor in Risch..at least, publicly within the forums.... I do not know either of you personally..
All I ask is that everybody accept both possibilities, and act civilly..
When you do, we will get along fabulously..
And the same applies to Risch..
Nuff said..
Cheers, John
PS...I note you said nothing about my challenge to have Hawksford publish in either IEEE or AES, his unedited essex echo article..
Why is that? I guarantee it won't survive peer review, from the best in the world...why not respond to that?? "I stand by my results" is a wimpy way out...publish the darn thing, let us all see the reaction of the peers...
I will reserve judgement of him until such time as he holds that article up for peer review, and takes his licks..
Congratulations, you have designed a 75 ohm connector. JR was right, mostly, and you know it. By a normal approach, it is considered 'impossible' because the ratio of the input radius and the output radius has to be just so.
Too bad that WBT beat you to it, but at least we can try their version, if we wish.
JC: ""Congratulations, you have designed a 75 ohm connector. JR was right, mostly, and you know it. By a normal approach, it is considered 'impossible' because the ratio of the input radius and the output radius has to be just so. ""
Thank you, John...Yes, I certainly agree..given the geometry, he was, as are you, correct..it took rethinking the geometry to both change the impedance, and still be compatible.
Impossible is such an interesting word...many people who say so are run over by the people who do it..
And, um....I did say he was correct, in another forum, I believe.....I neglected his error of "negative dielectric required", it really was less than one required, but both are impossible..(hee hee)
JC: ""Too bad that WBT beat you to it, but at least we can try their version, if we wish.""
Yah, I would have liked the feather in my cap...however, I did post it in a public forum so I had intended it for public domain..the fact that WBT beat me to it just means they own it...As for it's being worth the patent...I don't know. I'm not sure how many people would actually scramble to pay that kind of money for those connectors...seems to me most of the people in the world either use different standard connectors, or just buy some dollar a pair rca cables, and don't notice a diff in pic quality..doesn't mean there is no diff, just that most don't care, they have other priorities..
So, I don't know how big the market actually is..
Cheers, John
JR: ""It's still about audio, not 10,000 amp superconducting toys. You fail to make that connection, and still insist that you know it all when it comes to EM, and even more incredibly, claim I don't have a clue, based on, well, nothing really.""
Hmmm..you state a wire specification on your website...a wire should generate less than "yada yada" distortion...otherwise it's not a good wire...Any measurements at all to support the wire generating distortion Jon??? Any at all? Or is it gonna be ""I heard it, so it's there"..
I state that you don't have a clue, because you have not shown in any post I have witnessed, any semblence of a real understanding of e/m theory...I do see you cull a lot from other web pages, and present the info as real, when it isn't...I see someone with a laymans understanding of e/m theory, trying desperately to show the world that he understands it all..
As to my claiming I know it all??? what a bunch of claptrap...more of your own ego-massaging..
I have historically noted, that you have some understanding...and that I can run rings around you..and people here can run rings around me..
Not a character flaw Jon, just is..it's a food chain thing..
JR: ""You ignore the work I have done, the results I have garnered,""
No, I don't..and I have stated on forums many time, that some of the work you have done is good..but that some of it is pure, unadulterated...floob.JR: "" the real world issues and aspects""
You mean like picosecond jitter, strand jumping, electron grain boundary collisions....that kind of real world issues??JR: ""all the while trying to make me out as some sort of drooling moron,""
Um, Jon? I don't have to try to do that...you are quite talented at doing so yourself...Now, c'mon..how could anyone in the world pass that one up???
JR: "" via simple repetition of the same old personal attacks. It is clear where that tactic came from.""
Yes, it is clear Jon....You, Jon....you, and Curl. I have learned such tactics from the best..just giving you exactly what you have given others for years..JR: ""Now, the latest kick is to say I am a liar, that I have lied about you in some way. ""
And yet, over at AH, you tempered that stance down to "If I did so, it was inadvertant".Perhaps it was Jon...but you'd never admit to foolishly making such a statement..
JR: ""That's fine, you have been lying about me in many small ways for quite a while now, placing words in my mouth, saying that I did or said things that I did not, misconstruing my posts, taking things out of context, misrepresenting what I have posted, in short, doing everything you possibly could to paint a lousy picture.""
Again, such a line you give me...this time, I'll pass..What I have done, in every instance, is to copy your exact words, re-post them, and rebut them directly. In cases where dialogue prior to the stuff of yours I copy, I also copy that, but color that stuff green, for continuity and ease of distinguishing the players.
If you can't handle people producing your exact words and re-butting them, get out of the kitchen..
JR:L ""Most folks around here know better, and dismiss your BS out of hand, but there are a few newbies or occasional lurker's who might believe the trash talk you post. That is the only reason I even bother to defend myself from your insane attacks.""
Most folks here are far more intelligent than you give them credit for, and they see right through your scams.I welcome your being civil...there was a little bit where you were, but you obviously lost it...it's not in your nature to be so.
Cheers, John.
Oh yah, next in the sequence..
and lo and behold, the "all over AR" crapola later became "a couple of posts in the beginning"...which was also a bunch of crap. Hedging downward as a result of lack of memory? ]
JR: ""Here's a big jump.
I meant that what was posted, what occured, occured over at the AR board, and not here. It was a reference to a LOCATION, not quantity. But you read anything you want into it, you will anyway.""
The statement "all over AR", means exactly that...it's all over the place..multiple times...this is your statement..Then, after I pointed out that you are quite incorrect, you downgraded your statement to "a coupla posts in the beginning".
You clearly tried to paint me in the light you wish..then had to backpedal...eventually, you will have to give that tact up.
JR: ""You go out of your way to trash me, all the while denying it. You demand incredibly high standards from others, yet fail to live up to them yourself, as well as fail to demand them of those you have chosen to throw in with and defend. Only your opponents are held to this high standard, and your hypocrisy gets more and more ridiculous as time goes on.""
I don't have to go out of the way...I just sit by, you start the stuff. I just respond to your idiocy. And, I don't deny giving you your due..As for standards?? you've no idea the standards I hold myself to..and I notice that when I indeed post responses in defense of the yaysayer mentality (for lack of a more civil word you would understand), you neither notice, or mention the fact..
My "hypocrisy" is a delusional construct of your mind, Jon..you are getting more and more desperate with your posts.
JR: ""You now make blatant claims without even attempting to provide backup, we are all just supposed to take your word for it, because you work at a Lab! The latest bizarre twist is that your "proof" of skin effect not being a time smear issue, is a negative proof, consisting of your unsupported and unsubstantiated attacks on Hawksford's paper. That's it! Your whole proof, all of your evidence, is that you CLAIM that Hawksford's paper was wrong. Period. What ever happened to providing some real evidence, like you DEMAND from others? ""
No backup??? Surely you are kidding? you really do have to learn how to use the search feature, Jon...it's all over the place here..Test regimen, diagrams, textbook references, equations, results...the list is huge.
