|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. posted by Jon Risch on June 19, 2003 at 10:38:21:
""you have yet to show where the laws of physics won't hold up, as Tony mentioned."" JBC""You have to consider ALL the physics, not just the simple parts, or the easy parts you can understand.""JR
What in god's name are you talking about??? ALL the physics??
Tony did not mention what part of physics..Juts that price/physics do not correlate...
""or the easy parts you can understand.""JR
Whoa...That veiled insult passed by me, for sure..I missed it completely..
Jon, you are going further down a path, trying to justify your knee jerk...
Why not just apologize and move on??
TTFN, John
Follow Ups:
There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo.And yet you ask Jon what he's talking about?
But the thing that blows me away the most is this:
"That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)"
FOR GOD"S SAKE!! IT'S AN AUDIO SYSTEM!!! It has NO value outside of the way it sounds. If the coat hanger sounds better than a caox cable, then YES it is a superior interconnect (in THAT system, at THAT time, for THAT person).
HOWEVER: Jon would then try to understand WHY it sounds better. Tony would simply suggest that the listener must be wrong.
Peter
"There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo."So far, he has been unable to conclusively demonstrate otherwise, just speculate.
""There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo.""PeterYes, some definitely feel that is the case..Some who do ask for proof otherwise, some ask for possible explanation..Some reject the pseudoscience explanations that are given. To me, Tony has come across similar to what I felt..That yes, standard EE pretty much covers it, but yet, there are many unanswered questions; for me it's e/m field theory of wires.
""And yet you ask Jon what he's talking about?""peter
Yes..Because Tony stated the lack of correlation between the laws of physics and price tag.. as in, the extreme priced cables sometimes have ad hype which is in complete disregard to physics.
If Jon, Tony, myself, are going to react to other posts or ideas within a thread, an explanation should be given..I concur with Tony in that physics and price tag do not correlate..the statement within the thread is what I responded to..
Jon came back with "well, ya gotta learn the physics, because the easy stuff you can understand isn't enough..
Well, I gotta say..the physics guys here (not me) run the most advanced machine on the planet, and they cannot explain how cables can sound different..Doesn't mean they don't sound different, just that they don't know why.. So statements like "you really don't understand the physics"...Hmmmm.
The coathanger thing is a reference to some guy using two and a trash can to run digital audio, and using some test algorithm to determine that every single bit in the stream made it through intact..no errors..I personally prefer something that looks a little better in my living room.
""If the coat hanger sounds better than a caox cable, then YES it is a superior interconnect (in THAT system, at THAT time, for THAT person).""peter
Agreed. And that is what Tony called the individual's "truth".
""HOWEVER: Jon would then try to understand WHY it sounds better. Tony would simply suggest that the listener must be wrong""peter
No. Tony pointed out that one's truth may not be another's. And that Jon's pushing of one cable geometry or dielectric type or stranded/no stranded as being superior to another may not in fact be the "truth" in all cases..
I would tend to agree that Jon would try to figure out why..
Cheers, John
I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences.
You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts. And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".
""I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.""JRSo, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables?
Hmmm.
""By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences. You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.""JR
Based on the assumption that cable differences can be heard, yes I completely agree..basic LCR does not explain it.
""As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts.""JR
He asked a valid question, one which many posters answered in good spirit, with a good bit of discussion..You are the one calling it a troll..
""And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".""
Why? You did a knee jerk..You, either by association, or by classification of questions, have assigned Tony into a category..You then, in THIS THREAD ALONE, either insulted or abused Tony in an unwarranted fashion at least SIX times..Without Tony having said anything to deserve it..
So, yes, your's was a knee jerk. Perhaps you prefer the term unwarranted abuse?
And, I see that you, rather than going back over the posts to understand exactly what I'm talking about with respect to your treatment of Tony, have spent your time attempting to justify your behavior..
And you expect an apology of someone who is pointing out consistently bad behavior on your part??
Perhaps you should go back over this entire thread, and re-examine how you have reacted throughout...
TTFN, John
[ So, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables? ]Yes.
I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled. Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.
I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk. If you go back and look at it without the AR bias voltage applied, perhaps you would see that what I was posting was not quite as 'insulting' as it seems from that biased POV.
I do not consider the "AR" bias in my postings here...There is an obvious history extending far beyond my experience..I see only you degrading Tony's experience, education, understanding..here..You have done so from the first time I saw Tony posting here..
And, you do so from a platform of inacurate understanding of physics, filled with assumptions, suppositions, maybe's...
You stated in a previous post that you consider only postings at AA, without regard to what is done at AR..And I agreed, that you do indeed follow that, w/r to me at least..
Of course, YOU are the one to continue to refer to AR, how you are received there, as a justification for how you treat some here..
""I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk""JR
Hmmm..thoughtful replies??? Do I have to go back to all your posts and copy them here again....the six I copied, and the four more JBC pointed out???
No Jon, what you have done is not thoughtful, not warranted, not useful...You appear to only be responding in that fashion to reduce the stature of those who believe differently from you..
As a fellow forum participant, that would be ok..We are all big boys here..
What you do, however, is not acceptable...Using your position as moderator to quash people who do not agree with you, like Tony..
That is all I ask you to re-think..
""I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled.""JR
Nobody has said otherwise....So why do you feel it necessary to say this???
""Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.""JR
Again, nobody has said otherwise..
Tony said physics does not correlate to price tag..For you to go on about all this other stuff is diversion...you blasted him six times (ten if you include JBC) over something we all agree with...WHY???
Knee jerk is the automatic reaction to a stimulus...You did so to Tony's post, where none was required..
And you attempt to justify it by categorizing him (your words).
As all can see, you justification falls flat..
TTFN, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: