No one ever said they were neutral.
Showing 50 responses by geoffkait
"One thing you can’t hide is when you’re broken inside." "...bull frog’s croakin’...everything is broken." As fate would have it the system shoots itself in the foot, what with the induced magnetic field produced by current flowing through all cables and wiring including those big honking transformers AND the RFI/EMI generate by the house AC as well as all those cute little microprocessing chips. Chips Ahoy! If you haven’t addressed those issues it’s not neutral, trust me. I don’t blame anyone for putting the issues on ignore. |
Wolfman, solid core interconnects are not spiraled. And shielding assuming they have such doesn’t protect against induced magnetic fields, only external RFI/EMI. Hum bucking is not generally employed for transformers although as you suggest it should be. Not to mention that all exposed internal wiring, even the wiring that’s spiraled, capacitors, chips, etc. are subject to the rather large magnetic fields produced by large transformers. |
Of course the real point is that EMI is not magnetic field. Which is what my original post was addressing. I.e., that shielding is effective for RFI/EMI but not for either external magnetic fields such as those produced by transformers or induced magnetic fields such as produced by current running through cables and wires. I used to work on the ELF program which transmits at 75 Hz so yes, I’m quite familiar with low frequency radio frequencies. Just because some people might not consider it a radio frequency it actually IS a radio frequency. |
Hi, atmosphere, sorry but no it’s not. EMI is radio frequency interference just like RFI. It’s an electromagnetic wave. Unlike its ugly cousin magnetic field which is a stationary field. Both EMI and RFI are light speed. The other difference obviously is what I'm referring to is the induced mag field whereas EMI is an external radio frequency interference. I trust my post doesn’t sound too much like I’m all jacked up on cafe lattes. |
Actually radio frequencies are electromagnetic waves. I realize it sounds repetitive but RF is not magnetic fields, which are stationary fields. It should be obvious that magnetic fields are not the same thing at all as electromagnetic waves. If they were the same then magnetic fields would be flying all around the room at light speed, which of course they are not. They’re stationary. Recall the experiment with iron filings and a magnet? The magnetic lines of flux are stationary. Everyone and his brother knows that the intensity of the magnetic field is inversely proportional to the distance from the conductor in the case of induced magnetism. This is not true for radio waves. And the fact radio waves don’t attenuate like magnetic fields allows extremely low frequency radio waves like ELF at 75Hz to be used for long distance communications. The last time I looked nobody is using magnetic fields for communications. Even the units are different, V/meter and Gauss. Thus, when setting out to eliminate or reduce magnetic field intensity one requires high permeability materials, not shielding. |
Radio waves do not follow the inverse square law like magnetic fields. If they did we would be unable to talk to astronauts on the moon or to send transmissions out into the galaxy you know SETI and all that. Radio waves don’t attenuate in vacuum of space and the only reason they attenuate in free space of Earth’s atmosphere is because of losses due to absorption and scattering. The reason ELF works is actually because the transmit power is 1M watts and because the preamps on the receive side are extremely sensitive. But getting back to my real point for just a sec, shielding protects the conductor from external EMI/RFI but not from it’s own induced magnetic field. That’s why I said cables and power cords shoot themselves in the foot. End of argument. |
What does all that have to do with the price of spinach? The shielding in cables protects the cables from external radio frequencies but does nothing to protect the audio signal from the induced magnetic field. And the reason is because the induced magnetic field is a different issue and requires a different solution. It's name is high permeability. But I repeat myself. You guys can’t seem to see the forest for the trees. And for transformers the (induced) magnetic field is an even bigger issue. And manufacturers apparently do precious little about it from what I can see. It's almost like they're oblivious. The electron tubes are usually sitting right out in front on those big old transformers. Like sitting ducks. |
Al wrote, "I did not and do not express any opinion about the effectiveness of shielding with respect to magnetic fields. I don’t feel I can comment on that question in a knowledgeable manner without devoting more time to studying it than I care to devote." No problem, Al. But that’s what the discussion happens to be about. I hate to judge too quickly but it appears I'm the only one here with actual experience in controlling magnetic fields, the induced magnetic fields in cables, power cords and transformers. |
"geoffkait may be one of those people who believe math and science are intuitive. Perhaps - for real math wizards - it is intuitive. But for most of us, it isn't. Even Einstein said he struggled with math. It's probably futile to try and explain this to geoffkait, although atmasphere deserves kudos for trying." i do not believe math and science are intuitive. I am actually a big believer in experimentation. An experiment is worth a thousand words. Am I an experimental physicist? Probably, although my education was theoretical physics. I'm with Einstein, I'll let others do the math. But I know what numbers mean. |
