The Science of Cables

The eye is capable of discerning a single photon of light. This is a known thing.

This just in about the ear: The ear is capable of detecting sound where the motion of the cilia in the ear is....

>>less than the width of an atom.<<

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-mechanism-ear-exquisite-sensitivity.html

Unlike the science of measurement, the ear hears those minuscule motions at the top of the waveform, and does not relegate then to being a percentage thereof,and therefore...unimportant.

The ear hears the sum peak of a waveform, and the micro disturbances are part of the peak as well, a very small nano level disturbance. We do indeed her those micro differences in the realm of timing of peaks and micro peaks, all in level and in temporal relation with one another. All at once.

Less than the width of an atom? wow.

And that’s not the complex harmonics and timing in such added in, which we can discern. The ’all at once’ part. The ’all interrelated’ part.

When viewed as a complex FFT analysis device, the ear and brain are not exceeded by any hardware in existence at this time. This part we do know.

So, measurement can relate. Relate is the key word. But it cannot define and ’interview’ the scenario as well as the ear.

In such things, we slam head on into the brick wall of the fundamental disconnect between what the measurements are and how this specifically relates to hearing.

Then, to complicate matters to the nth...the differences between ears, individually, and brains, individually, is as great as the spectrum of intelligence on an IQ chart.

Added in to square the nth as issue.. is... we each learn to discern things, with our ears, individually, in our given growth environment. Where the package we end up with at birth, is ’informed’ of what sound is..individually, via the learning process we inherently individually possess...and growth situations we individually encounter.

As you can hopefully begin to understand, disturbing this very complex and very individual system...via ignorance in testing for function - such a thing can trip up this incredibly sensitive and self built individual system.

Back on point: To then conclude via interference and masking in testing/measuring and ignorance in understanding of the entire package, in multiple directions (via very poorly and ignorantly thought out testing regimen and protocols) that people are fooling themselves......well..., this cannot, in any form of logic and scientific method, ever equate to explaining away what people hear in cables.

The part about the Ear Q spread, like an IQ chart. This is critical.

This is the part where someone says, "if I can’t hear it then it does not exist. And I’ll explain it away with the hammers I know, the hammers I understand."

That’s a problem. A HUGE problem, and the person has to possess the wherewithal to understand that, well, maybe they simply can’t and never will. And if that is the case, then one should not bring that to the doorstep of the people who can hear the differences and find those differences important.

Stay out of an argument one can’t understand. It really is that simple.  But not unexpected as problems go, as many don't uhm, er, understand the incredible skill set of the ear, the difference between individual ears/brains, and the incompleteness and lack of capacity of the measurements and methodology -in comparison to said ear.

"A single photon is detectable but it conveys no information. "

Does anyone here know what the word contradiction means?

I see it went down to name calling fairly fast. As in, your post is all about dismissal -poorly framed and delivered at that. With a sprinkling of polarization attempting to look like logic --as projections of appeals to authority.

In other words, you’ve got nothing... and you are attempting to frame it as if you do have something.

When that happens, all that is left is the sputtering. Which we can plainly see.

As for LCR, it’s fine, it’s nice, whatever. A limited tool at best.

It’s good to remember that numbers exist no where in the real world, that numbers are an abstract thing in a human mind. They can never be real. It’s a tool...and it is in charge of exactly nothing. Math can be one of those incredibly dangerous ultimate appeals to authority, if one is not careful. Forests and tress and all that.

Actual real sciences puts humans in charge and never puts things like LCR in charge. It is also a human that fools themselves that LCR is biblical, singular, all encompassing... and immutably in charge. Man made dogma, such a thing is. Limited reach-reaching it’s limit. Totally anti-science.

I’m trying to say.... a fully fleshed out argument would have no losers, just more illumination for all. And your argument is way out of whack, way off center. Certainly not fit for the professorial lunch room. So many holes that a sieve would be a better stopper.

Basically, I pulled my post and left this instead...as this is just an entrenched position thread, where we each lob bombs over the hedge without regard to the damage we do to each other, as we feel threatened in our expression fundamentals. We feel threatened at our core.

The only end point in such things... is where the thread is overly moderated and then shut down.

I'd like to bring the tone down, not tensioned and ratcheted up.

Thank you for not being sure. Key point, there.

Except for the fact that you contradict yourself by consciously choosing specific cables for the given system in hand ---to act as tone controls. You made a conscious sonic choice.

