Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: whats Better dynamically better quality but smaller or large awg?? posted by used-hifi on March 03, 2017 at 14:42:20
It is the same old stuff. Guys you can not hear or refuse to and then the ones who can hear trying to come up with their theory why it is different. You seem to want to open a discussion about different wire and sound but the usual same group of people seem to take over.
I will let you in on a story that happened years ago. I was shopping for speakers in L.A. Went to a place in the valley who had a certain speaker I was looking for at the time. He had Walker front end turntable and c.d. player and tons of high dollar stuff I could not afford. I saw these power cords going to the tube amps we were using and said what are those? He said those are home made braided 10 gauge solid copper wire you get at home depot. He thought it sounded the best in this system.
So here is a guy who make his living selling high dollar 100.000 systems who is using a cheap DIY power cord. I did make a couple of these but prefer another DIY one in my systems. So snake oil I do not think so. It should sound better because it was cheap and looked unfinished I do not think so.
So maybe to contribute something to your inquiry if you can find a copy to the late Allen Wright's book The SuperCables cookbook, there is some interesting information and theories. I tend to be a solid silver DIY guy. I also tend to go to larger gauge than Allen's smaller gage.
Your last sentence is where you lose this group. They want to believe one size fits all, talk about snake oil???
Enjoy the ride
You like this AV stuff don't you?
May I ask what it your day job? What formal experience and/or education do you have in the field of electronics?
Not sure what av stuff is??? But in regards to Formal education mine was business and automotive. So in the formal it was more DC than Ac. The ac stuff just became a hobby 15 years ago. I can do the math and have test equipment but my ears get the final say. Also done research so the blind testing etc are not foreign to me.
Let's get to the real issue here. You can not hear or choose not to hear differences in components. You conclude from this that people who can are nuts, uneducated, or being led down the path by the alpha dog. I could play music by ear since I was in 5th grade. Played in stage, concert, and marching bands. Also some orchestras. That is probably more important to this discussion than I only got a B in calculus.
I am a firm believer that we do not have the whole picture when it comes to energy and sound. So I build and listen so if the sugar pill comes in different flavors I want the one that taste the best to me. So when E over I times R starts making music maybe I will jump into your finite camp. I forgot science came to a stand still in 2017 we will never get a new machine or law or for that matter a better understanding of what is going on. I realize that this will fall on deaf ears but maybe it might make people who can hear share their ideas.
Enjoy the ride
"I am a firm believer that we do not have the whole picture when it comes to energy and sound."
And that statement is exactly my point. We may not have the whole picture but current industry knowledge of audio engineering goes way beyond the silly tweaks discussed here.
I can understand why you don't believe. You do not have the training and experience to understand the physics behind the technology. If you did you would see why many of these claims are simply not possible.
Just look at all the audio and video compression technology in the past 20 years. How were those algorithms developed without a very deep understanding of an audio or video waveform.
You have a bunch of weekend hobbyists arguing over which 2 inch wire sounds better coupling an RCA jack to a tube grid pin. Seriously, do you actually believe these discussions take place in the formal electronics industry? And keep with audio here. RF examples are not relevant to audio circuits.
Where is the commercial application of these tube forum theories? And by commercial I mean established electronic industries, not some garage based amp manufacture.
There is none. The people who make design decisions on a professional level do not subscribe to this junk science. Sure you can do what ever you want on the weekend in your garage or basement but that doesn't not give the theory any additional merit.
Don't you ever wonder why all these wire theories are limited strictly to hobbyist consumer audio applications? What about the billion dollar computer industry. Why do they have no interest in these wire follies? If all that crap Tube Wrangler posts about "transfer efficiency: were true, it would be worth a fortune in the computer industry.
Do you honestly believe a group of largely untrained audio hobbyists have discovered technologies that the major universities and industry has overlooked? This audio wire crap has been going on for at least 30 years now and yet there is not one example of accredited evidence for these claims?
Again after 30 plus years!
Everything you said in the post is based on everything is known. Stop take a deep breath read again. You talk about computers like they are speakers. The reason that audio has been going in the wrong direction is return on investment.
So let's say all of you physics guy know 89 % of everything about electrons. There is 11% where maybe some of Dennis ideas may have some merit. OK when they try to explain why is as bad as you saying it can't.
Again you need to read the first sentence again and also realize never used corporate America and money as a proof of cutting edge in your debate. Now if the military needed absolute sound and was willing to throw large chunks money at it then we might have something.
I will repeat the hole in your argument. You could be the smartest physics guy in the world. Know everything up to 2017. But if there is a chance that we will come up with a new machine or proof that explains why silver sounds different than copper, then you will have to live with the fact you do not know it can't. So the bottom line is you with all your math can not tell us it can not happen. That is as wrong as you have to build with a power coated 12 gauge steel chassis.
I realize you guys like howling at the moon and I should keep my mouth shut, but I was in one of those moods.
Did I mention you need to read the first sentence again???????
Enjoy the endless debate
"But if there is a chance that we will come up with a new machine or proof that explains why silver sounds different than copper, then you will have to live with the fact you do not know it can't."
If somebody comes up with a way to prove that silver wire in a previously un-measurable way does improve audio quality over copper wire, yes I will have to accept that as will the entire electronics community.
But like I said, we have been waiting for 35 years so far assuming most of this audiophile wire stuff started in the early 1980s.