Boy, If I mad that big an error, neglecting the internal inductance of a wire in such a mag article, I'd really want to bury it..
I'd discuss the article in more detail with you, but you have avoided that technical discussion to date.., why should I expect any different from you now.
Enough for now...I will admit...it's fun poking holes in your posts...even if it does lend credence to you being someone to notice..
As for my working at a place where they apply e/m theory and physics in ways you cannot ever understand...Hey, it just is..
I don't think I'll ever understand all the stuff here either. Neither good, nor bad...just is..
For now, gotta go...it's been a pleasure...now I gotta go fix that damn motor drive I blowd up..
toodles, John
Civility would be nicer, Jon...as well as truth in posting..don't ya think?
I am sure that you felt the need to respond three times, just to make sure your spin was seen enough. Getting desperate, aren't we?As for one of the few relevant issues you kinda sorta address, my original statement was:
" (This was all over at AR) "You shortened it to:
"all over AR"Of course the WRONG WORDS seem much more like you want to spin it, but now it becomes clear that you are doing exactly what I said you do:
"placing words in my mouth, saying that I did or said things that I did not, misconstruing my posts, taking things out of context, misrepresenting what I have posted"Finally, you still have not provided any evidence for your claims that skin effect does not cause time smear. Nothing.
Refering to mentioning a whole book in some obscure post ages ago, is NOT a reference or citation that is specific to the subject matter at hand, and can hardly be considered relevant or worthy as backup for what you claimed. The mention of the Hawksford paper is a red herring, and has nothing to do with failing to backup your specific claim.
This clearly shows your hypocrisy.Now, why don't you post three more bogus replies in desperation.
Jon Risch
JR, what is wrong with JN? He is throwing everything, but the kitchen sink at you! I guessed I missed the AR stuff. ;-)
The entire thing is at AR, but in their archives...I wouldn't even want to send my worst enemy to look in their archives..what a friggen mess it is over there..took me two to three hours to find it, even knowing the date..
JR had posted a seven page diatribe going over all the errors in a thingy at AH. The RCA was but one of the things he pointed out.
If you wish, I can give you the link...but it's a real real (I mean real) slow download of the thread..
As for throwing the Kitchen sink...
I've said it many times...if I were not impugned by him....none of this would have happened...none..when climbing up the ladder, or simply trying to maintain..don't use others as rungs..I do not appreciate being used as a rung..
Cheers, John
at AR???And here, a three parter explaining to us what a naysayer is?
And a huge two parter here explaining how skin effect compromises the audio signals???
Some of us have work to do...I waffled as to whether or not to address all your bullshit..but decided that no matter what point I stopped at, you'd come back with some garbage about not addressing them because they are valid..Hence, the rest...when I had the time. Not all at the same time, which is what you now claim others should do...unlike you.
JR: "" am sure that you felt the need to respond three times, just to make sure your spin was seen enough. Getting desperate, aren't we?""
SOOO, now, you are stupidly claiming that multiple posts are a sign of desperation...you are such a clown...
JR: ""As for one of the few relevant issues you kinda sorta address, my original statement was:
" (This was all over at AR) "You shortened it to:
"all over AR"Of course the WRONG WORDS seem much more like you want to spin it, but now it becomes clear that you are doing exactly what I said you do:""
Hmmm...aren't the words in the public domain, Jon??? go review them.Note: yes, editing at AH is easy, but copies of the text which others use to respond to are not edited as a result..anything you origionally posted, that another replied to, will remain unchanged.
JR: ""Finally, you still have not provided any evidence for your claims that skin effect does not cause time smear. Nothing.
Refering to mentioning a whole book in some obscure post ages ago, is NOT a reference or citation that is specific to the subject matter at hand, and can hardly be considered relevant or worthy as backup for what you claimed. The mention of the Hawksford paper is a red herring, and has nothing to do with failing to backup your specific claim.
This clearly shows your hypocrisy.""
From your layman's understanding of the topic, you will clearly not benefit from the correct analysis..so far, you ignore it all. In fact, for all the garbage of yours I have provided sound analysis of, showing the bogus nature of your claims, you have ignored, much like a long neck bird with his head in the sand..I think the MOST telling thing would be this:
Have Hawksford publish in either IEEE or AES, the entire uncut, unedited 1985 essex echo article on skin effect, so that his peers can see the level of that article, the non reproducible results, the errors of assumptions, and worst of all, the run on claims of effects that occur at the end of the article..
JR: ""Now, why don't you post three more bogus replies in desperation.""
Why? at least in the post I am replying to, you did not use as many sentences to convey to us your lack of understanding, your lack of humility, your inability to accept or acknowledge your errors, and your lack of character in trying to deflect blame for your excesses in vile postings against others to fit your own agenda..By the way, do you actually read the posts, or have you reduced yourself to using your fingers to count the number of responses?
So, please dispense with the clowning...you don't look good with that red ball thingy on your nose..
Your incoherent responses are not pretty, Jon..I think you really need to back up, count to a hundred, and figure out what it is you want the world to see of you..
Cheers, John.
PS...I will not be mischaracterized by some wannabe pseudo-engineer who's only desire is to be thought of as the high end guru.
Clean up your act, and you will be treated with respect...change nothing, and I will rspond in kind..
toodles, ttfn.
This required my attention...JR: ""As for one of the few relevant issues you kinda sorta address, my original statement was:
" (This was all over at AR) "You shortened it to:
"all over AR"Of course the WRONG WORDS seem much more like you want to spin it, but now it becomes clear that you are doing exactly what I said you do:""
My response:
Hmmm...aren't the words in the public domain, Jon??? go review them.Note: yes, editing at AH is easy, but copies of the text which others use to respond to are not edited as a result..anything you origionally posted, that another replied to, will remain unchanged.
Followup:
I indeed read your statement "all over at AR" as "all over"..that got past me then, and again over here in this thread..
I stand corrected, I apologize for that mis-interpretation..however, you are still stating garbage that is entirely of your own mind..you chose to mischaracterize me in a feeble attempt to discredit me..silly, really..everybody sees it for what it is..
What I want to know is:
Jon, when are you going to publish your electron grain stuff at either IEEE or AES...don't you want to see how the EE people accept your preposterous web rantings?And, when are you going to publish the sandbag jitter tweak in the same venues?
And, what about your motor-generator floob?
And, what about your dielectric involvement stuff?
And what about your piezo speaker wire stuff. and silver, teflon...man the list is long..
How come you do not present this stuff to your "peers" Jon???
I would pay good money to watch the crowd as you presented that stuff...oh man, wow..
Actually, if you did present this stuff to a learned audience, it would be a rather unhappy event for me..even though we always seem to be at odds with one another, even I do not wish to see you put into a position where you would be made out a fool, even if you were doing it all by yourself.....that is an indignity I do not wish on even you, Jon..
Cheers, John..
PS...once I noticed my error, as you pointed out, I had to correct it publicly...