Those cables in that given simple system. that was a conscious sound aspect choice.

You made a choice of order of operations. Although it is one I would use first.... and those that chose more expensive cables.... have also made choices in the same order of operations. (what is important to pursue first)

Except being that they are now at the point where they look at various cables to deal with even more nuances within the issues -- than you are.

You go on ad nauseam on the same line like a big armed crab with exactly one hammer with one blow available. Repetition of your take and line, in no way makes you correct in the face of the overall minimum of many hundreds of thousands who disagree with you..

(Eg, that audioquest cables sales alone over the past 30 years exceeds that number by far, never mind the rest over the past 30 years)

Ok. Maybe I can help out here again. Wordsmithing contests can post to the following thread:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/arguments-devolve-on-threads-to-wordsmithing-contests

Where .. it is always interesting in how one can usually tell that an entrenched position will not change no matter how good the argument is.

That thing about how 90% what a person interprets in another bit of screed, comes from the reader... as 90% of the live cues used in wording interpretation are missing in ’just screed’. So most pronouncements are generally, a huge reflection of who the person actually is and has little to do with anything else.

There are a few where that will not change, not change at any price, any price that can be delivered by screed on forums. Too much personal investment.

And, taking what I feel is a fully correct swipe at some of the pseudonym hiders, usually they hide behind pseudonyms so they can dish out the kind of projected junk they would never utter in person to anyone or any group.

Note to projectors. Thanks for showing us who and what you really are.

And Good Night.....

Interesting domino effect on that, where scientific objectivity is a concept in a subjective world and illustrates that objective science is 100% unreal. That it lives by consensus and not much of anything else.

Where objectivity in the world of physics and science disappears on the quantum scale and everything is just our macro interpretation of the multi-dimensional quantum reality.

But it can’t be unreal, if you believe in it and believe along with others that it is real. That there is a minimal frameworks (table of elements-at atomic scales and up to macro, etc--but enter breakdown in various ways and directions), and you’ve collectively positioned a concept upon it. That it is conceptual, a projection. Likened to straight lines and numbers, which don’t exist at all.

All of science and in particular the last decade and particular the last few years..is driven right square head on ----into this logic gauntlet.

I just love the data in the PEAR institute tests on an over view of meta testing. the tests that showed..at a odds of less than billions to one of being wrong...that.. people get the results they desire and unconsciously push for.

The gist of it is this:
Scientists have noted for decades, the preponderance of non correlating results in tests that involved non contact experiments.

Specifically psychic tests, ones involving time and whatnot. Ie, seal a answer chosen, safely store it for two months or a year, whatever. Then conduct the psychic sensitivity test. select the answer Then open the correct envelope or box, that was put away two months earlier. and the correlation is like 85%. Where anything over 50% is statistically significant.

To rigorously do science with as much in the way of potentials for error or lies to be covered any and all aspects involved, yet the correlation remains high.

So that all of the scientists outside of the experiment and anyone else, to say, before the experiments are done, that the methods are foolproof in the extreme, so much that people doing the review, pre-experiment... swears they’ll shoot themselves if the results can be faked. total confidence. In all. by all.

Then to have a set of skeptics do similar levels of hard work and set up in testing regimes....and achieve obviously null or statistically insignificant results.That skeptics and haters do the exact same thing an achieve different results.

So the one group designed a universal test. A meta test of all the tests and meta tests.(and that original set of tests was over decades and involved over 1000 tests and over 10,000 people)

Skeptics, believers and open minded neutral groups were selected to review and set up the psychic test protocols. three groups of accredited scientists, all with extensive backgrounds in testing of all kinds..

all three groups believed that the results would be and are going to be, 100% unassailably correct in outcome, and they all agree to to do the tests the exact same way. Billions to one, shoot yourself if it’s a lie, kinda agreement.

Each group came out with exactly different results. Yet they all agreed beforehand that this would be impossible to achieve, re any possible dispute in results..

The psychic believers got a 100% level of correlation that psychic sensitivties are 100% real. Billions to one of being wrong on that.

The skeptics, haters and non believer group, got a 100% level of correlation that psychic sensitivities are 100% garbage. Billions to one of being wrong on that.

And the open minded non assuming ambiguous group ended up with ambiguous results that could be be one way or another.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
The end result of all that... is the illustration... that --intent drives reality.

Intent drives reality. Intent steers reality. Intent drives and steers reality through and beyond all 3d space-time.