So until such a device is invented that can measure a difference, there remains no credible scientific evidence. All we have are subjective opinions, primarily from people who lack any electrical engineering knowledge.
And BTW, it's not that silver wire or silver in general has not been studied for electrical properties. In fact quite the opposite. Silver in just one example is used extensively in high performance microwave electronics. I have been inside many satellite grade RF systems within the broadcast industry where silver wiring is used and required.
This just further proves there is no advantageous application to base band audio. We do understand the properties of silver and electrical conduction quite well. But again the weekend garage experimenter has no idea of broadcast microwave systems or other industrial and medical applications of silver wiring. You view the entire electronics world through the circuitry of a 1930s amplifier design.
"There is 11% where maybe some of Dennis ideas may have some merit. OK when they try to explain why is as bad as you saying it can't. "
If the theory behind Dennis' explanations are provably wrong I see no reason not to correct Dennis.
Someone, with a small knowledge base, might read Dennis' stuff and get very confused. Start following that false path and never get back on track.
That person might be the one that would have come up with some real answers to the things we don't already understand but can't because he listened to Dennis' BS and never made it back to reality.
I can give you many examples of things that Dennis has said that are just plan wrong and makes me think he has no idea of how audio electronics work.
Every time I think "there's no way Dennis could say anything more ignorant" he makes another post and proves me wrong.
What would you have me do? Just keep my mouth shut and let false statements stand?
We don't know everything but we do know what we know.
Just down this thread Dennis said, "It's because that bandwidth encompasses many different
bandwidths, all happening both at once, and in different
time references simultaneously. What is desired is a wire
that doesn't delay musical transient "A" while trying to
pass musical transient "B" at the same time....."
It sounds to me as if Dennis thinks a musical signal is more than one signal with 2 (or more) different peaks at the same time.
Here's one of the things that we do know,
Quoting myself, "Even though the signal in the wire of an audio amplifier is made up of many different signals, they have been mixed together and have become one composite signal.
At any given moment the amplitude of that signal is singular."
Or how about the time when Dennis said (while posting about the current in a SET output tube who's peak current is 120ma.) there are "hundreds of amps" of current flowing within that 120ma. envelope.
Again, to me, this just shows Dennis' lack of understand and I see no reason to just let false statements like that stand without being challenged.
We all can think whatever we want and say whatever we want but when something is said that is totally wrong I have the right to correct it.
Does that make me the bad guy?
In the end, how a person responds the sound coming out of the speaker is subjective but how electrons behave in wire (or a tube, or a transformer....etc...) is not subjective but a matter of physics.
BTW I think saying 11% is unknown is way off base. maybe 1%, maybe less.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
You are not the bad guy. Dennis and Jeff like to WAG lots of things. The only reason I posted at all is the blind test show me on paper guys assume that there are not people who hear and feel music. And the numbers do not always match.
There are the number guys who say they can not hear the differences in caps. Shit you would have to be tone deaf not to pick that up. Wire is not as drastic. If 2 inches where a big deal I would guess out of the mc cart.
On the let's listen to the experts front we just had all the number guys tell us what pieces of crap interstage transformers are. Bandwidth/phase shift etc... You would be crazy to use them in a phono stage. You think I have not built lots and lots of phono stages with all the math approved parts. Well I am not selling interstages and a resistor and cap can be a lot cheaper but how about when we drop the cart on the lp.
The main point which is always lost, in this endless debate, is does it sound like real music out of the speaker. Music is my passion not math and graphs. Go to the audio shows and listen to the crap people are buying, that should tell you how many people can hear or care.
On the 1% front, infinity might be larger than you think???
Enjoy the ride
Following the math, every time I modify my system to lower the distortion (without resorting to FB) it sounds more like real instruments.
I've been singing and playing since I was a kid.
As a young man I was in bands and live sound was always my department.
Later mixing local bands filled part of my time.
I've been building my own electronics (both home stereo and studio gear) for decades.
I worked in professional studios for 11 years and spent time on the road with a national act mixing front of house.
"Music is my passion" and the math helps me get there.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Have you tried Allen's recipes at the smaller gauges and found you preferred the larger ones or is it just a personal preference that you think the small gauge is too small? I was a friend of Allen's and I found his cables to be spot on (for interconnects at least). I found that foils sound best with my digital setup and fine gauge (24 or 26...can't remember) solid core silver for my Analog.
I did not do his recipes but I took to heart the connector issues. I do not use rca connectors just number 6 or 8 copper rings and climp them. So five cents vs 50.00 cardas rca jacks I have.
In regards to size/guage I tried solid silver 16 to about 28 if I remember. The sound tended to lean out lose body the smaller I went. This is all about tuning the system. I have notice people prefer detail to tone. I am a tone guy. Never came out of a music venue and said to myself wow what a black background and the air around those instruments.
What I find the most amusing is number guys who are on a tube forum telling everyone they can not hear. Wonder how they made all the great violins without a scope and a blind test procedure. Wish I would have met Allen when he was around.
Enjoy the ride
Tom your tuscon? I am now residing in Surprise would you care to get together?
That might be fun.
" Wonder how they made all the great violins without a scope and a blind test procedure."
Why would one need a scope to design a mechanical musical instrument?
But I'll sure as hell bet the great violin makers had a calibrated tuning fork!
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: