Science that explains why we hear differences in cables?
Here are some excerpts from a review of the Silversmith Audio Fidelium speaker cables by Greg Weaver at Enjoy The Music.com. Jeff Smith is their designer. I have not heard these cables, so I don’t have any relevant opinion on their merit. What I find very interesting is the discussion of the scientific model widely used to design cables, and why it may not be adequate to explain what we hear. Yes it’s long, so, to cut to the chase, I pulled out the key paragraph at the top:
“He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.”
“One of the first things that stand out in conversation with Jeff about his cables is that he eschews the standard inductance/capacitance/resistance/impedance dance and talks about wave propagation; his designs are based solely upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of electron flow.
While Jeff modestly suggests that he is one of only "a few" cable designers to base his designs upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of the movement, or "flow," of electrons, I can tell you that he is the only one I’ve spoken with in my over four decades exploring audio cables and their design to even mention, let alone champion, this philosophy.
Cable manufacturers tend to focus on what Jeff sees as the more simplified engineering concepts of electron flow, impedance matching, and optimizing inductance and capacitance. By manipulating their physical geometry to control LCR (inductance, capacitance, and resistance) values, they try to achieve what they believe to be the most ideal relationship between those parameters and, therefore, deliver an optimized electron flow. Jeff goes as far as to state that, within the realm of normal cable design, the LRC characteristics of cables will not have any effect on the frequency response.
As this is the very argument that all the cable flat-Earther’s out there use to support their contention that cables can’t possibly affect the sound, it seriously complicates things, almost to the point of impossibility, when trying to explain how and why interconnect, speaker, digital, and power cables have a demonstrably audible effect on a systems resultant sonic tapestry.
He points out that the waveguide physics model explains very nicely why interconnect, loudspeaker, digital, and power cables do affect sound quality. And further, it can also be used to describe and understand other sonic cable mysteries, like why cables can sound distinctly different after they have been cryogenically treated, or when they are raised off the floor and carpet.
As such, his design goal is to control the interaction between the electromagnetic wave and the conductor, effectively minimizing the phase errors caused by that interaction. Jeff states that physics says that the larger the conductor, the greater the phase error, and that error increases as both the number of conductors increase (assuming the same conductor size), and as the radial speed of the electromagnetic wave within the conductor decreases. Following this theory, the optimum cable would have the smallest or thinnest conductors possible, as a single, solid core conductor per polarity, and should be made of metal with the fastest waveform transmission speed possible.
Jeff stresses that it is not important to understand the math so much as it is to understand the concept of electrical energy flow that the math describes. The energy flow in cables is not electrons through the wire, regardless of the more common analogy of water coursing through a pipe. Instead, the energy is transmitted in the dielectric material (air, Teflon, etc.) between the positive and negative conductors as electromagnetic energy, with the wires acting as waveguides. The math shows that it is the dielectric material that determines the speed of that transmission, so the better the dielectric, the closer the transmission speed is to the speed of light.
Though electromagnetic energy also penetrates into and through the metal conductor material, the radial penetration speed is not a high percentage of the speed of light. Rather, it only ranges from about 3 to 60 meters per second over the frequency range of human hearing. That is exceptionally slow!
Jeff adds, "That secondary energy wave is now an error, or memory, wave. The thicker the conductor, the higher the error, as it takes longer for the energy to penetrate. We interpret (hear) the contribution of this error wave (now combined with the original signal) as more bloated and boomy bass, bright and harsh treble, with the loss of dynamics, poor imaging and soundstage, and a lack of transparency and detail.
Perhaps a useful analogy is a listening room with hard, reflective walls, ceilings, and floors and no acoustic treatment. While we hear the primary sound directly from the speakers, we also hear the reflected sound that bounces off all the hard room surfaces before it arrives at our ears. That second soundwave confuses our brains and degrades the overall sound quality, yielding harsh treble and boomy bass, especially if you’re near a wall.
That secondary or error signal produced by the cable (basically) has the same effect. Any thick metal in the chain, including transformers, most binding posts, RCA / XLR connectors, sockets, wire wound inductors, etc., will magnify these errors. However, as a conductor gets smaller, the penetration time decreases, as does the degree of phase error. The logic behind a ribbon or foil conductor is that it is so thin that the penetration time is greatly reduced, yet it also maintains a large enough overall gauge to keep resistance low.”
For those interested, here is more info from the Silversmith site, with links to a highly technical explanation of the waveguide model and it’s relevance to audio cables:
Many of you have so many years of audiophile experience on me, I'll just relay my own take.
Cables make a difference, but so much else is so much more important, that until I get those things right, a good-enough cable is the end of the practical question.
Until I have room acoustics sorted, worrying about cables is an indication of misplaced priorities.
I suppose everyone here with an invested opinion on cables has got their room acoustics as good as they can get, and that's why cables are a live question. Not me.
I wonder how many have blind tested speaker cables. It would be fun if the person conducting the test would tell the participant they were listening to the most expensive cable when in fact they were listening to the least expensive. Perhaps there is a "Emperors New Cloths Effect". I would say if you have to test a cable on a machine that shows the amount of distortion comparison, we might be splitting hairs. I would be interested in hearing Miller Carbon's comment on this, as I think he is one of the most knowledgeable in our group.
My purpose in starting this thread was not to say that Jeff Smith has everything totally correct, or that his cables (or anyone else’s) are the be all and end all. It was to point out that there is valid science which allows for, and can explain, audible differences between cables, despite those who loudly and repeatedly proclaim otherwise.
@djones51 when science is used as in the articles cited in the OP to promote cable sales and sound difference it’s okay to call BS when the underlying principles in those articles prove no such thing. Buy what you want but don’t deride science then use it.
I think that was what I’d have liked (or was trying) to say in my convoluted rants, but was slightly unsure of myself. Thankyou.
No credible scientist would ever say that the science is settled on any number of issues.
But neither would they distort and misrepresent known and agreed on principles - to do so revokes any and all credibility. They have a lot to answer for on a wider and quite serious ethical level.
Belden does cast Iconoclast cables but it costs a lot to change dies and produce which is one reason they cost so much. If people like them and want to pay the price fine but the science behind them has no provable audible difference to any other cable. Belden wouldn't make them under their name so he retired and went on his own.
Of course there's valid science behind audible differences in cables and it's measurable. You don't need to invoke waveguide EM which is basically only used in radar and microwave frequency just stick to the LCR or connection type.
This may be a little off-topic but when my Bryston amplifier had an intermittent issue with not powering up the first question Bryston technical support asked me was something to the effect of: Do you have some sort of aftermarket power cord?
Bryston doesn't recommend deluxe power cables according to the Tech. I didn't think to ask why it would be an issue...Wish I had.
My amplifier was remoted from the preamp location to a cubby-hole in my house and sometimes it wouldn't power up. I had to reset the power to get some kind of latch relay to reset. It turned out that a ground loop was the issue. I put the amplifier on the same circuit and phase as the preamplifier and the problem disappeared.
Happy with my Audioquest type 4's.....its all any sane person needs.....a recommended Stereophile component since the 80's I believe...also unchanged....although, now, discontinued....a pity...
When I was in film school, we had a prof who had an amazing approach to teaching.
I forget the context this bit came out in class, but here goes.
(this relates to MC’s thoughts on listening and learning how to hear)
The discussion went something like this. Cave drawings were outlines. The idea he presented (which was not his, but from others research) argued that as primitive beings, we saw the world as outlines. These outline drawings became solids at a point. The solids eventually became detailed. Visual representation was up until this point depicting a 2 dimensional world. Then perspective (forgive the pun) came into the picture. The development of artificial “sight”, follows the exact same trajectory. Edge detection, solid/form detection, detail detection and finally perspective.
The theory goes something like this. As primitive beings, it is speculated that we could only see edges. Then someone drew solid forms, and we learned to see solids. Then details and finally perspective. The theory goes that we learned to see in a more complex way, we didn’t always have access to the full spectrum we now have. Artificial object detection has followed the same path.
So, being able to see was an evolved process. This is where I spin that to audio.
Here’s the difference between sight and sound. Prior to recorded/reproduced sound, our biological hearing abilities evolved to where they needed to be. Meaning, we only need to be able to hear so much to be able to survive. Recorded sound is new. Recorded images, go waaaaaay back.
So, now that we can record and reproduce sounds in a manner, and of a quality beyond what we can currently “hear”, that doesn’t mean that what we currently hear is actually the limit of what our ears are capable of identifying. As we develop new technologies, and as we continue to live with the technologies we currently have access to, our hearing, like our vision will continue to evolve. We are limited biologically by the demands placed on our hearing
That happened in real time for me btw, I never made that correlation before.
What you’re saying is we can hear things now that we we might evolve to being able to hear sometime in the future. What do you consider to be the reason we will develop super hearing? What survival need will push the evolutionary pressure for human super hearing? Stereo playback??
When I was in film school, we had a prof who had an amazing approach to teaching.
I forget the context this bit came out in class, but here goes.
(this relates to MC’s thoughts on listening and learning how to hear)
The discussion went something like this. Cave drawings were outlines. The idea he presented (which was not his, but from others research) argued that as primitive beings, we saw the world as outlines. These outline drawings became solids at a point. The solids eventually became detailed. Visual representation was up until this point depicting a 2 dimensional world. Then perspective (forgive the pun) came into the picture. The development of artificial “sight”, follows the exact same trajectory. Edge detection, solid/form detection, detail detection and finally perspective.
The theory goes something like this. As primitive beings, it is speculated that we could only see edges. Then someone drew solid forms, and we learned to see solids. Then details and finally perspective. The theory goes that we learned to see in a more complex way, we didn’t always have access to the full spectrum we now have. Artificial object detection has followed the same path.
So, being able to see was an evolved process. This is where I spin that to audio.
Here’s the difference between sight and sound. Prior to recorded/reproduced sound, our biological hearing abilities evolved to where they needed to be. Meaning, we only need to be able to hear so much to be able to survive. Recorded sound is new. Recorded images, go waaaaaay back.
So, now that we can record and reproduce sounds in a manner, and of a quality beyond what we can currently “hear”, that doesn’t mean that what we currently hear is actually the limit of what our ears are capable of identifying. As we develop new technologies, and as we continue to live with the technologies we currently have access to, our hearing, like our vision will continue to evolve. We are limited biologically by the demands placed on our hearing
That happened in real time for me btw, I never made that correlation before.
i have read your post the first time with great pleasure....
And i immediately say that this was a great piece of thinking....
I will rtepeat here the same thing and i thank you for adding to the " perspective" of us all ...
Anyway seeing is like hearing a perspective learned by the soul which manifested in a temporary living form we call a body...Cassirer called that a "symbolic form"....
If we take for example the " conic perspectival" acquisition at the times of Brunelleschi and Alberti, many books were written about this new pictural tool which reflect a very deep change in the human consciousness...
Save for the classic book about perspective in art like Panovsky a disciple of the great Cassirer, the greatest illuminated exposition of the meaning of "perspective" is about to be found in Jean Gebser " the ever present origin"...
Perspective is a manifestation of the way the consciousness now link itself to the world...