[ Jon, when are you going to publish your electron grain stuff at either IEEE or AES...don't you want to see how the EE people accept your preposterous web rantings? ]Yet silver platings sound terrible in most cases, tinned copper wires as well. Wires that have fewer crystalline structures and impurities seem to sound better than ordinary ETP grade copper.
[ And, when are you going to publish the sandbag jitter tweak in the same venues? ]
This works quite well, as quite a few people have discovered. The theory is sound, and the sound is better. Show me one reference that disproves the theory behind it. A REAL citation mind you.
[ And, what about your motor-generator floob? ]
Loosely woven cables where the wires could be seen to move with an amp turn on transient, weighed down with sand bags sounded better. Many folks have been paying attention to controlling vibrations in audio cables, and gotten good results. The fact is, it exists, it is real. the only real controversy, is how high of a level is it at? Throw in external speaker excitation, and we have a possible culprit to deal with.
[ And, what about your dielectric involvement stuff? ]
All other things being equal, teflon sounds better than PE, which sounds better than PVC, etc.
[ And what about your piezo speaker wire stuff. and silver, teflon...man the list is long.. ]
Piezo electric effects in cables are real, and documented, The only real issue is whether or not the level is high enough to matter, etc.
Silver sounds different than copper, silver plated sounds worse than either pure metal, and you are repeating yourself with the teflon.Ignore all the secondary and tertiary aspects of audio cables all you want. The folks who HAVE paid attention end up happier and like the sound of their systems better for it.
Once again, this just proves my point: you don't know audio for diddly squat.
Oh, and you are still blowing off your proof for skin effect not causing time smear. Still.
Jon Risch
As I suspect...you have zip scientific proof of any of your statements...
btw, I speak of piezo and speaker wire...low level, everyone knows, even me....How many years have you railed on about how all these little "effects", which btw, "nobody can measure" but are there...
Ten, twenty???
That's why I say...put your neck out, Jon...publish it and stand up there on the stage, behind the podium, and accept the responses of the high level people who understand the science...
What you just did here, Jon...is not advancement..all you did just now is say "I hear it, trust me...others hear it...trust me...
That is not learning, Jon. It is stalling..it is a frozen misunderstanding of what people hear...with absolutely no path towards figuring out what is really going on..that is what I am trying to do..Believing an article on skin effect from '85 which had the analysis start with the wrong assumption, is stalling...it is 20 years of stasis in understanding..
Read Hawksford's paper, and look for this:
The initial premise is that of planar waves impinging on the surface..that is how "not yet engineers" are taught about skin effect...it is an approximation...and one that is good only for wire diameters that are greater than 5 to 8 times that of the skin depth that is calculated..look at any reference you wish, they will all say the same thing...the planar wave equations are not correct for diameters that are in the same range as the depth.
That is a consequence of the curvature of the wire surface, Jon...trying for planar solutions to a cylindrical problem.
To do a correct analysis of skin effect and wires in the dc to beyond audio, Hawksford has to approach the problem in a different way....
Start at DC, and re-write the equations to EXCLUDE the current from the wire as the slew rate of the current goes up. It requires a lot more math at the start (certainly not a problem for Hawksford), but it STARTS with the energy storage of the current within the wire, that being the internal inductance...
That is the assumption that is in error...Hawksford used skin equations that have been known to be in error for the frequencies and wire dimensions he applied them to...just check the references....ANY references, Jon...that do skin effect...
Even, what was that scotsman guy's name....Leseuf, I think..Jim...he notes that the equations break down for wires too small w/r to the skin depth...it's there, ya gotta look for it..
Hawksford missed that caveat...so, he missed the internal inductance component that his steel high mu (approx 100, acc to curl) added, when he switched the wire material..
It's one of those "gotcha" things...
THAT IS THE REASON FOR PEER REVIEW, JON..the purpose of peer review is to catch these types of conceptual errors....Had I wrote that paper with that conceptual error, one of my reviewers would have caught it...in point of fact (that's a cool phrase), the very first reviewer I would have used here would have taken about 3 seconds to spot it..(took me half a day).
It's too bad that there seems to be no inclination to update the paper to reflect the real equations..
OH....btw...that comment in cables about my head getting too big?
Too late...:-)
Seriously, thanks...but I attribute it to coming in with a different perspective, not advanced intelligence...many of my friends here could have done it as fast or faster, and what I hate is that they'd do it complete with analytical solutions...that I would be hard pressed to understand....god, I hate that...:-)
Cheers, John
And I didn't even go through any derivations...just the thought of discussing the equations is apparently enough.Jon...being unable to discuss the equations or work them through is not really a bad thing, unless you claim you understand them...then, everybody certainly expects you to be able to discuss them.
You've not done that..ever. For this skin theory, for energy balance equations, for electron collision theory, nothing..
So....recap shows:
JR says :""Yet silver platings sound terrible in most cases, tinned copper wires as well. Wires that have fewer crystalline structures and impurities seem to sound better than ordinary ETP grade copper.""
""jitter::This works quite well, as quite a few people have discovered. The theory is sound, and the sound is better. Show me one reference that disproves the theory behind it. A REAL citation mind you.""
""Loosely woven cables where the wires could be seen to move with an amp turn on transient, weighed down with sand bags sounded better.""
""All other things being equal, teflon sounds better than PE, which sounds better than PVC, etc.""
""Piezo electric effects in cables are real, and documented, The only real issue is whether or not the level is high enough to matter, etc.
Silver sounds different than copper, silver plated sounds worse than either pure metal, and you are repeating yourself with the teflon.""""Ignore all the secondary and tertiary aspects of audio cables all you want. The folks who HAVE paid attention end up happier and like the sound of their systems better for it.""
""Once again, this just proves my point: you don't know audio for diddly squat.""
Hmmm..so, lets see...if I repeat all that stuff, and believe what you say, without any proof whatsoever, then I....what, know audio???So, let's take it a little further...in order to know audio, perhaps I should read up on these "effects"....Since the best audio scientists and engineers publish in AES or IEEE, then I suppose you can provide some published information on this stuff in a REAL publication, one that is peer reviewed???
If you claim that a diety is pulling the moon across the starfield...it certainly does fit observation...but if someone balks at your claim, does that mean they know "squat" about planetary dynamics?? I guess orbital equations, conservation of momentum... don't mean "squat"?? Especially after you, Jon Risch, explain what is really hapenning??
You continue to make entirely unsupported claims, some of which are hilariously comedic with respect to actual science...and what do you back up that garbage with???
""you don't know squat about audio""
Your attitude has been the biggest hindrance to the understanding of audio that I have ever seen...you do nothing to advance the science...all you do is lambast anyone who does not chant your "high end audio" mantras..JR: ""Oh, and you are still blowing off your proof for skin effect not causing time smear. Still.""
Hmmm...I note with interest you do not discuss the e/m theory...A good man knows his own limitations...Your a good man, Jon..
Cheers, John
Jon Risch
JR, this is crazy! What does JN want? Acceptance? To reduce us in stature, so he feels empowered? What?
JC: ""JR, this is crazy! What does JN want? Acceptance? To reduce us in stature, so he feels empowered? What? ""Simple..
1. Be civil..
2. If you do not understand a topic, admit it.
3. Do not denigrate others because you do not understand.
4. Understand that people who disagree with you are not dissing you...just disagreeing.
5. Understand that there are people who can run rings about you in some disciplines..it is not necessary to feebly attempt to denigrate them, as a reaction to your shortcomings.
5a...Realize that "not understanding" is NOT a shortcoming ..
6. Realize that you are not always correct, and that there is no need to lash out when you are corrected.
7. Do not link your self stature to purely unsupported supposition. Things that may be are always worth critical examination..but to proclaim "this is why", for a ridiculous theory, and then have your entire self worth based on garbage, is a no-win situation..
8. Take a cold, hard look at yourself...you find yourself lashing out at others as a simple gut reaction..rather than realizing that you have a lot to learn..
I list these things in the hope that you read them and take them to heart..but, historically speaking, I will not hold my breath..
I have been asked many times, why do I bother engaging with the two of you...the answer is simple..
I value your experience, your education, your subjective takes, your speculative reasonings, your paying attention to the details you have found through the years to be of importance to your goals..
To avoid both of you, as well as all the others who post that they hear a difference, is the equivalent of one hand clapping..
To advance the SOTA of the discipline (any discipline) requires thinking outside the box. I am very good at thinking outside the box...but, rely on other's experience to define the box..
The 75 ohm RCA is a perfect example...it took 3 days for me to figure out that, it really was a trivial application of what I know..(actually, it only took about 15 minutes, as I figured it out while counting to 54 in the pool...so damn boring to swim a mile in a 100 foot pool)..but, I was unaware of that particular box, until JR pointed it out.....and, in point of fact, that solution is not even optimal, there are two other solutions that are better, one exquisitly elegant in it's simplicity..
As to your point that I don't even own a high end audio system??? I don't own a high end video system, either..but it wasn't necessary for me to design the connector, was it??
Our knowledge is complimentary, John..not mutually exclusive...so don't treat it that way..
There is no need to denigrate others because they do not agree with you..
Cheers, John
JN, since you wish to continue trashing JonR and myself, I might state our position more clearly to others.
We believe that education and EXPERIENCE combine to make the best estimations as to what is important to audio.
You, JN, throw a bunch of almost random technical terms at us, and defy us to argue with you about it. You, almost proudly, maintain that you don't have access to a top notch hi fi system, kind of like a guy who proudly drives a pickup truck and scoffs at sports cars, and then tells us that we are fools for making suggestions of how to improve on audio reproduction.
This is pointless, and unproductive, since we know from experience, what works, even though we cannot 'prove' it to you.
By the way Dr. Hummel got in the news recently. Do you have any idea why? He did what you guys should have done, since you are on the government's payroll.
JN, you not only waste our time, but those who might wish to learn what seems to work in audio reproduction.
Let me give an example.
About 25 years ago, Matti Otala (who then was a consultant for HK) and I discussed silver plated copper wires. We both agreed that they sounded 'bright' and a little 'dirty', but Matti thought that it was the way the silver was applied to the wire. He felt that the chemical plating process left impurities that compromised the sound. Makes sense to me. Can I prove it? Not without a laboratory devoted to chemical analysis, but who needs further proof, when isolated, independent listening tests tend to the same opinion?
JC: ""JN, since you wish to continue trashing JonR and myself, I might state our position more clearly to others. ""
First and foremost...state the truth..I do not simply trash either you, or Jon...how many times will I have to state it....I will react to being lambasted by either of you..your experience, your education, your age, have no meaning to me..only how you approach discussion...if you wish to tell me I'm full of crap, you will get a response in kind.
If you wish to tell me I know squat, I will respond in kind.
If you tell me I do not know what I am talking about, I will respond in kind...
Are you beginning to detect a trend here, John???? Treat others as you would like to be treated, and you will be very happy with the results.
JC: ""We believe that education and EXPERIENCE combine to make the best estimations as to what is important to audio.""
I also believe that, and have never stated otherwise. It is that exact grouping that is necessary to advance our understandings..
So there is no reason to state that...it has never been an item of contention..
JC: ""You, JN, throw a bunch of almost random technical terms at us, and defy us to argue with you about it.""
John...they seem to be random technical terms to you simply because you do not understand the subject matter ...
I am always open to answering your questions, so that you may better understand those seemingly "random" technical terms..
But your continued ignorance of those "terms" perplexes me...you, and JR, do seem to be fighting tooth and nail, NOT to understand what I am talking about. You seem to take perverse pleasure in your ignorance of the subjects.
JC: "" You, almost proudly, maintain that you don't have access to a top notch hi fi system, kind of like a guy who proudly drives a pickup truck and scoffs at sports cars, and then tells us that we are fools for making suggestions of how to improve on audio reproduction.""
Um, John? You still don't get it, do you....
I built and maintain a very high performance PA system that my 11 yr old son can carry and setup in under 15 minutes, for a 450 seat venue. High performance, in this case, is transportability, ease of setup, power density, and robustness...nothing more, nothing less.
I have never stated that you are fools for for making suggestions.
What I do assert, though, is that the two of you are making fools of yourselves by rejecting any technical discussion at all , and simply shoving your own made up "theories" of garbage down everybody's throat , and telling us that we don't know squat because we don't believe the garbage scientific "explanations" that we are told constitutes "high end audio".
And then now, find that all along, you two have though what I was talking about was random???? Christ, I thought I was keeping it simple enough for you to understand ...I guess I owe you two an apology..I'll try to keep it simpler in the future.
JC: ""This is pointless, and unproductive, since we know from experience, what works, even though we cannot 'prove' it to you.""
What you need to do is act civil. Both of you..
JC: ""By the way Dr. Hummel got in the news recently. Do you have any idea why?""
Ummm, resign?? All I found was pictures of his farewell party..""
JC: ""He did what you guys should have done, since you are on the government's payroll.""
Um, John....I really hate to burst your bubble, but the LIDAR chemical detection system, which their research is based on, was invented at BNL...
Here's a link, if you wish to find out more..
http://www.bnl.gov/homeland/sensors.asp
It's a really neat system, but the prototype is about four feet long, and a foot square...I had the chance to speak with the inventor for a good long while, because he had it setup in room D in Berkner on one of the summer sundays, and I already had a guy trained to do all the audio support stuff, freeing me up.
If you are really interested, I can give you the guy's e-mail address..I'm sure he could also give you some history about all the research around the country, and how they all tie together...
JC: ""JN, you not only waste our time, but those who might wish to learn what seems to work in audio reproduction.""
When you say, what seems to work , do you include freezer photo's and magic rock jars, and laser holograms? Because, there are people who tout them as making a difference..it "seems to work" for them...what distinguishes what you and JR are spouting from them??? Do I believe these freezer guys without questioning, the same way I'm supposed to believe you???
