Glubson, if my posts are not worth stalking me why stalkers thou me? Trying to be somebody, one supposes. My suggestion is a long cold shower. All the lonely stalkers, where do they all come from?
Do speaker cables need a burn in period?
I have heard some say that speaker cables do need a 'burn in', and some say that its totally BS.
What say you?
What say you?
Showing 50 responses by geoffkait
stevecham None of those numbers in that first set of data for FUSE direction 1 vs. 2 are qualifed as statistically significant. We’re talking differences in microOhm and there should be at least three measurements per trial so that a standard deviation is calculated. But of course, a single number stands as "accurate." The directionality in our subjective minds is far more compelling than any microOhm differences. I’ll bet no one on earth can hear such differences, only if THEY WANT TO. >>>>Again, you’re not paying careful attention. The differences in measured resistance, while small, were consistent in that they correlated to the direction of the wire pull. And - as I already mentioned - the measured differences are consistent with listening tests. God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. The differences are not (rpt not) insignificant, in any case. I.e., the differences are not (rpt not) random. Besides, you can eliminate psychological causes by careful testing, no? |
stevecham And, what the heck do FUSES have to do with SPEAKER CABLES anyway? The direction the wire was pulled? In any of these studies was the resistance correlated with direction of wire pull? I thought so. >>>>>You need to pay more careful attention, sir. These questions have already been addressed. |
In the famous HiFi Tuning measurements of electrical characteristics of fuses of many brands including stock fuses, the lower resistance direction was always consistent with the direction that sounded the best, both for DC circuits and AC circuits. But as noted on the HiFi Tuning data sheets, the rather small differences measured did not account for the relatively significant differences heard in listening tests of “directionality.” And as fate would have it that’s how directionality can be controlled, by controlling the manufacturing process starting with the wire as it comes off the final die. I.e., it’s predictable. Hel-loo! |
That’s the wrong question. The correct question is, why is directionality so audible when the difference in resistance is so small one direction vs the other? I don’t think anyone really knows. Physically, in microscope photos, there does appear to be non symmetrical distortion of the wire crystal structure caused by being pulled through the die. |
blueranger Does science know all about the behavior of atoms and electrons? I don't think tbere is a physicist, electrical engineer or researcher that would bet their life on it. Oh well the discussion goes on. >>>>Science is not a person so it doesn’t know anything. Scientists are not all the same, some know more about atoms and electrons than others. One thing you can bet your life on is that atom physics and particle physics are *very* mature sciences. So, even if you personally don’t know the answer someone does, sure as shootin’. |
That’s where the Feynman quote comes in about explaining things to ordinary people. But what you stated earlier was that no one could define Higgs boson, which is not (rpt not) true. Obviously someone can define and explain Higgs boson because it has become part of the Standard Model. As far as understanding atomic physics goes, obviously many peoples’ eyes would probably glaze over, same goes for a lot of things. That’s kind of how it goes. |
Teo wrote We, as a group of beings we like to call humans, still don’t know what an atom is. Nice name and descriptors and all, but if you dig into it, we still can’t really define an atomic particle with any clarity. Even with all that text, effort, and minds on it. >>>That’s completely untrue, of course. I mean unless the group you’re talking about is a bunch of briar hoppers from the backwoods of Arkansas. No offense to Arkansas. Not much in the universe is *better understood* than the atom and subatomic particles. We can measure the atom, we can locate the atom, we can even photograph the atom. IBM. Particle physics - check it out. Even the Higgs Boson is understood. And gravity and gravity waves. So, I’m afraid, Teo, you probably need to edit your post to say, “I still can’t really define an atomic particle with any clarity.” Fake mystery! See a Get Smart page on particle physics at, http://theconversation.com/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-the-absolutely-amazing-theory-of-a... |
All this time and explanation, still a lot of folks don’t seem to get what is meant by the term directionality. When did arrows start appearing on audio cables? Has it really been 25 years ago? I guess Feynman was right, after all. An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - William Burroughs “I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.” ― Richard P. Feynman |
It is *misreported* on the internet in what appear to be otherwise authoritative articles on the Challenger Disaster investigation with respect to Richard Feynman. The article I just read, for example, described a hostile relationship between Rogers, the Chairman of the Rogers Commision and Feynman during the investigation. But that is incorrect. The hostile relationship was actually between Dr. Alton Keel, Executive Director of the commission, and Feynman. William Rogers was not technical and shied away from ego battles, not so with Drs. Feynman and Keel. And it was Keel who kept Feynman’s portion of the Final Report relegated to the Appendix. to whit, ”The chief conflict, according to several participants, was between Mr. Rogers and Dr. Richard P. Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist from the California Institute of Technology. They repeatedly clashed not only on how harshly to criticize NASA but also on how to conduct the investigation and deal with the press. Indeed, only last week Dr. Feynman threatened to dissent from the commission's final report unless a section that he had written, which Mr. Rogers considered too harsh and emotional, was included as he had composed it. That last-minute fracas was resolved through the mediation of Maj. Gen. Donald J. Kutyna of the Air Force, a commission member who, through the course of the proceedings, became a close friend of Dr. Feynman. General Kutyna cautioned today that the issue involved only a few words and had been resolved to the satisfaction of all. From the start, Dr. Feynman, known for his brilliant and original intellectual forays, was impatient with committee meetings, bureaucratic planning, formal hearings and detailed discussions of the best way to word reports. As far as he was concerned, the way to investigate a problem was to venture out as an individual and have long talks with the technical people who could explain everything they knew about the shuttle technology and its problems. |
It’s a two edged sword. Data dogma is what produced the Hubble telescope fiasco and data dogma is also what produced the Challenger explosion and the second space shuttle disaster when it disintegrated during reentry. Data dogma also resulted in the sales of all those horrible sounding solid state amps back in the 80s that boasted super low THD. Data dogma. Woof! woof! Bad dogma, bad! 🐕 |
Andy2, you’re overthinking it. The reason cables are directional is the same reason fuses are directional, the same reason HDMI cables are directional and why power cords are directional. It’s the wire itself that’s directional. I’m amazing that so many here don’t know what directionality is since its been discussed here, pros and cons, for like forever. Cut me some slack, Jack. |
The quote is not mine, it’s Feynman’s. That’s why it’s in uh, quotes. Why would I say I won the Nobel prize? Obviously you have difficulty following technical arguments. These demands for proof of yours serve no purpose, especially given your inability to follow relatively simple technical arguments. This conversation can serve no purpose any more. ta, ta |
stevecham GK: nice try :-) But man do you get ’em going! Next we should talk about whether the composition of baryons in wire metals, such as protons (two up and one down quark) vs. neutrons (two down and one up quark) are what's really 1) being burned in and 2) account for directionality. Because it ain't fermions such as photons, my friend. >>>>>Name dropper. |
bac2vinyl it's copper, physics of copper doesn't change with the small current that runs through cables. It's your ears, your brain, that gets tailored to the sound...Pure BS! And a 3-foot piece of copper or silver isn't going to provide better current to your equipment either...That is just ridiculous to think one foot of anything at the end of a 100 foot run of romax is going to improve your electic supply somehow...but spend away.. >>>>If you get that upset over a 3-foot copper cable one wonders what would happen if someone pointed out the tiny 1/2” fuse where the current comes into the amp affects the sound quality. One imagines your head would explode. |
azbrd @geoffkait Please explain to us minions how a particle of light, a photon, can be transferred over copper (or silver for that matter)?? >>>>I guess you would have to know that everything that’s in the electromagnetic spectrum, including visible light, which is actually an extremely small portion, is comprised of photons. It’s pretty obvious visible light cannot travel through most solid materials except transparent ones like water, polycarbonate, glass and clear plastic. The electrical signal and the audio signal, are also in the electromagnetic spectrum, but can travel through copper or silver. I bet you thought the signal was electrons, right? |
stevecham, The trouble with that theory is that electrons are not the signal. Electrons are simply the charge carriers. The signal itself is a horse of a different color and travels at near lightspeed in metal conductors. Which of course means the signal must be comprised of photons. So, it’s actually photons that navigate the wire better in one direction than the other. |