And that it is billions to one and beyond, that this assessment is wrong.

Where you are free to project, disbelieve and live by the assertion that this is wrong and landlubber Newtonian reality is all there is and all that stuff is garbage. And all those people are nutbars and charlatans, and snake oil peddlers. And you can to do test after test after test until the known universe ends---- and all the data will support you. And they can do the same perfected tests and 100% prove you wrong.

And the universe will give you that or surround you with it exactly and exclusively. As you wish.

Meanwhile, not looking around the correct corner with the correct thought, mind, or eyes..., this means the entire point is missed.

You get back and are the exact thing you project and live by/as.

That the universe and space time are entirely malleable, in pretty well all ways you can imagine, and can’t imagine.

You are what you is.

Go ahead, eat that, skeptic. Good luck with that.

Again, though, the universe says you can live wrapped up in that shortsighted blinked self lie and roll forward on it, eating the world in such an insane mindset. Science has already proven this.

How you gonna deal with that? It’s a case of falling though non existent skies with zero safe ground, and it’s all on you. That your inner monkey filter/machine/carrier gets picked up and dropped across the universe's knee so hard it's back is shattered into a thousand disappearing pieces.

Watch out for all the conflicting FUD. That human reality, motion, flow, etc... is a conscious and unconscious collective of individuals, and we are in the drivers seat, and to a high degree...if we are aware of what is actually going on.

What p-value was accepted here?

You’ll have to break down and look up the pear studies yourself.

Right now, you have questions, so you can reserve for yourself, full denial... and walk away and never look.. but that is an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

You were given the doorway to walk through (names being named), that should be enough, to step in and take a look.
Although there should be a internet rule for this problem, similar to rule 34. like "If the subject is contentious, there will be fully fleshed out denials of it". the pear studies and this given meta test, are a drop in the bucket of the data trails... 

It's the same pattern and problem... of isolated drug testing. where in the real world, all the drugs and the environment interact. In the way a low level considered safe carcinogen is having to deal with 1000-2000-5000 low level chemicals and carcinogens/precursors/drivers/etc, which as a sum total in the real world has 'Cancer' writ large --all over it.

All one has to do is start putting the dots on a page, through looking, looking, looking... and the dots will emerge/converge into a load line of probability that escapes all potential to question it's validity. that thing about science not being a simple bit of reading...

Hence the line, "feel free to disagree'.

But the reality says.... that one may be butchering themselves and their potential...in the process. And never know it, or understand it.

In 1961, when Wigner introduced the idea that would eventually become known as "Wigner’s friend," only one scenario was used. With the new experiment, it was doubled and the results that Wigner had first discussed more than 50 years still rang true.

Quantum mechanics gives detail on how the world works at a scale so small that the rules of physics do not apply, Live Science added. With the new findings of the study, the field of quantum mechanics may change if measurements are not the same for everyone.

"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer told Live Science. "The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: the underlying characteristic of all Newtonian objectivity is entirely quantum mechanical in nature and type.

That above excerpt regards a study that was released the other day.

And a thousand other places to look and find more supporting data, if one is brave enough to look.

This is how groups if ’deniers’ can do a multitude of ’psychic sensitivity’ testing at the most rigorous levels of quality possible and always come up empty.

Where those who believe that psychic sensitivity is real, when enacting the most rigorous scientifically objectively enacted studies (just like deniers) will receive back...a perfect confirmation of it’s reality. As they have in thousands of instances of rigorously perfected studies, for many decades.

It really is: You get back what you put out. Objectivity cannot and does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination and projections, as tied to the underlying nature of reality.

So, in essence, you can ignore this study and shut your mind from recalling this point. (which quite a few will) and you will be successful in that, as that path through reality takes over...

Or you can go and find the other thousands of data points that support the reality of objectivity’s non existence - the impossibility of classical objectivity. And then move toward ruminating all of reality, not just self created boxes and limits. The ’problem’ for the objective ground hugger mentality, is... linear space-time takes a hit so hard it openly fails in this space, this reality, in the now.

What the situation says...is...You are free to lie to yourself however you may want about what you project, and you will interact with those realities and ’receive’ them. Or you can look at the world in how it truly is, where potential and reality is tied to you and what you can accept, understand, and bring into this world.

Essentially, the monkey has to get smart, get it straight, and finally relax, or it’s going to kill us all.

What does this have to do with contentious argument threads about audio?