JC: ""Let me give an example.
About 25 years ago, Matti Otala (who then was a consultant for HK) and I discussed silver plated copper wires. We both agreed that they sounded 'bright' and a little 'dirty', but Matti thought that it was the way the silver was applied to the wire. He felt that the chemical plating process left impurities that compromised the sound. Makes sense to me. Can I prove it? Not without a laboratory devoted to chemical analysis, but who needs further proof, when isolated, independent listening tests tend to the same opinion? "'
Wow..that is a bad example, John...
Plating impurities come in two forms...those there unintentionally, and those there for a purpose..
Purpose: if you want a bright finish, they have to introduce what is called "brightners", organic compounds which are deposited onto the plating along with the plating metals...they are termed "organic levellers", and cause the plating to preferentially deposit on the low valleys caused by the plating process...this tends to force the plated surface to remain smooth...hence the term "brighteners".
Problem with this??? The organics remain in the plating, and compromise solderability big time with aging..especially the mil spec steam aging requirement for parts sold to the military.
If you want solderability...go with a matte finish..but, the problem with the matte finish is the porosity of the surface to oxygen..this reduces the shelf life of the part w/r to solderability.
However, it does look like, rather than investigating further the issues associated with the different plating schemes, such as electro vs electroless, bright vs matte, plating process current density, chemical pre-etch, plating flashes....you two just simply said "hey...plating bad...bare goooooood" That does absolutely nothing to further anybody's understanding of what is going on..it's simply "I said it's baaaaad", therefore it is....
I do not have the luxury of such simplistic assumptions..What I do now, as well as what I have done in the past, requires far more in the way of science and understanding than your "hey, it must be bad" approach..
But, does all this have anything to do with how the wire sounds???? Who knows..
If you provide a pseudo-scientific explanation as to how it does such, I would expect that explanation to hold up to scrutiny..
If you tell me it's because of the organics, then explain..if you tell me it's because of the microstructure, explain it...
If you tell me it's because the guy who did the plating only has one leg, then explain how it affects the process...(in fact, that would be more believable that a lot of what I hear here....a one legged man probably uses a smaller bag of levellers, cause he can't carry the big one....logical..).
If you expect me to buy skin effect time smear issues, explain it..
I have explained time and time agein, how Hawksford started with incorrect assumptions in his analysis, and entirely missed an energy storage component that has been known since at least 1947..
But yet, neither you nor JR can discuss it technically...only now do I find out that you seem to think the terms are random....silly me, I was hoping for an actual technical discussion, and you have dissapointed me..first, that you don't have the education to understand what I am talking about, and second (the more important one), you did not ask for a lower level explanation that you could understand..what's dumber, not knowing, or not asking??? To me, not knowing is ok...hell, I fall into that category a lot..not asking is the dumb thing..
If you want civil discourse, then do so...don't waste my time with floobydust and stupidly false accusations...
If you don't understand what I am talking about, ASK!!! That is the only way you will learn...
Get with the program...
On a side note, I again thank you for the compliment over at cables..
That was, very nice. Somewhat removed from what you do over here..
Cheers, John
PS..darn typo's...this site can't edit the darn things, and copying the text doesn't carry the html code along...
[ If you wish to tell me I know squat, I will respond in kind.If you tell me I do not know what I am talking about, I will respond in kind... ]
Which you have been. Regardless of the truth of the first assertions, and without regard for the truth with respect to the second assertions.
Knee jerk reactions from you without any other merit.
All the while ignoring the technical issues raised, and raising other issues, most of which are not related, or do not answer the original issue.Such as:
"I have explained time and time agein, how Hawksford started with incorrect assumptions in his analysis, and entirely missed an energy storage component that has been known since at least 1947."So what? You have yet to prove that Hawksford's paper is wrong, you have yet to do this in an accepted way for such matters, your simple assertion it is so carries no real weight, it is no better than you ranting and raving about it.
It has diddly-squat to do with YOU providing evidence or proof for YOUR claim that skin effect has nothing to do with time smear of an audio signal. You know, providing the very same evidence and citations and such that you demand of others for them to merely discuss the subject, or to speculate on the subject. You STILL have not provided one iota of any of this kind of evidence, nothing!
As such, your claim is an empty one, without any backup at all.
WHo's doging the issue? Who is refusing to talk technical? Where is your evidence? It is not the psuedo-rebuttal of someone else's paper.[ What you need to do is act civil. Both of you.. ]
Why? You have been a flaming _sshole about all of this! You continually denigrate me and John (without a shred of evidence, without reason, without any backup). You won't answer the issues, claim god-like status from working at BNL, and blow off all the other requests for the references, citations and back-up for YOUR claims.
You are a raving hypocrite, falsely accusing me and JohnC of all kinds of things we did not do, while at the same time, doing some of those very same things yourself! You have been making every possible attempt to paint a negative picture of us, by using spin, quotes out of context, deliberately misunderstanding posts (or you are just stone cold stupid, pick one) and generally showing YOUR ignorance of high end audio time after time, post after post.[ What I do assert, though, is that the two of you are making fools of yourselves by rejecting any technical discussion at all, and simply shoving your own made up "theories" of garbage down everybody's throat, and telling us that we don't know squat because we don't believe the garbage scientific "explanations" that we are told constitutes "high end audio". ]
Your words, not ours, your interpretation, and not that of hardly anyone else (I am not counting the active naysayers such as Mtry, etc., they also have an obvious agenda). The garbage is your label, the garbage is your twisting of what was posted or said, the garbage is from you.
You really don't know squat about high performance audio, you really don't, and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.
You insist that I don't know physics, that JohnC doesn't know physics, but you are the only one who takes this bizarre and baseless tack, we have both proven ourselves in the field of audio, it is not even a question for a reasonable man familiar with the field of audio.
You are the one who is not civil, you are the one who immediately goes over the top with nasty accusations, you are the one who is not advancing the frontiers of audio high performance, and it is you who are getting worse and worse, even beggining to act like mtrycrafts; like I said, the only rung on the ladder lower is starting to act like skeptic, or Arny.
I fully expect that to happen next, and when it does, then for the protection of everyone else, you will undoubtedly be banned from all of AA. It is YOU with the problem, and it is YOU who need to start 'acting nice'.
Jon Risch
Answer the questions, Jon...Why? Why is the determination of TEM propagation in a cylindrical wire not modelled correctly by planar equations, Jon...
C'mon...I've kept the discussion of e/m theory at the monosyllabic level to give you the opportunity to understand....
Why can you not answer the simple question, Jon...instead of diverting..
Stop diverting..
OH geeze, here comes the mantra:JR: ""You really don't know squat about high performance audio, you really don't, and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.""
JR: ""You really don't know squat about high performance audio, you really don't, and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.""
JR: ""You really don't know squat about high performance audio, you really don't, and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.""