«
According to Gebser, the five structures of consciousness we met up with in my November 18, 2020 post Stages Versus Structures: Exploring Jean Gebser, Lesson I (you will find the link is at the bottom of this post)—archaic, magic, mythic, mental, and integral—can be grouped into three larger categories, or three worlds, as he calls them: unperspectival, perspectival, and aperspectival. While the nomenclature may at first feel intimidating, it’s actually quite easy to master if you keep your elementary school art days in mind. Unperspectival is how you drew before you learned about foreground and background, when everything was all just jumbled onto the drawing sheet. Perspectival is the drawing sheet once you’ve learned to arrange it in relationship to that hypothetical point on the horizon. And aperspectival is what ensues once you’ve learned to convey several perspectives simultaneously, as in some of Picasso’s surrealistic artwork where he simultaneously shows you the front side and back side of a person. A heads up: in Gebser the prefix “a” always conveys the meaning of “free from.” Thus an aperspectival view is one that is free from captivity to a single central point of reference.
The Unperspectival World embraces the archaic, magic, and mythic structures.
The Perspectival World hosts the mental structure.
The Aperspectival World is the still-emerging integral structure.
Each of these three perspectives is properly called a world because it comprises an entire gestalt, an entire womb of meaning in which we live and move and make our connections. Each has its own distinctive fragrance, ambience, tincture. Each is an authentic pathway of participation, an authentic mode of encountering the cosmos, God, and our own selfhood. Each has its brilliant strengths and its glaring weaknesses. Compositely, they evoke “the width and length and height and depth” of our collective human journey into consciousness.»
Learning to hear is also a consciousness manifestation...It takes time and hearing music for example of Scriabin, Bruckner, Monterverdi, Schoenberg, or Jazz or Persian and Indian music or Chineese etc cannot be instantaneous at all...All of these styles reflect unique perspective on not only music but about consciousness in history...
All musical history reflect constraints imposed by consciousness on himself in some "perspective"...This perspective is some take on consciousness by consciousness itself at a moment in time...
Then music is not about taste ONLY but about learning....
Only simple mind believe that we know what sound is and musical sound...I own a book about timbre which is written by specialists around the world...No one explain "timbre" experience and perception fully.... Timbre experience is a sonic perception irreducible to Frequencies spectrum...
It take more then the actual education at school to learn that...
"superhearing" does not exist like an isolated power for the few, save in the mouth of people reading comic book to mock observed facts they dont understand and dont want to understand......Normal hearing is already a super power which we are unconscious of simply, and we all potentially own this power ...
Hearing is a complex phenomenon about which we know very little...Not only we dont know what "timbre " is but:
Blind people can identify geometrical form of car house and roads, they can perceive some qualitative properties of objects and in some case READ with their hand normally printed with ink characters on a sheet of paper...
It is not a super power in a comic book...It is the usual way or the learned way people can develop new experiences...
Remote viewing can be learn for example by everyone...
It was even studied by US forces and Russia... all this is documentated...
It is normal phenomenon pertaining to the only center of perception there is which is consciousness...
If you think consciousness could be recreated by A.I. skip my post...
😁😊😊😊😊😊
All that is not written by me to justify the abuse of "science language " to sell cables... It is an answer to those who think science exist like an absolute knowledge religion...Science is a TOOL for wisdom...Goethe think so....
Wisdom is not science, science is not technology, and technology is not knowledge...
John who? Really with all due respect, what John Dunlavy thinks about cables doesnt move me. Mr D. suffers from the same prejudices as the rest of us. Perhaps more if he adheres to the thought of some sort of measurable validation. His speakers were good, but never my favorites of that era.
We live in a capitalist country. If you do not research/study these things independently, then you very well may fall sway to the honey coated sweet nothings being whispered into your ears…
There is no provision or amendment in the constitution that says for profit companies have to have the consumers best interests at heart.
any cable fetish type bother to peek under the hood of their equipment? The wires inside don’t seem to be very impressive..
Yet the 27 caret solid unobtainaim core with unicorn mane outer braid will bring out the mini/macro dynamics…all for $5,000 per 1/4 meter….
and John dunlavy was a exceptional producer of speakers.. it’s low class to disparage the deceased when many recording studios use(d) his products..
Thanks for the video link. I am only part-way through, but consider it to be very insightful, and particularly useful for those of us who do not have engineering backgrounds.
So it would be O.K. to disparage John D if he were alive? Plus I didnt disparage I just stated that I am not convinced that he is the ideal spokesperson for all things audio. Also I should remind you that JBLs were a darling of recording studios for years and these speakers stunk.
Perkri, I want to tell you that I enjoyed very much your post regarding the comparison between recorded images and recorded sound, as it gave me much to think about. However, I do not think it is an accurate comparison, and that I believe you may have made a categorical mistake.
You see, the cave paintings at lescaux and others actually began as ‘expressions’, creative or otherwise, that the fact of their being recorded were mere default outcomes of the expression itself - they were not originally intended to be recordings, the medium of which simply allowed the recording to occur. In much the same way as the prehistoric expression of sound began as simply that, an ‘expression’, to which no default record of that expression was available at the time, since the default medium of sound as air waves was, and still is, transient.
In line with this logic, one can say that the ‘expression’ of images and sound may have indeed occurred in prehistory at about the same time, in fact, in much the same way that little by way of time separates the intended recording of the visible world by way of photography from the intended recording of sound waves - gauged in relation to the duration of the human species.
It was a categorical mistake to associate and thus compare the act of expression with an act of recording. The visual act of expression is intrinsic related to its medium of record, while the audible act of expression can be entirely independent of it. I hope this makes sense.
From the viewpoint of prehistoric survival, it could indeed be argued that both sight and sound, had to evolve in tandem.
And, in similar vein, it can be argued that seeing is no different from hearing - they both take years of experience to perceive well, observantly, and insightfully. There are as many people who look but do not see, as there are who hear, but are unable to listen.
To the one making the early cave drawings, sure, they may have served the purpose of expression. What that expression was intended to do, could be wide ranging. I’m speaking more to the viewers of that image. Creative/artistic/historical narrative, whatever the reason behind it, they still exist as a record. Something was important enough to be recorded. There was a drawing at the end of it. This drawing, it is theorized, was not limited merely by technical ability, but also by limits of visual perception. We have lived with these produced images for a very, very long time.
And I would agree that visual and auditory abilities evolved in parallel to aid in survival.
However, we have lived with pictures a lot longer than we have lived with recorded sound. Our ability to see has had, over millennia, far more stimulus than our auditory abilities. Our evolution has been driven by external factors placing a demand on our biological abilities. The reproduction of recorded sound is now at a far greater resolution than our use of our ears have needed to be able to decipher. As we are an ever changing and dynamic creature, it would stand to reason that as greater stimulus is being presented to out senses, that our senses will continue to evolve in order to register these higher levels of sound. And as far as what this has to do with survival, I suspect that region between our reptilian and mid brains will only register a new external stimulus and try to “understand” it and if it is a threat or not. But in order to be able to do that, it needs to be able to decipher it. And in order to do that, our hearing needs to evolve.
Photography as we know it today, is also a very new medium. And it has changed how we in fact see the world. Even then Camera Obscura, which goes back much further, also changed how we view the world. (Only it doesn’t deal with time in the same way a traditional camera does).
I tend to believe that everything we do that takes something that resides in the very intangible inner world of humans, and makes that into something tangible to be shared with others, is as you stated, an expression. What is left, is a record of that expression. Time, will tend to shift the purpose of that object, and place some form of value to it.
Take the photographer Karl Blussfelt or example. Spent years documenting plants. He wished to shed light on the structure of plants and his photographs were used as teaching tools at first. Only later, were they “elevated” to the stature of “art”. Whatever they were, or are now, they are a record. Playback of sounds, which requires that they be recorded, where we have the ability to play the same thing over and over again ad nauseam has put a new kind of strain on our hearing. This has only been possible since the advent of recorded sound.
And no, I’m not suggesting super hearing, or “golden ears”, but rather a collective shift in how we hear as a global phenomenon.