That’s so funny. We are not yet on the same page. No problem, I’m very patient. You on one hand are talking about RFI and EMI while I’m talking about magnetic fields. Think back, way back, to high school and the right hand rule. The right hand rule for determining the direction of the induced magnetic field produced by current traveling through a conductor. As I said previously RFI/EMI is light speed due to the photons involved whilst the other - magnetic field - is stationary. Apples and watermelons, my friend. |
Atmosphere wrote, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon -From the page: A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[12] and is stable. I never said a photon did have mass, or that it had an electrical charge or wasn’t stable. But electrons are carriers of *charge* not the audio signal. The electromagnetic wave that is the actual signal is made of photons. Just like (visible) light but with a different wavelength. Gamma rays, x-rays same thing - Photons with a different wavelength than visible light. The electromagnetic spectrum is extremely wide and includes obviously visible light which is obviously just a very small part of the whole thing. Electrons in the conductor are almost at a standstill, but the music signal is moving at near light speed (since it’s made of photons). That’s what I mean by carrier. The radio wave (RF) does not need a medium in which to propagate, obviously, since it will propagate in a vacuum. Just like a radio transmission to a satellite is comprised of photons. Or an ELF transmission. Atmosphere also wrote, "However it also states that it is a form of EM radiation." Electromagnetic radiation. Now we’re getting somewhere! I am agreeing with that statement. That's what I’ve been saying, that light and radio waves are electromagnetic waves, radiated. The units of measurement for satellite communication transmission is surprise, surprise, EIRP, Effective Isotropic Radiated Power. atmosphere also wrote, "However the signal in a cable is not carried by photons. A better carrier would be the electron, although stated in those terms might be considered a gross oversimplification." Electrons carry charge, whereas the music signal is an electromagnetic EM wave so it (the signal) must travel in a conductor at near lightspeed. In order to travel at that speed the wave must be, physically, photons, not electrons. The electrons in the conductor only travel what a meter an hour or something. If the audio signal wasn't light speed you would hear a pretty big delay for normal phone conversations, no? |
Hi, Atmosphere, sorry to abuse you of some of your beliefs but photons are the "carriers of the electromagnetic waves, which is what Radio Frequencies are. That’s why, as I already said at least three times, that radio waves travel at light speed, because it’s comprised of photons. Can you think of anything other than photons that travels at light speed? Actually, now that you bring it up, he music signal in cables and wires is also an electromagnetic wave and is also composed of, uh, photons. What about x-rays? Yup, photons. The ELF transmission at 75 Hz? Photons. |
Atmosphere, there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never said they did travel at the speed of light in cables. Actually I went out of my way to explain the difference between the speed of an EM wave in a vacuum and one in cables. You might not remember that Einstein found the speed of light was constant - in a vacuum. I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I’m beginning to suspect your reading comprehension skill is quite possibly as rusty as your physics. |
OK, let’s review the bidding. The audio signal is not the same thing as charge. The electrons in the conductor move very slowly. The audio signal moves VERY rapidly. It moves at near light speed in a conductor. What do we know of that can move at light speed in a vacuum and near light speed in a conductor? An electromagnetic wave. But an electromagnetic wave is not nothing. It must be made of something. We already know it’s not made of electrons since electrons don’t move very fast at all, a centimeter per minute or whatever. What else could it possibly be? Well, for one thing we know that ALL electromagnetic waves, including light (both visible and invisible), radio frequencies of all types, x-rays, gamma rays, and Extremely Low Frequency waves travel at light speed and must be made of SOMETHING. They can’t be made of nothing, right? Well, here we come to the grand finale. The only thing we know of that travels at light speed and near light speed depending on medium is drum roll, please.....photons! And the reason photons can travel at the speed of light is they have no mass, as you yourself pointed out. If a particle has mass it can never attain light speed. So, the audio signal, the one that’s traveling at light speed is made of photons. |