JR: ""You really don't know squat about high performance audio, you really don't, and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.""
There ya go...repeated a coupla times, to convince everybody...hey, I almost believe it now...JR: ""You insist that I don't know physics,""
No...what I state is that you have never ever, addressed the topic..you have never posted anything resembling a rudimentary understanding of physics, or e/m theory.What you do instead, is divert the issue to either "you don't know audio", "you are a naysayer", "you are like mtry, skep, that arny guy, steve eddy".(my apologies to all of them)..all the time, you divert away from any discussion that would show the world that you really don't understand the topic.
Look at the post above this one...look at you...no stuff, just fluff..your's is a tired schpiel, Jon...you denigrate because you cannot support the conversation at a technical level..
JR: ""we have both proven ourselves in the field of audio, it is not even a question for a reasonable man familiar with the field of audio.""
Proven??? Curl makes fantastic amplifiers...he has proven his merit in that regard..does that mean he understands e/m theory?? No, one does not need that understanding to make amps..He will be able to make better amps, if he understood e/m theory better..but he has accomplished a lot even hindered (imho) by that loss..You...you have proven that you can put lots of drivel on a web page, mixed in with some good stuff, and lots of smooth sounding verbage..
Tell me, does any large manufacturer think about motor-generator?? How about electron grain collision?? I know, jitter...or, strand jumping, or...that god forsaken pvc...does your employer???
I dare you to publish, under your title, in either AES, or IEEE, this garbage...explain to a learned audience how you "hear" the difference, while they, for all their expertise, can't measure it...
Dare ya..you, of course, will not address that dare..
JR: ""You are the one who is not civil, you are the one who immediately goes over the top with nasty accusations, you are the one who is not advancing the frontiers of audio high performance, and it is you who are getting worse and worse, even beggining to act like mtrycrafts; like I said, the only rung on the ladder lower is starting to act like skeptic, or Arny.""
Ah yes, your typical diversion...take the behaviour you use, and try to turn it around against your accuser...you will never change.JR: "" then for the protection of everyone else, you will undoubtedly be banned from all of AA.""
Ah yes, the threats of a moderator...one who abuses his position, both as a moderator, and as an engineer.Be civil, be nice, and you will receive same...it's really a simple concept, Jon...what in the name of sam hill is it gonna take for you to understand it???
Toodles, John
PS..The most dangerous thing there is for a smooth talking charlatan, is knowledge on the part of the audience...that is why you do not publish or present your foolishness....you know better.
I do not dismiss the possibilities that present engineering cannot explain what we hear...I can, however dismiss you..because of your attitude..
"I can, however dismiss you..because of your attitude.. "That says it all.
Nevermind the facts, nevermind the science, just listen to jneutron, 'cause he said so.
Jon Risch
Why is the determination of TEM propagation in a cylindrical wire not modelled correctly by planar equations, Jon...C'mon, Jon...someone with an understanding of e/m theory would find the answer to be a no-brainer, Jon..
Go find a prof somewhere, Jon...one who can answer the question...
There, you will find your proof...not from me, mind you..but from someone you may be able to trust...unless of course, you can't find a prof who understands the "world of high end audio"
JR: ""Nevermind the facts, nevermind the science, just listen to jneutron, 'cause he said so.""
JR: ""Nevermind the facts, nevermind the science, just listen to jneutron, 'cause he said so.""
JR: ""Nevermind the facts, nevermind the science, just listen to jneutron, 'cause he said so.""
Awwwwwwwwkkkkk!!
Look at you, Jon...just look at the level you have stooped to, the type of person you are showing yourself to be via your postings of rants and raves..You are basing your entire existence on deflecting the conversation away from a subject you do not understand ...
You can admit you do not understand, Jon...go ahead, it's ok...We all know you don't understand it, Jon...go ahead.....
Civility, Jon...that's all I wanted..not the parrot you have become..
JR: ""Nevermind the facts, nevermind the science, just listen to jneutron, 'cause he said so.""
The facts, as are clearly obtainable via searches here on props, at cable, at AR, and at AH, are that you do not present yourself as a civilized human being...you rant and rave like a parrot, repeating the same old mantra in response to any valid questioning of your crap..It doesn't have to be that way, Jon...
Answer the question, Jon...try...yes, it is technical, Jon...but, isn't this a forum for discussing technical things???
Oh, and try publishing your "floob" to an educated audience, Jon...the world awaits..
Toodles, John
PS..
HEY!!! I just tried listening to a friends high end system...and it turns out, that if we wear our shirts inside out and backward, the soundstage just, OPENS UP!! Go figure...It's a result of the fabric's high dielectric constant, coupled with the fabric softener, applied on tuesday, generating a back emf when subjected to high spl cowbells..go figure..the buttons were altering the shirts resonance...
I refuse to consider any argument that refutes that claim...anyone who does so obviously doesn't know "diddly squat" about "high end audio"...Hee hee, oh man, you crack me up, Risch...
It's called a "mini-Raman light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor". It uses Raman scattering to detect molecular substances..part of our homeland security initiative..Here's the lab publication of the stuff..
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=04-54
I wish Hummel well in his retirement..
You should research a little more, before trying to lambast others..
Cheers, John
Sorry, I didn't see Brookhaven Labs in the article, however Raytheon's Radiation Tech. Lab. was mentioned and apparently Dr. Hummel, at his university, found a virtually foolproof test for explosives.
Of interest to the rest of you, he found that a green laser will cause an explosive substance to glow in the infrared. This is apparently a 'foolproof' test with no false positives, so far. In the past, Dr Hummel was dissed by JN, or his associates.
Now, I don't want to exclude credit to anyone, but I somehow get the feeling that JN thinks that I live in a scientific backwater, or somesuch. Of course, there is Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory on the hill above me, and they have done a few good things, over the years.
I take exception to JN calling JR a 'pseudo engineer'. This is inaccurate, and malicious. JR is an audio design engineer, and I would presume, even a SENIOR engineer at his employment. I had the same title, when I worked in industry, even 20 years ago.
This is a title, that is conferred on people who achieve a certain level of education and experience. It has little or nothing with differences of opinion.
JC: " ""Sorry, I didn't see Brookhaven Labs in the article, however Raytheon's Radiation Tech. Lab. was mentioned and apparently Dr. Hummel, at his university, found a virtually foolproof test for explosives. ""
Yah, I didn't see BNL mentioned either, even though they have some kind of patent..it is interesting, though, the entire technology. It's so cool to be able to discern the compounds from a distance of a kilometer or so..foolproof...is anything really foolproof? Hope so..JC: ""Of interest to the rest of you, he found that a green laser will cause an explosive substance to glow in the infrared. This is apparently a 'foolproof' test with no false positives, so far.""
That is good..and, I also was interested..
With the newer advent of solid state tuneable lasers, I am willing to bet that these techniques will really take off.. I figure some combo of frequencies will end up being used...and I bet the house that we won't learn the details for decades...like when the APS stopped all scientific publication of atomic research back during the war..