And the ongoing “science says it isn’t possible”argument is tiresome. Science is not a static thing, it’s a massive structure with one bit being added to another as new information becomes possible to understand. Hence my reference to Maxwells equations above. When the argument is presented that “science says it isn’t so”, it’s a very limited outlook. The phrase should be “our current scientific knowledge suggests that it shouldn’t be possible”.
When the argument is presented that “science says it isn’t so”, it’s a very limited outlook. The phrase should be “our current scientific knowledge suggests that it shouldn’t be possible”.
I'm not actually sure where “science says it isn’t so” is actually put forward in the context of this thread ( the title is "science that explains why we hear differences in cables").
In the meantime, my own hearing and perceptions will never catch up with the known science/technology that is currently available. I have a long way to go before I am sated, or needing to engage in pursuing possible off-the-radar holy grail possibilities.
I have no qualms should that be considered a limited outlook. The DC comic character Superman may find our humble scientific knowledge rather quaint, however I can't recall him ever even listening to music. I reckon us humans have a few tricks to show those aliens.
Thanks for your clarification, perkri, as well as your relevant comments regarding the true nature of science and possibility : )
You have made a good case for the combined presence of expressed and intended visual recording being around much longer than the equivalent for sound, but in parting, I would like to add that the preponderance of the visual and graphic record has not necessary led to greater sophistication with the way the average human being uses and exploits it’s perception of sight, any more or less than it’s perception of sound, because in either case, our individual capabilities to truly see or listen still appears to be a deeply learned skill, rather than anything having to do with our collective genetic, social, or cultural codes. I wonder if my conclusion adds to your own beliefs regarding the same?
I would like to add that the preponderance of the visual and graphic record has not necessary led to greater sophistication with the way the average human being uses and exploits it’s perception of sight, any more or less than it’s perception of sound,
I think you underestimated the power of ideation and thinking which is inseparably associated with any perception...
The perspective revolution in art and science so deep it was, and it was one of the greatest revolution almost in times with the Copernician revolution changed completely the way the man "perceive" the sky and all phenomena around him...
When we see an object we must "recognize him" to see him properly... If not what we perceive dont correspond with all the necessary perspectives of what it is which may be perceived or not...
Then this perspectival revolution is one the greatest event in human history, which is something easy to verify in the litterature...
To see an object is not to " sense a presence in a way or in another " it is also and mostly to be able to consciously name it because we own the idea and the concept corresponding to it....
Anyway your own post illustrate that perfectly, because you say something which hide one of the greatest event in visual perception without even knowing that you are unconscious of the "meaning" of this event....Think about that... You use the word " perspective" without knowing what is its meaning in history... It is there that the "sophistication" you speak about are...The reason is that the "perspectival event in history is not terminated in his effect and working of the human mind and perception...There is another revolution now in this century but i cannot speak about this new "aperspectival" revolution in this post which manifest itself for example in the creation of a totally new geometry like fractal geometry.... Perspecxtive is associated in mathematic with the projective geometry deep revolution in our perception of space....
Seeing is not only "sensing something" BUT also giving meaning to visual appearence...
Then no, there is a great change, contrary to what you just said, in the way the average human being use "consciously" after the the 16th century and exploit consciouly his perception of space...But not for all people at the same times and instantaneously for sure...It is an ongoing evolutive process because all human being are not all at the same spiritual level of perception, they dont live in the same world so to speak . they dont live at the same time...
In one word we think like we are able to see, and we see like we are able to think...
We hear like we are able to imagine and we imagine after what we are able to hear...
Thinking is not only possible passive false fantasy but also ACTIVE imaginative creative power,...
Casssirer one time gives the example of an undulated line, like a wave, drawn on a sheet of paper being "a symbolic form", being potentially a sign for a hunter, a wave for a sailor, a script ffor a linguist, a beautiful form for a painter, a religious symbol for a priest, an a line without special meaning for some people...
The line could also not even be perceived.... A nothing, as nothing special at all, an error, a stain on a white paper....
Then no, recording the artistic or spiritual expression of the soul in primeval times lead and announce a change in perception ....
Perspectival era in history is a "sign" reflecting not only the new way we see and perceive now and from that moment but the way we think...
Remember that we think with all our senses and our hands and legs and with our heart and with our body...
Thinking is literally like a walking body in an imagined new world....Nothing short....
Writers know that and creative genius like Geothe, Da Vinci or Copernic or Kepler...
For sure the direct record of graphic expression of visual "art" is not a DIRECT and merely unique factor of change in the way we see, like you justly said, but it is a factor linked to many others for sure...
In the same way the tape recorder is not a direct factor modifying only by itself the way we hear, but it is an indirect factor which participate in an ongoing evolution of the ability to hear and in the way we are able to recognize new perspective so to speak in the "information" linked to what is heard...
Human are way more like animals in the superhuman abilities...They could consciously evolved and catch with animals in their own way...
A blind woman reading ink sign on a sheet of paper illustrate that our hand are also an "eye".... Think about that....
I'm not going to get into how this applies to low frequency audio work, but in going through the math, there are some errors in it. So, that makes me suspect of the paper and conclusions.
I don't understand the need for those who believe their and others subjective opinions need science to validate those opinions, especially using articles they don't understand and are suspect as to even applying to audio.
For sure raping science discourse for the pleasure to sell cables is an abomination...
But claiming the authority of science to negate psycho-acoustic individual experience is not less worst...
The use of blind test may be useful but detrimental also by the way... Blind test methods are ONE STEP in a multiple complex processes in science activity and research not a circus... Then debunking systematically is James Randi Science not science....
I suggest to everybody, who think he know already what science is, this book:
"Personal knowledge" Michael Polanyi...( one of the greatest thinker by the way in this field)
It is a writer but more importantly a scientist who know what science is.... Consult wiki if you dont know him already...
Knowing what science is will help many here....
A clue: science is not an industrial planified theoretical and experimental centralized project...In audio or elsewhere...If it was the case pharmaceutical conglomerate for example would be all there is about science in this field.... The actual situation in the world illustrate perfectly why this is not the case at all... 😁😁😁
The contributions which Polanyi made to the social sciences include an understanding of tacit knowledge, and the concept of a polycentric spontaneous order to intellectual inquiry were developed in the context of his opposition to central planning.
If a speaker cable makes a difference to the sound, and I believe it can, then that means the driver is moving differently when fed the same signal from the amplifier, so the sound waves are different when they reach the listener's ear. If the sound waves are audibly different I am confident the difference can be measured with modern equipment. I want to see those measurements first, to see what has changed. Then I'll be interested in how the waveguide theory explains that difference, and how that difference relates to our perception of the sound. First I need to know what happened. Then I'll be ready to look at explanations.
First I need to know what happened. Then I’ll be ready to look at explanations. Report
The ox pul the cart not the opposite...
Generally we cannot know what happened if we dont look very minutely and meticulously at it...
And generally we dont look at it because we believe nothing has happened anyway...
Speaker cable MAY make a change generally and it is easy to verify in the right conditions...
This dont means that we know why ....
And this also means that any a priori so called scientific rejection of cables differences means nothing here... Why? Because science is complex and physical acoustic is not electrical engineering and even none of these two together is psycho-acoustic science...
In general you cannot deduce of the way a boat disapear on the horizon the fact that earth is round instead of being flat , if you BELIEVE strongly that the earth is flat anyway....
We must want to see or to hear something if we want not only to see and to hear it but if we want in addition to explain it...
If i misread your post intention, it is possible, i apologize in advance....
@perkri - that is a remarkable post on the development of cave art. Thank you for sharing that here.
@mahgister - thanks for keeping this discussion going. Too many people shout “science” as a strategy to force others into their belief system. It’s nice to see others not falling for that.