Mapman wrote, "Geof by your logic then photons are how a NEwton’s Cradle works too. They never taught us that in physics class! You should write a book! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton’s_cradle Electrons and teh signal in the wires do seem to work just like a Newton’s Cradle. Geoff your logic is fine. Problem is it is based on missing facts. Logic is pretty useless based on missing or incorrect facts. Write your book and fill us all in. Or save time and just publish a link to the proper reference. Or if you really don’t know don’t act like you do." Uh, so you’re hanging your hat on a demonstration of the conservation of energy in some wild attempt to win the argument? In the first place you’re putting words in my mouth by claiming I believe photons work like Newton’s Cradle. I would probably not say that but give me a few days and I’ll get back to you. Let me guess. You’re an English major, right? No reason to get your panties in a twist over this. Try to lighten up. |
Atmosphere, please don’t tell me you think that "near light speed" means light speed? I just finished explaining for the umpteenth time that the velocity of light and any electromagnetic wave depends on the medium through which it travels. I’m having trouble deciding if you have a propensity for density or if you’re just pretending. ;-) Let me make myself a little clearer just in case my first three or four attempts were not clear enough. The speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum is what 186,000 miles per second, right? And in a conductor it is a large fraction of c, let’s say it’s 80% of c or about 150,000 miles per second. That’s close to c, and that’s why I refer to it as "near light speed." Follow? I also did not say the electromagnetic wave in the cable can't be influenced by external magnetic fields. You are not only putting words in my mouth but you obviously *missed the whole point* of my discussion of the subject lo these past few days. Pop Quiz: what’s the second fastest thing next to photons? Cheerios |
Roger wrote, "Can you tell me what happens if the velocity of an audio signal entering an amplifier leaves at a different velocity?" -- What happens when the audio signal from the speakers travels at different velocities to the listener depending on the room temperature? "And if that can be plugged into your formulas, why wasn't this fixed a long time ago?" -- You haven't shown there's a problem yet. The cup falling on the floor just didn't do it for me. "Why did it take decades for someone to notice the real problems? I'll tell you one of the reasons. Because it is not in your text books. I thank God every day for keeping me out of college. I would be just as confused as you guys. Don't get me wrong - If you have seen my white paper you can see that I have done all my homework. It just looks different from your homework." - You will have a uphill battle if your white paper has technical "issues." You might be onto something, who knows. But it's not necessarily a very convincing argument to claim off the bat that your logic or your research doesn't agree with (all) text books on the subject. There's nothing wrong with being self taught, not necessarily. "You can't argue with success." - That's what they said about cold fusion. |
Electricity is most commonly conducted in a copper wire. Copper has a density of 8.94 g/cm3, and an atomic weight of 63.546 g/mol, so there are 140685.5 mol/m3. In one mole of any element there are 6.02×1023 atoms (Avogadro’s constant). Therefore in 1 m3 of copper there are about 8.5×1028 atoms (6.02×1023 × 140685.5 mol/m3). Copper has one free electron per atom, so n is equal to 8.5×1028 electrons per cubic metre. Assume a current I = 3 amperes, and a wire of 1 mm diameter (radius = 0.0005 m). This wire has a cross sectional area of 7.85×10−7 m2 (A = π × (0.0005 m)2). The charge of one electron is q = −1.6×10−19 C. The drift velocity therefore can be calculated: TBS Dimensional analysis: TBS Therefore in this wire the electrons are flowing at the rate of −0.00028 m/s. By comparison, the Fermi flow velocity of these electrons (which, at room temperature, can be thought of as their approximate velocity in the absence of electric current) is around 1570 km/s.[2] In the case of alternating current, the direction of electron drift switches with the frequency of the current. In the example above, if the current were to alternate with the frequency of F = 60 Hz, drift velocity would likewise vary in a sine-wave pattern, and electrons would fluctuate about their initial positions with the amplitude of: 2.1 x 10-6 meter To summarize, the electrons are moving so slowly it’s almost as if they’re standing still. And in the case of alternating current they are moving back and forth so actually they are standing still. So, ye olde fire hose analogy doesn't uh hold water. cheerios |
Roger paul wrote, "I don’t need to crack the text books to know that if I push a cup off a table that the next thing it will do is hit the floor." I don’t need to crack a text book to know the sky is blue, either. But neither statement, while a truism, is relevant in this discussion. We call that a Strawman argument. |