Well, obviously...everything. Cable deniers, hearing deniers, logic deniers, etc.

Electricity by necessity, by reality, by fundamentals, is a quantum calculation and system. So is the human mind.

I know exactly what the hell is going on, Eric. I simply won’t discuss it.

It’s business, and in business one keeps their knowledge and lore to themselves. The downside is one is accused of being a charlatan but the alternative is giving all of it away and having no food to put on the table, all while the accolades keep coming in. Then other people eat all your meals for you. all for the sake of making Eric (and some others) happy.

Not happening today or tomorrow.

In science, it can be given freely, sometimes. But even then it is held tightly, in most cases. As good science can be big business. Sometimes ...world changing business. Hundreds of billions.

EG, this just emerged:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2018/03/09/carbon-nanotube-membrane-breakthrough-is-real-world...

If you read it with the right clear eyes, you see that it says transmutation. And in such a scenario, all metals markets and all resource markets ......die. And that’s global politics and 10’s of trillions. It does not say this explicitly, but that’s the next phase of it - that lies beyond the scope of the article..

Be aware, that in a resource poor area of the world, in this case, Japan, Toyota and other major corporations have applied for and received ..in this area of technology...flat out plain spoken, ~proven~ real world patents, for TRANSMUTATION of elements.

As in...alchemical transmutation of one periodic element to another, in mass quantities that are useful to engineering and building things.

But there are stranger things yet, if one knows how and where to look....and you ain't gonna be doing much of that exploration with a negative proofing mindset.

I love finding stuff I do not know. I search for it ceaselessly, like a shark. I never sleep, always moving. When I stop, I know I’m dead, my mind is dying or dead. Never stop moving. Never sleep. Never get comfortable. Never stop exploring the unknowns.

I look forward to not knowing and fighting to figure something out. I know I’ll never get it right and when I figure something out I know I’ve still got some or all of it wrong.

But I ’get off’ on figuring out the new. My high is emergent understanding.

Not the high of negative proofing by dismissal and rejection, which is how most of humanity is wired. This is the fundamental of staying alive in our bodily origins, so it is a fundamental origin of the body issue. Dogma of self, is core.

Engineering is designed around the people who feel safe when they know. The biblical/dogma wiring end of the gene selection and wiring/design pool. This is the bulk of the herd.

Science is designed around the explorer who knows it is all wrong and will always be wrong. Being the type who gets the endorphin high from the exploration and the figuring out of the new and the unexplored.

To win through risk and finding the new (Science), not to win by finding the false and keeping to the norms (engineering).

Science is 100% ~NOT~ engineering. Never conflate the two.

As soon as one touches the new or walks in to an unknown and tries to explore it, engineering and dogma takes a huge back seat. Required!

Once it is figured out,and normed... then engineering and the engineering mindset can dogmatize it for the rest of humanity.

Intelligence and emotional intelligence (that forms mind in act and flow) as an individual variation, can make a ridiculous mess of this complex scenario. and does so in about 99.95% of all the threads on this and all audio forums. Or in almost 100% of all other technological or whatever conversations on the net.

How is your brain wired, dear reader of this post?

Are you a negative proofer (engineering) or a fearless explorer (science!)?

Engineers live by facts and dogmatic texts on all those facts. Science understands that there is no such thing as a fact. That the only fact known to exist is that no facts exist. If a 'scientist' says that facts exist, walk away, they were probably trained as an engineer and are a a poseur, and are not the real thing. No real scientific training school (university that trains and accredits scientists) will ever commit to teaching such foolishness.

Eg, an engineer has a ruler, and they measure with it, inches, centimeters and so on.

The scientist ~KNOWS~ (and is trained/educated in this!).... that we don’t really know what an inch or centimeter is, we can’t nail down what the core item is --- in how we come to making either of them.

That down at the bottom of a length measurement, the reality is all slippery and indeterminate, so we can NEVER define what an inch or centimeter is. Even if we can use them all day to do things and make things (engineering) ... we still don’t know what each of them really truly are. That at the limit of definition (as we skip down into the layers of what each is) in all known reality ---- it is still turtles all the way down (science).

We need it all, Eric, to be alive and be mutable. To have a future that is not a dead thing where it is all the same.

Too much of any (thing) is deadly. Standardization saves, standardization kills.

the core problem for audio is that the ear is a similar in all..but essentially a blank self built thing in the individual.
that is is possible to agree on sounds heard. But impossible to have each ear be the same as they are not the same. That hearing is a self assembled self built thing. No two are the same and no two brains analyzing the signals are wired the same. 