The OP shouted "science" in the title so I was under the impression the thread was about "science" , you know "science" that explains why we hear differences in wire. I don't see any arm twisting to force anyone into believing in "science" , believe whatever you want "science" isn't interested in beliefs.
I think that the "pseudo science" used by these manufacturers are to satisfy your ilk not mine. I readily acknowledge that people hear differently and that what you might call innate abilities are not universal. Further, I need no validation of any type to acknowledge audible differences in all things audio including cables. The fact that it is suffices.
I don’t see any arm twisting to force anyone into believing in "science" , believe whatever you want "science" isn’t interested in beliefs.
Precisely the opposite is true....You often armtwist someone with your "positivist" technological conception of science.... 😁😊
The opposite is true because ,willing or not willing, science is an ACTUAL belief consciously opposing to another belief, but WITH the power of a conscious ethical method...
Beliefs participate to this "tacit knowledge" which is the main property of scientific kowledge in general...All scientist has biases but their task is to become conscious of these biases... All biases are not negative they could be learned biases not only innate one and they could be positive...Biases are not always there to be eliminated like in a blind test method, biases could be used in a conscious way....We cannot take a simplistic stance here...
Then believing is an essential part of what participate in the science activity even if we dont wanted to; the problem dont come from a belief itself, but from our own unconscious embrace of a belief who drive our own reaction without our own conscious participation...
A belief is a problem in the exact proportion of our inability to be conscious of it or of his consequences... Science make any belief conscious idea...Science is method not dogma...
Tacit knowkledge is the main concept of one of the greatest scientist and philosopher of science : Michael Polaniyi in his book "personal knowledge"....
Tacit knowledge is the skill to do something without being aware of it or being able to explain it and it may be linked to intuition, belief, habit, cultural empowerment and programmation, imagination and other implicit "knowing"...
History of science is also an history of beliefs of the past but the difference is that the scientist make his implicit belief an explicit experience...Then Ptolemaic belief can be integrated in Copernician belief, and Copernician belief in Keplerian belief, and Keplerian belief in Newton belief, and Newton belief can be integrated in Einstein belief et so on....
«History of science is science itself» Goethe
But we can reduce science to technology, and knowledge to power....:Like apprentice sorcerer want to do...
But this is no more science, this is scientism, this is a religion, the cult of power hubris, transhumanism is the perfect exemple nowadays...
By the way that is perfectly described in the Goethe major work " Faust" ...
«Yesterday i understood science but today i dont understand it at all »-Groucho Marx summarizing Max Planck biography 🤓
My ilk? As opposed to what? Yours? Of course people hear differently I never said otherwise. People also hear differences in components, I don't question that.
Armtwist? LOL I don't care what anyone thinks or believes. I never write tomes on these threads. Should I count the insults thrown at me by you in just that one post?
Armtwist? LOL I don’t care what anyone thinks or believes. I never write tomes on these threads. Should I count the insults thrown at me by you in just that one post?
Sorry but i dont insult by using your own word....
And if you want an example here, some others like you, attacked by mocking him without even being curious and fair, the russian guy who create the Thread about " direction in wiring", one of the most interesting thread created ever here, about experiments, not only in engineering design of a directed wired amplifier but also in psycho- acoustic science experiments, if you had dare to read the official site of this russian engineer...
The russion guy tired by your ...... has quit....Put the word you want in the empty interval....
Then saying that you armwrist and armtwist people with your "restricted idea" of engineering or science is a fact not an insult...
Then we both dont care what others think and both base our beliefs on our personal experiences. This is precisely why I dont care about articles and justifications. Experience tells me all I need to know.
Because there are probably not much science in the marketing of cables, some skills yes...
And there are probably less science in the professional cable debunker for sure...
I never read cable marketting, nor debunkers....
Debate about cables are annoying, and price of cable is often a scam yes...
But if someone is not deaf he know almost any change in a system is audible... No super hearing is needed here... Only habit with your system will speak to you about that...
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.