Roger wrote, "geoffkait Would you settle for whatever distortion you get in the concert hall during a live performance? Its nothing but air which is a linear transfer medium. If it did exactly the same thing in your home would you say "this is just like being there"? If not then some kind of distortion is happening at home and the alternative medium [electrical] transfer of sound waves does not match the purity of air. It is a simple concept. Make the electronics act like air. It requires that you match the velocity of air which is zero with no wind. The sound waves velocity riding on top of a zero velocity (air) results in a single un-modulated constant speed of Mach One (about 750 mph) When that happens you will not be able to tell them apart." This is no longer a theory." The problem with your argument is that there are many other sources of distortion in the home audio system other than the amplifier; thus, even though you might have solved this particular problem in an audio amplifier, I still cannot say to myself, "This is live." It is a logical fallacy that one can automatically achieve audio nirvana using an ideal amplifier, assuming for a moment that is what yours is. Things are just not that simple. There are distortions associated with speakers, with room acoustics anomalies such as slap echo, standing waves, reflected waves, with the effects of seismic vibration, the effects of mechanical vibration of motors, transforrmers, etc., the effects of static electric fields on the CD or LP and cables, the effects of induced magnetic fields in the wires and cables, the very large induced magnetic fields in large honking transformers, distortions resulting from wire and cable and fuses being installed in the wrong direction, distortions due to local environmental influences (Morphic fields), improper speaker set up, not to mention weather effects, sun spots effects, time of day effects. In other words in order to achieve "live" the audiophile who is attempting to get into audio nirvana must pay attention to everything, not just the speed of acoustic waves in air. |
Roger wrote, (Geoff) "Things are just not that simple. There are distortions associated with speakers, with room acoustics anomalies such as slap echo, standing waves, reflected waves, with the effects of seismic vibration, the effects of mechanical vibration of motors, transforrmers, etc., the effects of static electric fields on the CD or LP and cables, the effects of induced magnetic fields in the wires and cables, the very large induced magnetic fields in large honking transformers, distortions resulting from wire and cable and fuses being installed in the wrong direction, distortions due to local environmental influences (Morphic fields), improper speaker set up, not to mention weather effects, sun spots effects, time of day effects. In other words in order to achieve "live" the audiophile who is attempting to get into audio nirvana must pay attention to everything, not just the speed of acoustic waves in air." (Roger) "All of this is true except if the last reference - "not just the speed of waves in air" is not dealt with your system will never produce live no matter how much control you have over the vibrations. The velocity has to be right or you are wasting your time." Of course you would say that. That’s your bread and butter. That’s what they all say, the aftermarket fuse guys, the speaker manufacturers, the cable manufacturers. Audio nirvana can be yours if you just buy this product! By the way, Nice of you to say everything on my list of distortion producers is all true. Actually I am a little surprised you agreed so quickly. You agreed to sun spots and Morphic fields? Lol But I say, if you don’t take care of the rest of the producers of distortion, the ones I listed, it’s actually YOU who is wasting his time. You might be the missing link. But get in line. There are a lot of missing links in this hobby. No man is an island. He's a peninsula. Cheerios geoff kait machina dynamica advanced audio conceits |
Not being one to beat a dead horse, of course, but according to the database of recordings vs polarity which one assumes is not obviously the complete listing of everything ever recorded, let’s not be ridiculous, but what is interesting is that actually just scanning the list of recordings, marked N for normal (correct polarity) and R for REVERSED/INVERTED polarity, the number of recordings that INVERT polarity far outnumber the ones that don’t. By the way, the entire label Deutsches Gramophon are apparently R not just 50%. It appears the percentage of R recordings on the list which includes a lot of audiophile labels is probably higher than 80%. Also note that Mapleshade recordings are marked N. Which actually makes sense, you know, that correlates to how they sound. Now, you see why I started my last post with, Houston we have a problem. |
Atmosphere, in George’s defense many systems at shows are not broken in at all or/and are not set up properly, thus it can be rather difficult to tell the difference in sound. In other words, just because he was unable to tell the difference on that occasion doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t usually hear the difference between R and N. Can you hear the difference between R and N? I trust you’re not saying that the whole polarity issue is bunk. It wouldn't take that much trouble to double check some of the labels or titles that George Louis includes in the database. As I said of the few he lists as N Mapleshade recordings IMHO do sound like they are almost certainly N. |
