I know very little about cable technology & even less about quantum physics. I read this & immediately thought (10+yrs down the road) this would upend cable tech: efficiency, clarity, & probably a bunch of stuff I don’t even know about that goes into cable science.
So, say hello to your new 2030 $70k cables. I’m curious what other people think.
Its not what I think, its what I know. What I know is it doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter to the point not even wasting my time to read the article. Because it is a waste of time.
There you go again Miller, dissing science. Come on, man! (Intended to be read in look of pain Biden voice.) No way you can "know"!
Okay. Fair point. Except, let’s see- new dielectric. New geometry. Long grain crystals. Pure copper. Pure silver. Five nines pure long grain crystal copper. Active Shielding. No shielding. Active ground. Passive ground. Ground plane. Just the ones that come to mind. Anyone been around this stuff for 30 years like me has long since forgotten more revolutionary transformative new technologies than we remember.
"The future of" tech stories are a dime a dozen. You want to know "the future"? Forget tech. Read reviews. Pay attention to how it sounds. Go and listen. Find it. That’s the future.
What I know is it doesn’t matter.
Doesn’t matter to the point not even wasting my time to read the
article. Because it is a waste of time.
This is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, also known as "begging the question," that is, your conclusion (it is a waste of time) is also your premise.
Millercarbon, please leave the discussion. I asked a question & expected interesting & respectful responses to the article. I’ve asked for you to be blocked. I don’t need your rude & abusive trolling here.
Interesting!My layman's thought is a signal would be way less distorted traveling from A to B.May or may not be pleasing to the ear in every application.
Good luck with that. It will stay because its not abusive, nor rude, and only trolling in the sense of tweaking people to think about something they find very uncomfortable, namely the way so many are misled about tech.
Tech doesn't matter, for all the examples I listed. Pick any technical factor you care to name. Any. I don't care. Pure silver. Pure copper. Heck for that matter I said any technical factor so pick something like capacitance. Resistance. Whatever. ANY!
For any one you pick that is supposed to be the Holy Grail secret determinative of performance I will find you something way better built on a completely different philosophy, design, principle, technology- whatever you want to call it. Because the point I am making, which is not trolling because it is flat out true, is there are so many factors that go into determining the ultimate sound quality that its beyond silly to try and say this is the one.
If you find the truth rude, or if you find yourself upset to learn not everyone thinks just like you, buckle up bucko, because this is life and hate to shock again but it just doesn't always go the way we want.
Interesting article no idea if it will ever make it to the fuse/ cable nonsense. If someone can figure a way to use it they will pay out the nose for it.
Good article. I think science and innovation will bring about, and currently is, wonderful new realities and possibilities for audio. No doubt. Thanks for the link!
It is interesting article, but I'm not sure how it applies to audio cables. Electric current is a flow of electric charge. For AC signals electrons practically stand in place while electric charge moves at about 2/3 of the speed of light. Energy is delivered to speaker by electromagnetic field outside of the cable.
The whole thing is stupid because electrons aren’t the signal so it doesn’t matter how fast they move, which is about a meter an hour, first one way then the other in AC circuits. Net velocity zero.
Kijanki & geoffkait, I never knew your points. I assumed everything came down to electrons moving. If it travels electromagneticly & outside the cable... dumb question... then what does the cable matter? Not being sarcastic-I’m just pretty new and not a regular or quantum physicist. lol thanks
tochsii, The same amount of electric charge that flows to the speaker returns back to the amplifier. What is energy source then and why this energy flows always toward speaker even with direction changing AC current. It is because energy is delivered on the outside of the wire. This energy corresponds to flow of electric charge, so everything that happens in the wire affects electromagnetic field. Anytime you have electric field you also have magnetic field and vice versa. They always go in pair and affect each other. That’s why dielectric, that is on the outside of the wire, affect speed of the electric current inside of the wire.
To understand why energy is delivered only from source to load, even with AC current, imagine battery (source), two wires and resistor (load). Presence of resistor introduces electric field (voltage drop) from + to - wire, while current flow introduces magnetic field clockwise in direction of the current (right hand rule). Electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular, like X and Y axis while energy flow is perpendicular to both of them like axis Z. This is Poynting Vector showing direction of energy flow. When current changes direction both electric and magnetic fields also change direction causing Poynting vector to keep the same direction. Look at the drawing of the battery and resistor here:
Remember that quantum mechanics does not follow classical rules. There is a difference between quantum and classical, and they cannot be reconciled. That was what baked Planck's noodle for so long. We often know that the mathematics and observed behavior of QM works a certain way, but are at a complete loss to explain why. When Planck finally solved the Rayleigh-Jeans problem of blackbody radiation, he had replaced the continuous functions found in classical physics with quantized functions and statistical mechanics. It was a mathematical trick—he knew it worked, but had no idea how or why. How do electron transfers occur between allowed energy levels? We know the jump is instantaneous, but how do they 'know' where they will end up? There are myriad unanswered questions in QM that we are still investigating all the time.
It's entirely possible that this new ballistic wire does not follow any traditional models of classical EM radiation, meaning magnetic flux, field, etc. may be entirely irrelevant.
I should also point out that this may have been a study performed on a piece of material microns long, and even that may have been incredibly expensive to manufacture. Then there is the problem of creating these electron clusters. I am guessing a traditional electrical power source will not do it.
Anyway, thanks for the read—very interesting, and I love to read things in my field.
Kijanki , I did read your last post and according to your link what you said doesn’t make sense. Not to mention how energy OUTSIDE a cable can drive a speaker.
Energy is delivered to speaker by electromagnetic field outside of the cable.
From the wiki link.
No energy flows outside the cable, either, since there the magnetic fields of inner and outer conductors cancel to zero.
It’s a moot point whether the “signal” travels inside the wire or outside the wire. Since the sound quality is directly related to the type and purity of metal as well as the size of the conductor, all things being equal, we need not concern ourselves with Poynting vectors, as cool as they are. Furthermore, the speed of the signal in wire is given for copper not for the dielectric material and it is a high percentage of the speed of light. We DO however have to concern ourselves with the induced magnetic field, the dielectric material, RF and other related issues as we’ve seen in many other threads ever since Gandhi was a Cub Scout.
Of course this all brings us back to the unanswered questions,
1. Does external vibration affect the signal in wires and if so how? 2. Why do seemingly insert audio components like solid state amps benefit from being isolated from external vibration? 3. Is the audio signal In wires itself vibrational?
How? The way everyone around here proves things with subjective experience? OK, I never heard any difference between using vibration control and not using it. BAM, proved.
My word against 10,000 others? LOL I don't really feel all alone over here. Appeals to popularity and jumping on bandwagons were never really in the cards for me.
Those who say differences in cables is bullshit, and those who say differences in cables are noticeable; these 2 groups are right...
All experience we deduce about audio is directly dependent on some very particular conditions and relative to our own particular audio environment...
Our particular conditions is strictly linked to the 4 embeddings of an audio system, and the resolutive power comes directly and proportionally from the variable controls of this 4 embeddings ( except for the variable quality of each part of the audio system itself distributed in the 3 rungs scale of price/S.Q.).
Then debating about audio facts, in itself has generally no signification...I am only interested to homemade low cost means to improve the audio system...Because this is the only thing that makes sense if we want to experience something that go somewhere, and not a self gratification about what we owns or think we know....
@mahgister You’re close, very close! 🤗 Actually, scientifically, it can be demonstrated that in the same controlled environments there are obvious differences between cables, sometimes more so than other times, due to the vagaries of the test system, the test person, weather, what have you. Even when the system has been profoundly controlled for RF, vibration, etc. in fact I suggest that it is in those overachiever type systems where cable differences are most profound.
@djones51 You quoted from Wikipedia without understanding. Energy is delivered on the outside of the cable, but in case of coaxial cable it is limited to space inside. In coaxial cable whole energy flows thru dielectric between inner wire and the shield. Also, picture in Wikipedia shows how this energy flux gets to load.
Of course it is only trough the improving controlled complex embeddings, that a simple audio system can gives the means to the human ears to differentiate from different cables, or from different other variables in some dimensions of the embeddings themselves...
My experience in my audio system is that very little modifications can repercute from one level to another...
Of course we can debate that some of these are only placebos, but not all of them are and can be, and this is the main point....We cannot dismiss the baby with the bathwater.... :)
By the way my audio system in is the second rung of the scale at most and is a good but an ordinary one....Then absolutely not a Top Hi-Fi gear.... It is the relative controls of the 4 embeddings I implemented that makes my ordinary system able to inform me adequately about changes of cables or other variables changes , not my 68 years old hearing habilities "per se", and not the special brand name of my actual gear " per se"....
I went to trump university. I was told that every time a Trump supporter dies his soul is transferred into a fat little middle-age body and then they kick the electrons like a playground ball from one little Trump supporter to the other inside the wire. I guess that means that the older your cables are the better they should sound. I’ve got my system laid out with tables from RadioShack from the early 1980s. They sound awesome
Beliefs and opinions are nothing except if someone communicate about the way to verify them... I did... Think about the way to changes the controls of the 4 embeddings of an audio system....I made it for myself and it is possible to verify it with homemade means and at relatively low cost... Who says better?
Thumbs up! For trying, but not for answering correctly. At least you tried. 🤗 Are you channeling Michael Green? Knowledge can be defined by subtracting out all the stuff you have forgotten from school and measuring whatever’s left.
Kijanki, I understand I think we have a language problem though maybe not. You claim energy is delivered to a speaker by electromagnetic energy OUTSIDE of a cable. How does the current get to the speaker if the energy it gets is OUTSIDE of the copper or silver wire as well as the insulation of the wire which is what makes up a CABLE when only the metal is attached to the binding posts of the speaker. That doesn't make any sense if that's the case we could simply toss the CABLE somewhere near the speakers binding posts. I think, though I may be wrong, what you mean is the energy flows on the skin of the metal wire inside the cable between the wire and insulation, not floating around in mid air OUTSIDE a cable. But like I said maybe I am still not understanding what you're saying.
Vibration doesn't make a lick of difference sonically in a real world situation in people's homes except perhaps the TT or you're playing your stereo at strip club levels of noise. Then you need to worry more about going deaf than vibration. Of course you might live next door to a rock quarry where they are blasting all day in which case you also need to nail the pictures to the wall.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