So, you and I probably know of at least 1% of what's really going on..but it is interesting...isn't it?
JC: "" In the past, Dr Hummel was dissed by JN, or his associates.""
NO. NO. NOI have not dissed Hummel, nor has anyone else I've seen here...so stop making up false stories to justify bad behaviour...
You attempted to present quantum theory into an electron flow discussion, and you did so poorly..when I pointed out flaws in your explanation, you claimed dissing...
Hummel never entered into a dissing dialogue..regardless of how many times you will claim such..
JC: ""Now, I don't want to exclude credit to anyone, but I somehow get the feeling that JN thinks that I live in a scientific backwater, or somesuch. Of course, there is Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory on the hill above me, and they have done a few good things, over the years.""
Your feelings are incorrect..Why does proximity to a lab bear in the discussion??? I live near an airport, yet no matter how hard I flap my arms, I STILL can't fly..
JC: ""I take exception to JN calling JR a 'pseudo engineer'. This is inaccurate, and malicious. JR is an audio design engineer, and I would presume, even a SENIOR engineer at his employment.""
I consider a person with a degree in Engineering to be an engineer.
To achieve that title, one has to go through years of learning, in an array of topics..many not in the specific discipline, a lot within.
Within those years of learning, one also learns scientific method..
I have worked with many "engineers" and "senior engineers" who achieved their status by PROMOTION. The majority of them couldn't engineer their way out of a box...outside of their extremely limited experience base.
I've cut wirewound resistors in half with a pair of dikes to show a "pseudo-engineer" why his 15 nS trr fixture rang like an SOB..
I've had to explain to a "pseudo-engineer", why punch through on an RF transistor die is significant during Bvceo datalogging testing over designed voltage...this required me explaining silicon diffusion techniques, band-gap, depletion zone modulation, successive approximation semiconductor testing technology, emitter dip theory, RF transistor theory...and, find out that the reason this "pseudo-engineer" was giving me blank stares, was that he was a technician, who had been PROMOTED to an "engineer". Great..he had ZERO education in what I was talking about...that worked...looked like a damn deer caught in the headlights..kinda like Jon when faced with a discussion of e/m equations and theory..
I've also had the pleasure of working with some technicians promoted to engineers, that damn near walked on water..they either understood what I was talking about, or they learned DAMN fast...by far, the ones who I had the most pleasure and priviledge to work with..
JR, from the history of posts here...fits the first scenario to a tee..unable to discuss equations, science, methods...but instead, rely's on his "status" as an EE...big whoops...the proof is, in this case, in the discussion..just look at his last post to me...no discussion...nada.
Just the old "you don't know the world of high end audio"...
No stuff...just fluff..
I also expect that if I go to a doctor..that the doc has a degree conferred from an institute of higher learning...not one who was promoted to that title...It appears that the world of electrical engineering is one of the few disciplines where this bogus title conferrment occurs...it's a disgrace..""
JC: "" I had the same title, when I worked in industry, even 20 years ago. This is a title, that is conferred on people who achieve a certain level of education and experience. It has little or nothing with differences of opinion. ""
And, many times, it has nothing to do with understanding of the discipline.I am told by many that you are an excellent amp designer, John...one of the best...You would do well to dispense with the dumb responses, and if you don't understand what I'm talking about...just ask....
My expertise is not in amp design, but in e/m field theory...I bring to the table what you don't know...that is supposed to be a compementary situation..not adversarial. We can learn from each other..if you stop with the attitude..
Cheers, John
I'm sorry JN, but I don't find any intelligence or experience inside of your retorts to JR or me. It appears to be pointless to attempt to communicate in a civilized way with you at this time.
JC: ""I'm sorry JN, but I don't find any intelligence or experience inside of your retorts to JR or me. It appears to be pointless to attempt to communicate in a civilized way with you at this time. ""
I expected that type of statement from you..
You go out of your way to ignore your own piss poor behaviour, Jon Risch's, and anyone else who shares your beliefs.....this is consistent with the "old boy's network"mentality.
It is a shame you cannot see beyond your own ego, to see that it's really not about ego , or king of the hill..but about civility..
I seem to always have to point out your own very rude behaviour, as I do JR's...but you turn your back, absolving yourself of any social responsibility, and pretending that JR is also an angel...
You are welcome to participate in any discussion..the only requirement I would ask, is that you behave in a socially acceptable fashion...when you understand how poorly either of you have behaved, that will be a good first step..
Until then, you set the world of high end audio back in the caves..because your behaviour pushes the intelligent ones away..
Simply stating that "you find no intelligence", is just a very feeble and childish statement..you are far beyond that, John...act it..
The two of you seem to desire being compared to Abbot and Costello. That is not what I desire..
Someday, you will find that your competitors are using one of the ideas I have posted on forum...If you think the RCA connector was the lone shot, you are incorrect...there have been five others..I just found one AES presentation that is beginning to approach one of them..a good paper, complete with measurements...btw..
Unfortunately, I find myself in a quandry...is the public posting of an idea suitable for patenting a good thing, or a bad one?
Cheers, John
JR is right, no proof has been shown by JN to confirm virtually anything that JN criticizes others for. JN doesn't appear to know much, never measures much, especially audio, and most probably never will do much to promote understanding of audio subjects.
I can always rely on your rather strange kind of humor to lighten up the atmosphere here...thanks, John..Tell ya what...ask Malcolm to publish his '85 essex echo article in the IEEE transactions... without editing ...
Think he'll do it?? answer..definitely not..He is a wonderful man to e-mail, and he does know that the article as it stands would not survive peer review, nor would his reputation..
However, it would be interesting to collaborate with him on a revisiting of the article..he'd certainly have to drop the unsupported "stuff" at the tail end of it, and he'd have to re-work the equations to reflect reality of wires in the audio band..and I could certainly support the article with some really good test capabilities (extemely low inductance CVR, custom built voltage tap assemblies, and custom, extremely low inductance power loads)..
His equations are incorrect for the audio band..they are only applicable for frequencies where the exponential decay, normal to the surface, equational decay regime of operation...for the audio band, the error in his assumption does not include the internal inductance component that the exp skin equations miss..I'm not sure if his equations return to reality at DC, but my gut feeling is that it does not...his equations do not accept the entity known as "internal inductance".
It'd be a really neat collab, actually...I'm totally confident that he'd totally mash the equations into something that will give excellent results, and be consistent with what is actually seen in test..and, if he's like my co-worker friend, it would take me days to figuer out his derivations.
Cheers, John
JR: ""First, to set the record straight, you did enter the discussions at AR with a technochip on the shoulder. Power cords were not an issue. You basically agreed with most of what the naysayers said. That was at the very first.""