Al, Here’s the link to the polarity database that George Louis compiled. Draw your own conclusions. The reason I brought this up on this particular thread is because you had just asked what the speed of sound had to do with the price of spinach. Which was actually the question I asked last week on another thread and which Roger answered. The connection of course is that Roger claims that the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier. With inverted polarity, with the trumpet being sucked instead of blown it’s almost like the Acoustic Waves of the musician’s breath and coming from the trumpet are traveling backwards. So forget about keeping the velocity of sound in air consistent (Roger’s term is Mach 1) between the recording venue and the listening room. Obviously there are other potential issues but if 80 or 90 percent of audiophile type recordings are in fact R then that would be big news. And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity. The situation is further complicated because some recordings that are inverted R will play as N on some systems, since in those systems there is one component that inverts polarity. http://ultrabitplatinum.com/the-polarity-list/ geoff kait machina dynamica no goats no glory |
Houston we have a problem. Most recordings, including many of the ones audiophiles cherish, actually invert polarity. Who cares if the velocity of air in the recording venture is maintained by the time the recording is played in the listening room. Who cares if the velocity of air is maintained if the trumpet sounds like the musician is sucking instead of blowing? Hel-ooooo! Even many or most of the recordings audiophiles REALLY cherish are out of polarity. You know the ones I’m talking about, Mercury Living Presence, Deutsche Gramophone, Proprius, Columbia Kind of Blue, Opus 3 Depth of Image, in that vein. |
I should also point out that George’s criterion for determining which is better N or R for a given recording is that it’s one that sounds more like "live" music must be N. Roger’s criterion is the same, I.e., "live" music, for what his amp sounds like compared to amplifier X. In fact audiophiles generally speaking are fond of using the SAME CRITERION for what the home playback system should sound like or at least strive for - "live" music. Same question for Al: do you think the polarity issue is bunk or only George's list. Can you point to any recordings on George's list that are R that you think should be N Or vice versa? |
Roger wrote, "geoffkait: And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity." -- First, please note my statement you quoted doesn’t imply or claim that your amp doesn’t address the speed of sound issue or perhaps even solve the speed of sound problem. What I am saying is rather different. Roger wrote, "Are you saying that your own system is not right 80% of the time but you still enjoy it - yes?" -- No, I’m not saying that at all. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Strawman arguments are something I’m not find of. Lol What I’m actually saying is that no matter how well your amp addresses the speed of sound issue - assuming that a more "live" sound can be achieved, as you claim, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt - if the recording is statistically 80-90% R (as George claims) I.e., the sound waves are going in when they should be going out, then Mach 1 consistency in the amp can’t save you! Hel-loo! There are a lot of things I don’t like about recordings, especially CDs. Frankly I think CDs straight out of the jewel box generally sound thin, compressed, two dimensional, metallic, rolled off, bass shy, like paper mâché, congealed, blaring, irritating, generic and bland. How much of that is caused by the R nature of the CD, who knows? And I’m even willing to admit that some of all that might possibly be caused by Mach numbers being out of whack. Roger wrote, "Food for thought... If you can’t tell the difference when you switch the phase then it [the system] is not clean enough to expose it." That’s what I just got through telling Atmasphere is the likely explanation why George Louis was unable to hear the difference between R and N in the Atmasphere room at the show. The show is perhaps the worst possible venue to try to demonstrate anything, including the very speakers and amps and cables that make up the exhibit; exhibitors shoot themselves in the foot by not bringing along electonics or speakers that are ALREADY broken in. geoff kait machina dynamica |
Al wrote, "Hopefully Roger will provide further clarification, as a claim that "the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier" (that being Geoff’s restatement of Roger’s position), or to use some of Roger’s words earlier in the thread, "emulating the properties of air" and "addressing the delivery speed" are statements that have no meaning as far as I am concerned." Al, go to this page on the N. American Products thread for Roger’s discourse on the subject of the speed of sound in air issue, https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/has-anyone-heard-the-new-north-american-products-preamp-and-a... cheers |
Atmosphere wrote, "Well it was easy to hear on our system how the LP was better; and since LPs have greater bandwidth than CDs, pretty easy to discount his comment when he said ’you can’t hear it on analog recordings’." But that’s not what he said based on your original description of the event. What he said - or at least implied in your comment - was he didn’t listen to analog, only CDs so he wasn’t sure he could hear R compared to N for vinyl. He didn’t say NOBODY could hear polarity on analog recordings. That would be pretty silly, no? Getting back to his database of N and R recordings for a second, I will ask again, do you see any mistakes in the polarity of the recordings George listed? Whether he could or couldn’t hear the difference at your room I consider somewhat irrelevant for reasons I already explained. geoff kait |