Importantly, that engineering cannot fully apply as engineering is incomplete. It is specifically VERY incomplete in the analysis of the stuff that is important to the hearing done by the ear.

The trick is to get audiophiles and the engineering analysis of such... to understand this all important simple set of data points.

I wish to avoid charlatans as well, as they pollute the pond.

In my experience there are almost no charlatans in audio.

But there is a huge level of misunderstanding of the complexities of audio and then the misapplication of dogma to this proffered complexity--as a method of sorting it out. It's the simpleton's way out.

Thinking and sussing out out is considerably more complex. But is the only truly functional way forward. Most won't commit to it... and offer up emotional responses instead, that are cloaked as being logic and reason, when in fact they are not.

The vast number of audio threads play out in this exact way.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2018/03/09/carbon-nanotube-membrane-breakthrough-is-real-world...

The link I provided earlier at Forbes magazine, was cut by Forbes.

Some corporations do that. why would they break links when it brings readers to their website? Odd, but they do it all the time.

Although, I find it happens a lot with cutting edge technological revelations.

And yes, bulk material transmutation of elements is now (openly) possible, a very hot area of research, it is. (see my prior post and do the legwork...find it....)

Truth is individual, not absolute. The individual can find this point of understanding. A crowd cannot.

And individual can move forward, as the individual does not consult the crowd for it’s search in clarity.

And individual can be intelligent. A crowd is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

This is a discussion in a crowd type atmosphere, ergo....

Likened to driving down a single lane road, one is only allowed (due to projected violence from the crowd's lowest common denominators) to be as good as the slowest car in the group.

Absolute truth, and only as good as the slowest car on the road.

Right.........

And stop calling me surely.

So why not make IC’s out of Litz wire!? According to Schroeder’s hypothesis this should have the same benefits. Multiple conduction paths!

The head designer (IIRC) of Belden tends to agree, in some fundamental ways - with Doug...

https://www.iconoclastcable.com/

Belden pursues it scientifically, in the lab and via ear, and ends up in the same price and quality range and parts choice range...as the audiophile cable companies that already exist.

So.. Belden ’confirms’ the existing science of high end cables.

So cable haters and naysayers....where’s your hater god now? Hmmm?

Have you been abandoned for knowledge, science, and reason? It appears to be the case....as the ’crazy fools and their ’high end’ cables.....were always...right.

the word ’lumped’ is the dead giveaway.....

as an aside just for the sheer annoyance factor of the easily excited on the buzzword front... molecular/atomic level fluids like the room temperature fluid metal alloys in Teo cables, are technically and in definition...to fall under quantum rules...and charged ionic systems like that of plasma (tubes) are considered to be classical.

This means.. the true fluid metal alloy in the Teo cables, while under signal loading... is constantly switching or sliding between being quantum and classical, with a indeterminate Schrodinger-like complexity, due to the high mass and atom to atom (electron orbital to electron orbital) ..where the loading is a radically discontinuous variable due to the high mass. The math is insane and very incomplete at this time in physics.

Ouch.

The tube kinda does the same but is mostly a stressed/loaded system while in-situ, so just about 100% classical, as it is, in operation, never really going to zero. One would think that the liquid metal cable is thus the same but the high mass vs that of the tube’s low mass constitution, makes the quantum connection in the metal fluid - considerably more real.

Importantly, none of this takes place with wire as the wire is in a frozen lattice form. In truth..some of it is still there but of such a minor dangling part, that it is not really ever included in any of the calculations - no point. Under certain stress and loading conditions it can be made to come to the fore, though.

It might be considered that the frozen lattice form of the structure of the ’wire’, gives rise to complex impedance, as we know it, as a set of lumped parameters. LCR is a lumped parameter, and that L, C, and R are each lumped parameters all on their own - when in full analysis.

Those lumped parameters, the LCR and the individual lumped L, C, and R, are for engineering or building. One has to go back to the theory as it is all theory when seeking solutions to complex layered problems. That is....if we can recognize the problem in the first place.

If one wishes to analyze problems in interpretation and projection into solution seeking or problems in observation vs measurement, then one should consider going down to those basics and analyze at the fundamental physics level. Otherwise one might find themselves going in circles, or arguing without understanding the actual questions at hand...