Your first line of defense...offensive BS, to divert..incorrect, I might add, but for you, even that was a piss poor diversion attempt Jon...you're slipping.JR: ""Finally, it has reached the stage where you seem to think you have invented a new speaker cable (folks have been there, done that, sold it)""
Um, Jon??wireworld doesn't cut it...they spiral, creating solenoidal inductance...what you are referring to is, I believe, Mogami, from the 80's...and yes, I was already aware of it.What is significant is that I have derived the equation L*C=1034*DC, which provides all the ability to tailor a coaxial line for any impedance, using any insulator..
You are unable to understand the ramifications of that relation...that is your problem, not mine.
JR: ""was turned into claims and statements that I never made, like the infamous lies about how I said that a different color of insulation sounds different. Perhaps you remember that one? If I recall correctly, you had jumped on the bandwagon for that one too.""
I most certainly remember quite well those statments...obviously, you, in your overzealous need to attack, have forgotten any details at all..convieniently enough in your feeble attempt to support your very feeble claims..First I posted that I have indeed had issues with the coloration of insulation..I pointed out that I had a green tefzel insulation fail during a superconductor quench test, whereas the red, black, and white ones did not. And, given the fact that the failure was a direct result of the green color being fab'd using both yellow and blue dyes, pointed out how the dye can affect the thermal capacity and thermal conductivity of a plastic at cryogenic temperatures. Causing theheat wavefront to travel far too slow, generating huge "von mises"(I believe that is the correct term) stressors within the insulation.
I then, within the post, pointed out how it is not inconceivable for the color of the dye to have an affect on the room temperature dielectric of the insulation..
I also pointed out that I did not, in fact, ever recall you stating that you heard the difference in insulations...
So, you do not recall any such thing...You have simply, here and now, created things to support your feeble position..
I used to think better of you....you present yourself as a dismal entity, Jon. One who stoops to anything for self.
JR: ""Once you got just a taste of some of the naysayers turning on you, skeptic, and even Radar O got pissed and had words with you, but they laid off after awhile. Ocassionally and only at first, you defended me, but there was an awful lot of "agreement by silence" that occured too. ""
Jon...your lies and fabrication are excessive..do you really believe the trash you are spouting???Radar got pissed at me because I wouldn't comment on his "Jon Risch is insane" sillyness. And I stated that I would not do so on AR, as well as in private e-mails.
The other one who I had words with, was Robot-czar...in response to a questioners query into transmission lines, RC did not like the ball bearing in a tube analogy to explain why electrons moved slow, while the impetus moved fast...He claimed photons were moving the electrons, while I was discussing velocity of propagation.
Turns out, RC was really meaning photon mediation as the transferrence of kinetic energy from one electron to the next. which is indeed, the force mediator for electron-electron interaction, but of no use to the question of transmission line velocity and electron velocity...the origional poster's question..
In the end, we both agreed that the actual disagreement was trivial, and should never have gotten to the level it did..all was fine..
Well, Jon...gotta move on for now...
Seems, that every single item you raise is so easily discounted by facts...do you really think the rest of your blathering idiocy of a post needs item by item correction??? If so, I'll be all too happy to continue providing you new orifices from which to spew vitriol...It's been rather fun, bringing you back to earth on a point by point basis..
Unfortunately, for all the fun it gives me, I feel it somehow lends credence to you as an individual to invest that much time and typing to rebut every word you write...almost as if you are an individual with some merit in his understanding...I prefer not to lend that merit by association to an individual who has to make things up in support of an agenda..
So, toodles for now, Jon..
Hey, it's not a personal thing...you just present so much stupidity in your stance, in your fabrications, and in your fallacies..you also bring a knife to a gunfight...
It doesn't have to be so, Jon....stop posting stupid things, and you will be thought of with respect..Well, ok...given your history, that is a stretch...but hey, I'd give it a try..
Cheers, John
My goodness, such a long post...You really have to be briefer in your posts...you should be able to show a lack of understanding of a topic in far fewer words...and more eloquently...
Geeeze..
As you will note, within this post, I have addressed all the real and relevant things that you stated that are not simple self serving nonsense..
Notice it's a short post???
Learn to be civil.
Learn to be reasonable.
Learn humility.
Learn the subject.
Stop lying to serve only your own selfish interests..In other words, learn.
Cheers, John.
Keep on truckin! JR!
don't look here John, nt means no text...nothing you said is worthy of a real response..John
PS...you look good in pom poms...
John Curl.. ""Spoke to Dr. Hawksford yesterday. He doesn't think much of you, either""
And that somehow, means something to me????
I still await his publishing in AES, the claptrap he put into a magazine. I would pay good money to watch his peers trash his presentation and his thought processes, in developing such balderdash..ALAS, that will never happen..When I make a statement that is incorrect, I at least have the BALLS to admit such..
You do not. So you do not impress me.
Hawksford does not. He also does not impress me.
When you somehow regain the intellectual strength of character to admit the limitations of your understanding, I will then have a somewhat less than sub-par impression of you.Hawksford has at least moved on, not ever mentioning his '85 article....you would be wise to follow his lead in that respect.
I, at least, have resisted all efforts by others to convince me to publish my results on his article. Three times, three different ways, no reproducibility of his results...Until I swap steel conductor in place of copper...then, the internal inductance shows up. I do not believe writing and presenting a paper who's sole reason for existence is to trash someone else, is justification for that paper. I am confident that you, on the other hand, would relish the opportunity to do so...I do not share your lack of morals in that regard.
As it is, it is taking far too much effort bringing reality back to e/m theory for the masses. Such is the problem of an article of that "level" being believed by so many...it takes a long time to debunk the incorrect stuff when everyone is clamoring to believe..
This is such a huge difference from the international high energy physics community I work within....when someone publishes, they do so for concurrence, for criticism, for collaborative reasons...If what is published is wrong, the author embraces peer review...that is how science progresses...
YOU are unable to do so...that is why you are stuck in your hole, changing parts at random, playing a bit, to make your product designs better....you are not engineering better product, you are using a shotgun approach...but that helps nobody, John...
I defined a 75 ohm backwards compatible RCA....what have you done.
I defined skin theory as applied to swiss roll electrolytics, and how to test for it....what have you done?
I defined how to test the same effect on ribbon inductors and ribbon transmission lines...what have you done?
I defined loop coupling, along with three test setups to look for such, setting up the methodology for determining how a line cord can indeed affect the sound of a system....what have you done?
I defined equations for coaxial construct limitations, how to make any impedance coax with any dielectric...what have you done?
John...it's time to get off the bowl...wipe, for god's sake..
Cheers, John
PS...as for what I think of Hawksford??? I have stated here, other forums, in e-mails to you...I consider him to be a genius w/r to DSP. I believe the word I used was "monster". And I stated publicly that it would take me years to get enough of an understanding of the subject to be able to read some of his papers..
So, what exactly are you talking about, John??? You are also one of the biggest hindrances to the understanding of high end audio. Change your attitude, and you will not.
I finish this post, knowing full well that you will reply with your typical Oh yah!!, jneutron you are full of it!!! type of post.. (don't dissapoint me, John..)
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 ]
