Home Tube DIY Asylum

Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Tube DIY Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

RE: Slagle is the actual scientist here...

Hi Joe,

An interesting post. I don't think you are correct with all that you are saying, but some of what you say is certainly thought-provoking.

First of all, I would point out that the relativistic world as described by Einstein is still perfectly deterministic; it just doesn't accord with our old ideas of absolute time, etc. More importantly, though, I would like to emphasise that our understanding of the quantum world, with its probabilistic description of reality, the influence of the observation on what happens, etc., etc., was NOT achieved by philosphers and thinkers who were sensitive to cultural norms and cultural relativism. Rather, quantum mechanics was discovered by hard-nosed scientists using the conventional scientific method to tease out an understanding of what constituted meaningful questions, what are physical observables, and so on. The entire history of the discovery of quantum mechanics is a story of the triumph of the scientific method. It is a striking and spectacular example of how a totally new and "unconventional" understanding of the physical world emerged from from the dogged and remorseless application of the conventional scientific method. Of course, as with any truly great new discovery, it required also wonderful and imaginitive leaps and speculations too. But these only became meaningful and accepted as the new order in physics after they were subjected to the harsh, cold reality of scientific testing and sceptical enquiry, and shown to give predictions that were consistent with experiment.

Now, the issues involved in the comparative behaviour of different components or materials in an audio amplifier are of a much lower order of subtlety than the foundations of quantum mechanics, but still, I maintain that the scientific method is entirely appropriate, and indeed is really the ONLY appropriate way, of subjecting claims and assertions to scrutiny and testing. Indeed, the audible qualities that are under discussion may be subtle and maybe subjective, But if, for example, a particular listener asserts that system A sounds "more musical" than system B, then this is a definite claim that is capable of being tested by such means as double-blind testing. Can that listener reliably and repeatedly discriminate between system A and system B under such circumstances? If he can, and provided the double-blind tests have been thoroughly scrutinised by disinterested and sceptical experimenters, then one should certainly be prepared to accept that there really is a true difference between system A and system B.

My personal suspicion is that if such a genuine difference between systems A and B can be established, then almost certainly precision measurements performed on the two systems will agree that they differ in some way or another. Note that I am NOT saying that one can necessarily predict that such and such a reading on the Fluke meter will be the marker for a "more musical" sound! I am simply saying that I would expect that modern measuring instruments should have more than sufficient precision to be able to discriminate between two systems that sound different to the human ear. For example, we can easily measure frequency differences that are imperceptible to the ear, and we can easily measure voltage differences that translate into amplitude differences imperceptible to the human ear. And, at the end of the day, an amplifier is merely a mechanical device that takes an input voltage Vin(t) from a source, and converts it into an output voltage Vout(t) going into the loudspeaker. If two amplifiers A and B are fed the same input voltage Vin(t), and they produce distinguishable sounds when played into the same speaker, then their output voltages Vout(t) must be different, and this should be detectable with precision measurements.

One of the problems in all such discussions of audio equipment is that there is a spectrum between, at the one end, genuine audiophiles who can achieve small but real improvements by valid methods, and, at the other end, genuine charlatans who speak only mumbo jumbo about crystals and magic potions and the like.

In your specific example of output transformers wound with silver wire, I suppose that it is certainly true that if there were to be anywhere in the amplifier where the greater conductivity of silver, as opposed to copper, might make a significant difference, it is in the secondary winding of the output transformer, where the currents, and hence the potential voltage drops, might be largest. Perhaps, though, using slightly thicker copper wire, to compensate for the lower conductivity, might restore the balance? Who knows? That would be a legitimate topic for scientific enquiry. I remain deeply sceptical, however, that genuine audible differences can be substantiated between amplifiers wired with silver wires carrying low currents and amplifiers wired instead with copper wires.

I notice, on re-reading your post, that you are speaking of a step-up transformer, so I'm not sure quite in this case. I guess if there is a high current in the primary, similar arguments might apply.

I can't, of course, speak for the rigour of the double-blind testing that was done in your examples. But I think you and I are in agreement that the results you are reporting have some sort of objective value precisely to the extent that they are the outcome of the rigorous application of the scientific method.

I am absolutely 100% in favour of doing experiments, and that is precisely what the scientific method calls for. The thing that I find most frustrating in a lot of these discussions is that, to my mind, some people are far too ready to adopt a sort of mystical view that there are deep qualities to audio equipment that are beyond the ability (or, indeed, purview) of science to explain or to measure. Note that I am NOT denying that there can be qualities to the musical performance that go beyond what can be explained or measured by present-day science! I am talking about the amplifier itself, a mechanical device for converting Vin(t) into Vout(t).

As I said before, Carl Sagan observed that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. To my mind, the claim that two amplifiers can sound different and yet will be indistinguishable by any present-day scientific measurement is an extraordinary claim. If a genuine example of such a phenomenon could be exhibited and the claim could be substantiated in the face of the most rigorous experiments and double-blind tests, then that would indeed be very interesting, and remarkable. I am not aware of any such examples, but I am willing to revise my opinion if such can be demonstrated.

Your example of the Gentleman who claimed to hear differences between power cords could in principle provide the basis for such an example, if the alleged audible differences, and the alleged unmeasurability of any differences, could be rigorously substantiated. But I do maintain that that would be an extraordinary claim that demanded an extraordinary proof.

Chris

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]