Meanwhile you put forward a second assumption that in a short piece of wire the frequency response can change when the wire is reversed. And It follows from the content that these changes in the frequency response go without the presence of signs of electrical asymmetry of the wire. According to Ohm’s Law, this cannot be. Again, Anton, you are assigning words to me that I never said. There can only be a change in frequency response if the wire is not symmetrical. No Ohm's law violations required. |
Depending, you say? So if the wire is not connected then it transmits nothing. So it all depends on the wire being connected. Interesting. Very interesting.
Just one question: How does the wire know?
|
@mahgister,
thank you for appropriately calibrating my comment: not l’Homme Machine but rather the current limitations to defining appropriate measurement in borderline acoustical phenomena were my direction of travel. This level of debate, though is a pleasure compared to the somewhat crude ‘if you can’t measure it you can’t hear it’ nonsense. |
«Simplistic mind can also use sophisticated tool»-Anonymus Smith
😊
|
I would reply with a snarky comment Miller, but i figure your foot already has enough holes in it. |
“Cables do not transmit sound. The transmit electrical energy, or voltage potentials depending on whether a load is connected or not.” - dletch2
The point here is not whether cables transmit sound, but rather, if what we measure of them in reverse fully describes what we hear after the signal finds its way into waves from the loudspeaker. If computers are not yet quite as good as humans beings in recognising timbre, obviously though soundwaves that find their way by wires and cables back into the computing system for interpretation, it is quite possible that science and technology hasn’t yet understood what needs to be measured for a computer to identify timbre better than human beings. Or, heaven forbid, there could be the smallest possibility that there will remain some things that might never be able to be measured ; )
In friendship - kevin |
There's a huge difference between writing a computer program that can recognize timbre like a human and measuring what humans can hear. I haven't seen anyone say science can describe what anyone or everyone "hears" when they listen to music only that science can record everything you're going to hear from that recorded music, as well as many other things but we are talking about music here.
Whether computers can recognize timbre is irrelevant, we have been recording and playing back music way before voice recognition software came about and has nothing to do with what's measurable . I can record my wife's voice on an old cassette tape and recognize it. You're confusing two different systems. One system is audio reproduction, it's pure science even when it was wax cylinders doing the recording and playback . The other system is our human auditory system. How each of us " perceives " music is user dependent. What can be recorded can be measured and playback can reproduce that recording extremely accurate because we can compare the measurements. That's all audio reproduction is, when it hits the ear that's a different system , it's not part of it.
|
What djones51 said. We can measure what goes down a wire with great accuracy. Humans can't. Matters not what happens after. The electrical signal was either recreated properly or not. |
You’re confusing two different systems. One system is audio reproduction, it’s pure science even when it was wax cylinders doing the recording and playback . The other system is our human auditory system. How each of us " perceives " music is user dependent. Yes and no.... There exist and must exist CORRELATION FEEDBACK ONGOING PROCESS between these 2 system.... And these correlation parameters are not determined only by the known actual law of audio reproduction but can and would be dictated by NEW conditions of experience by the users and new experiments...Psychoacoustic for example will evolve integrating human perception and neurophysiology and physical acoustic phenomena.... Then saying that : We can measure what goes down a wire with great accuracy. Humans can’t. Matters not what happens after. The electrical signal was either recreated properly or not. Is equivalent to saying that the conditions of experience are always the same for all users and for all time... And saying that tools could measure what "goes down a wire with great accuracy" but humans could not, to justify the impossibility or the value of a perceptive experience, is equivalent to the saying that human is ONLY an imperfect deluded measuring tool.... Which is dumb to say the least....Because it is human perceiving consciousness that correlate all POSSIBLE measuring tools....It is human perceiving consciousness that could change the conditions of the experience and create new dimensions or new experience through new parameters and creating new measuring tools to explore new dimensions with new parameters....It is ONLY consiousness that could give meaning and interpret the tool.... Then arguments against the possibility of wires direction and a related new qualitative experience is only a circular vicious circle around the measuring fallacy.... No one can lift itself by the hair....Save perhaps it seems dletch2... 😊 No measuring tool work in a grid of measuring tools without a human perceiving consciousness at the beginning of the grid and at the end....There is NO EXTERNAL reality without any conscious participation, which is anyway the greatest discovery of the XX century called quantum physics... Then technological idolatry is only a blind religious belief in a complete external reality...It is the Baron Munchausen religion....Also the vision of some monotheistic cult where the Earth is given like an EXTERNAL object to exploit for men....Sorry but science has already establish against ANY belief favoring the contrary view the fact of consciousness participation.... There is no absolute objective external reality independant of any consciousness or independant for ALL consciousness...Materialism is dead in the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics; held from 24 to 29 October 1927 and buried after Alan Aspect experiment in 1982.... No engineer or audiophile will ressuscitate it.... Then no reasoning could a priori replace or ridiculize a future proposed experiment based on an alleged perceptive experience like Anton proposed here ....
John Archibald Wheeler, from a transcript of a radio interview on "The Anthropic Universe": Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what’s happening in the distant past why should we need more? Martin Redfern: Many don’t agree with John Wheeler, but if he’s right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.[83]
|
Is equivalent to saying that the conditions of experience are always the same for all users and for all time... And saying that tools could measure what "goes down a wire with great accuracy" but humans could not, to justify the impossibility or the value of a perceptive experience, is equivalent to the saying that human is ONLY an imperfect deluded measuring tool.... Which is dumb to say the least....Because it is human perceiving consciousness that correlate all POSSIBLE measuring tools....It is human perceiving consciousness that could change the conditions of the experience and create new dimensions or new experience through new parameters and creating new measuring tools to explore new dimensions with new parameters....It is ONLY consiousness that could give meaning and interpret the tool.... Let me rephrase it for you so you understand my point ... 1+1 = 2 1.001 + 1 = 2.001 Now whether you perceive it as 2.002 or not, really does not matter. It is 2.001. What you perceive is your current interpretation of reality. Reality did not change because your perception did. Tomorrow you may perceive it as 1.999. It will however, still be 2.001. We are talking electrical signals, which means we are essentially talking numbers. We can measure the number and know it is right. Today you may perceive the number differently from yesterday and tomorrow you may perceive it different again, but it did not change. That is point one. Point 2. The human eye has a central resolution of about 6 million photosites, give or take. If I more an object 0.01mm, no matter the resolution of the human eye, you will never be able to detect that, let alone measure it with any reliability. An instrument with a few thousand photosites could be created to both identify the movement of 0.01mm and how far. Give it 6 million photosites and it will measure to 0.01mm in 2 dimensions and detect movement in both. Now, that instrument may not be able to identify let alone be able to appreciate the Mona Lisa, but a similar one could tell you if there was a subtle change in the color of even the smallest element of the Mona Lisa based on a reference, and if you moved the painting 0.01mm. It has no idea what a picture is, what it represents, etc. That in no way at all negates its ability to compare, with vastly greater detail than any human can, a change from a reference. That is what analyzing an electrical signal does. It allows us to determine a change, from a reference, in vastly greater detail than any human can. It is not even close. We have enough body of evidence to be confident that identified changes may or may not be audible. There is a grey area, and normally engineers will be very clear about this and even state that that something is in the range where it may be audible. Thermal modulation of a fuse in a speaker line would be a good example. It is in the range of audibility, and even though no one has shown they can pick out reliably a properly sized (not grossly undersize) fuse, it is accepted it could be audible. However, when the identified difference is far away from any evidence of audibility, then we confidently say no, you won't hear a difference --until proven otherwise--. Proof is not some conjecture on an audio site. It is a properly implemented test to eliminate bias. Contrary to the ignorant opinions on thes forums, these tests actually do matter, at least if you care about audio reproduction. If we can't ascertain what is truly audible and matters, then how can we ever hope to move the science of reproduction forward. If you can't build on past work, then you are just continually recreating the wheel. |
Let me rephrase it for you so you understand my point ...
1+1 = 2
1.001 + 1 = 2.001 Let me rephrase it for you so you will understand my point ... f(x) = kx(1-x) It is an iterative process... Nevermind where you are in the n’th stage of the process there always will be a new stage which will enter in the cycles.... Between perceived phenomena and consciousness there is place for unknown or new phenomena to appear... Then eliminating bias is a good procedure in testing.... we must do it.... Cultivating bias is a good procedure in training perception....We must do it.... Correlating the two IS science.... Not one without the other .... It is an iterative process not a static addition or substraction.... "That is what analyzing an electrical signal does. It allows us to determine a change, from a reference, in vastly greater detail than any human can. It is not even close."
No measuring will replace human perception , a tool, so accurate it is, work from some chosen parameter in ONE chosen dimension and cannot replace human experience.... Not only can we build on past work and testing if it is the correct chosen direction for sure, but we can also change direction and create new tool: like a directional wire to satisfy our confirmed perception .... Tools dont compete with human perception they only serve it....The way we decide.... Technology ask for standard practices... Science ask for innovative thinking... The two are not opposite at all.... Nobody is against virtue(measuring) but sometimes evil(creativity) serves a greater good.... |
No measuring will replace human perception , a tool, so accurate it is, work from some chosen parameter in ONE chosen dimension and cannot replace human experience.... The one thing human perception is not, is accurate. |
@dletch2
Meanwhile you put forward a second assumption that in a short piece of wire the frequency response can change when the wire is reversed. And It follows from the content that these changes in the frequency response go without the presence of signs of electrical asymmetry of the wire. According to Ohm’s Law, this cannot be.
Again, Anton, you are assigning words to me that I never said. There can only be a change in frequency response if the wire is not symmetrical. No Ohm's law violations required. These are exact quotes from the discussion you entered in halfway through: 1 - @cmichaelo: "Due to manufacturing tolerances, a cable isn’t electrically the same from both directions." 2 - @anton_stepichev: "Let’s assume that the speaker wire has an error, but it is microscopic, on the verge of perception and measurement. Then, we will have to agree that the error is common to all the wires. And it turns out that, for example, in a RIAA corrector, the error of the wire going from the MC head to the transformer will be amplified almost 1000 times! .... But we do not observe such errors. So there is no polarity, semi conductivity or any other ELECTRICAL assymetry in a wire." 3 - @dletch2: "Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes". @dletch2, the meaning of what you said is clear: you claim that when a wire is reversed, an "error is simply frequency response" is possible without the occurrence of "ELECTRICAL assymetry". Now you retract your words, OK, but then again there is the question of amplifying the error by a factor of 1000, which somehow escapes measurement. Why can't your super-accurate instruments measure it? |
mahgister
By the way one of my most beloved composer with Bach and Bruckner is Scriabin
They say that Vladimir Sofronitsky was the most interesting performer of Scriabin's miniatures, and I think so too. Here are a couple of examples - https://www.backtomusic.ru/19684 track 8 and 9. No less ingeniously did David Oistrakh on his Stradivarius - https://www.backtomusic.ru/19612 tracks 3 and 4. Nocturne just mesmerizes me. These are all 78 pre-war records. |
djones51/ dletch2 - I think I have finally figured out where the dogma lies, and it is silly for us to go on about it. You both believe that all the complexities of timbre can be measured definitively in their passage as signals through a cable, and simultaneously believe that the recorded complexities of timbre for voice recognition cannot be fully deciphered in a cable through measurements (obviously) for more accurate analysis by computer as compared to the human ear.
You follow logic that is not possible to engage rationally : ) Perhaps best to leave it as that.
In friendship - kevin
|
Timbre is simply part of the audio signal. You haven’t figured anything out other than misinterpreting what I said. You confuse the signal and if it can be measured with computer software being able to decipher the signal. Where voice recognition software is not yet at the ability of the human ear doesn’t mean this will always be so. You’re saying because computers can’t mimic human ears then the signal can’t be measured, makes no sense. If the complexities of timbre, whatever that means, wasn’t in the signal you wouldn’t be able to tell an oboe from a piano. So I agree we’ll leave it as that until you figure out what timbre is and an audio signal is. |
Obviously, a uniform single core wire cannot be directional.
Then, what can cable engineers do to make the cables directional?
If a technology indeed exists to make cable sound directional, would the extra cost be justifiable?
By the way, I have a few cables with directional sign, but I cannot hear any difference on my system. Maybe the direction is there because the cable company put it since customers want it. Or, my ears are not refined enough to tell the difference. Or, my components are not precise enough to reveal the difference. Anyway, even though I cannot tell the difference, I follow the direction of the cable direction.
There are many different kinds of science exist these days, and many people often resort to science to defend their arguments, and my favorite one is political science.
|
kevn32 posts04-26-2021 8:37amdjones51/ dletch2 - I think I have finally figured out where the dogma lies, and it is silly for us to go on about it. You both believe that all the complexities of timbre can be measured definitively in their passage as signals through a cable,
The dogma is you think complexities exist that don't at least not at a signal level. |
The one thing human perception is not, is accurate. Marketing is the tool used to address those pesky human perceptions. For example, you can can be a total unknown and sell a wire for $10K. Then you can give a skeptic permission to buy it and find out how wonderful it is. THen when he declines, call him a coward. Works every time! Don’t forget to give a few away to a few cohorts so they can write up rave reviews all on a free hifi web site that sells expensive stuff. That helps keep the marketing costs down. |
The one thing human perception is not, is accurate. I said it to you alrady but you reverse to this " commom place evidence" accusating me of his negation... Do you think i am so stupid? Dont lend to my words a meaning opposite to a fact no one could contradict being sane ..... A tool for example microscope or a telescope exceed any eye on some power of resolution, i never negate that and no one here save the more idiot will ever negate this....Same observation is valid for ANY tools in ANY field... There is 2 meanings to the word "accurate"... --- Accurate by numbers.... Exactitude FOR SOME CHOSEN PARAMETERS AND FOR SOME CHOSEN DIMENSION for a tool.... In this context the eye is a mere tool... --- Accurate for the encompassing human perception, with many unknown parameters and many unknown dimensions RELATIVE to the chosen complementary tool measuring process...In this context the eye is NOT a mere tool...but the cause and main actor in the recreation of the perceptive experience... Accurate for a microphone response or accurate for hearing are not the same...They could be equivalent but NEVER equal.... If they would be reducible to one another psychoacoustic will not exist... We will be able to replicate all there is to human hearing.... And human hearing will be only a mere tool like any other... But we cannot.... |
Maghister I think you need a vacation. I was not quoting nor even talking to you. Take a chill pill or two. |
Timbre recreation in the listener room ask for more than the signals in the audio system...
We need an accurate acoustic in the listener room to recreate the original acoustical recording process coding result where the recording engineer has made choices of mic. and location possibilities which are a TRADE-OFF imperfect process...
The recognition of the timbre more or less natural perception is always relative and is recreated ultimately in the ears/brain IF some acoustical condition are, in the room where the audio system is embedded , under control...Even an intra ear headphone is a little room....
To these psychoacoustical conditions we must even add some unknown parameters related to each individual and each room... |
Maghister I think you need a vacation. I was not quoting nor even talking to you. Take a chill pill or two. I think you are paranoiac here ....I say that without being angry at all.. 😊 Read the thread , i was quoting dletch2 who was answering MY POST.... The fact that you come after quoting this answer does not means that i was speaking to you or about your post.... Be relax and let me exist .... I was not criticizing you....I even does not have the time to read your post redacting mine.... You need a vacation....I wrote this post after taking my chill pill thanks.... 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😉😉😉😉😉 |
It’s been a hard days night.... |
Honest mistake. See not so hard to admit that. It's cold out but a few chill pills can never hurt. Cheers! |
Honest mistake. See not so hard to admit that. It’s cold out but a few chill pills can never hurt. Cheers! Even if we disagree sometimes i appreciate you and i appreciate all people here , nevermind our complete opposite view.... The one which i learned sometimes the most is the one with a complete opposite view than mine... Truth interest me, not gaining points in an argument.... Save in the passionate moment of the discussion for sure....😁😊 |
They say that Vladimir Sofronitsky was the most interesting performer of Scriabin’s miniatures, and I think so too. Here are a couple of examples - https://www.backtomusic.ru/19684 track 8 and 9.
No less ingeniously did David Oistrakh on his Stradivarius - https://www.backtomusic.ru/19612 tracks 3 and 4. Nocturne just mesmerizes me.
These are all 78 pre-war records. Thanks the poem on the ninth side is one of my favorite piece... Sofronitsky playing Scriabin is a God .... I know very few pianist on par with him ... Neuhaus and Ervin Nyiregyházi in Liszt are.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLk6vqaxU1Y Oystrakh "singing" is stupendous.... The recording is particularly revelatory...I never listen to him with so much hypnotic power to be truthful....especially piece no 3... I know what great soul Menuhin was and so great young violonist; it is him who introduce me to Ostad Elahi a musician god also and one of my favorite...On par with the greatest musician god of the century....Menuhim says after listening him that listening him plays was one of the greatest musical event in his life.... After that who will not look for him? Listen carefully in this short presentation the way Elahi modified the Tanbur and created the modern version of it.... With two strings slightly dissonant for the same pitch... There is hidden some secret about hearing process.... A short presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXlTSSIFikshort piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6thX7sG9OWc |
“What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire?”
The Ocean. |
These samples of Oistrakh and Sofronitsky predate my extensive Oistrakh and more limited Sofronitsky LPs and CDs of them. Thanks so much for such profound playing. |
|
I found the missing link:
https://www.emilianotoso.com/en/who-i-am/
"epigenetics is the science that studies how our beliefs shape who we are" You are very right and Toso is more than right... Chosing our belief is ouw own way to create our body and our consciousness... «I chose the more encompassing rational belief to let each other human his own place in my heart....Music is only a manifestation of this rational belief in each of us»-Anonymus Smith |
ihcho510 posts
04-26-2021 4:36pm
Obviously, a uniform single core wire cannot be directional.
From the point of view of physics - yes, any wire is ELECTRICALLY symmetric. In any case, no one has yet refuted the example of the absence of an error when it is amplified by 1000 times in RIAA corrector. However, there is a difference by ear. This is actually the question - what is the component that does not relate to electricity, but is felt subjectively? Then, what can cable engineers do to make the cables directional?
No one specifically makes the cables directional, they themselves turn out to be so, since the wires have directivity. |
From the point of view of physics - yes, any wire is ELECTRICALLY symmetric. From a point of physics, you are absolutely wrong. Every manufactured wire is inherently asymmetric because no wire lacks manufacturing imperfections. In any case, no one has yet refuted the example of the absence of an error when it is amplified by 1000 times in RIAA corrector.
However, there is a difference by ear. This is actually the question - what is the component that does not relate to electricity, but is felt subjectively? What are you talking about? Linear amplification, as I stated before, does not amplify the relative error. If there was 0.1% distortion before amplification, and you amplify it by 1000, there is still 0.1% distortion. The frequency response before amplification will still be the same after amplification. The SNR will be the same before and after. In all cases, if anything is added, it is due to a defect in the amplification. No offence, but it is obvious you don’t have the technical background to make the statements you are making. Perhaps it would be better to ask questions and learn more. However, there is a difference by ear. This is actually the question - what is the component that does not relate to electricity, but is felt subjectively? WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE! That is the only difference. The sound is exactly the same. However, because you know what it is, that influences your subjective opinion. That is why tests for actual sound quality must be done blind. -- Side note, directional arrows are generally on ICs as the connection of the shield definitely matters. If it is on anything else, it is to make a certain group of people more susceptible to a high price. |
What I hear is a bunch of nuts on a Russian website running in Vector circles of confusion. The term “Direction” or “Directivity” originated among audiophiles and music lovers in the 1970s. It was then that people first started talking about the fact that audio cables and wires that are symmetrical from the physics point of view are actually not symmetrical at all and somehow change the sound of the audio system when changing the direction of their inclusion. Up until the mid-2000s, it was believed that directivity was a feature of only electrical conductors and most people were confident that the direction of the conductors matters just in signal circuits. Nevertheless advanced audiophiles even oriented mains cables, choosing the best sound position of the plug in the socket. They were considered crazy by almost everybody. The orientation of the conductors in the amplifiers and explanations of the reasons for choosing a particular direction were rather haphazard for many years, in 2005, the orientation of the conductors in the signal circuits and power supply circuits of the amplifiers was finally systematized. Systematization of directions, along with the selection of components according to special criteria and the use of an extreme simple design allowed you to create an unusual Testing Audio System (TAS), which made it possible to determine the musical properties of individual radio components and wires with unattainable accuracy. It quickly became clear that the direction of the preferred sound of the components almost never coincides with their long side. Even for wires that have an unusually large length-to-thickness ratio, the best sound has always been achieved by touching certain points on the side surfaces. To describe this state of affairs, the term Vector Directivity was introduced.
|
|
What the crap does this mean??? After some more time, I was faced with a very incredible fact – it turned out that when you performing TAS tests the probes are not needed at all – you could just turn on the music, turn the part around in your hands and find its most natural position between your palms or fingers. Thorough echeck showed that in this case, the beginning of the component was located on the left hand side, and the endwas located on the right hand side. It was an emotional jolt of overwhelming force. The next discovery finally turned everything upside down – during the next tests using just hands, I accidentally discovered that it was not necessary to turn on the music at all, the direction and overall musical quality of the component could be felt just as confidently in complete silence. Checkmate for materialism.
Feel the musical quality in complete silence ?? |
gee thanks djones51, now I am up to my knees in brown stuff without a shovel :-) |
Shovels are a necessity on cable threads. |
Ervin Nyiregyházi in Liszt are....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLk6vqaxU1Y
There is almost no visible Liszt, the performer takes up all the space... Full immersion in music, an amazing person! It reminds me of Oleg Karavaichuk, who could make a symphony out of a waltz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVO956v6wSsOstad Elahi a musician god also and one of my favorite...On par with the
greatest musician god of the century....Menuhim says after listening
him that listening him plays was one of the greatest musical event in
his life.... After that who will not look for him? he's a hypnotist, technically he doesn't seem to play anything special, but eventually you fall into a kind of meditation. |
What I hear is a bunch of nuts on a Russian website running in Vector circles of confusion. I dont think that the site is a simple cable threads... But perhaps the matter exceed your understanding and then insults replace arguments.... I prefer myself to think and trying to understand.... |
@djones51,
Feel the musical quality in complete silence ??
@dletch2,
I am up to my knees in brown stuff without a shovel :-)
You both want to jump from kindergarten to college. Let's take it in order, although I doubt it will help. What is there with the semiconductivity of the wire, the question is removed? |
Don't get your panties in a wad. Explain how this works for this pleb. |
fleschler
These samples of Oistrakh and Sofronitsky predate my extensive Oistrakh and more limited Sofronitsky LPs and CDs of them. Thanks so much for such profound playing. You are welcome! |
djones51, It is hardly possible to explain anything here, it is possible to tell and discuss. But first we need to close the previous question with the semiconductivity of the wire.
|
Insults and rebuttals or pretense of competence versus incompetence are the sure signs at best of ignorance, at worst of stupidity...Even if those mocking are more competent...
An argument must be posed on the ground and the question accepted by all...
After that debating around it suppose a COMMON good faith enonciation of each one arguments WITHOUT acrimony and without mocking the other perspective...
By the way i dont doubt dletch2 or Anton_stepichev respective competences...
This is why it is an interesting thread...
But refrain the insults....We are not idiots here i hope....
All spirits must be also open minds facing new possibilities...
In wire, sound, or hearing or in any other linked matters....
No one own reality....Even the more knowledgeable did not know so much....
|
No mahgister, really it is not stupid, arrogant, or otherwise. It is like me trying to tell a PhD biologist how a complex biological process works because I read some articles on the web written by people who are no where near the level of that PhD biologist. That is where we are at in this conversation. I dismiss things out of hand, because that is the appropriate response. It is like discussing calculus with someone who has not mastered basic arithmetic or functions. And no, wires do not have "micro diodes" or any other semiconducting properties at a bulk level, and even if they did, a semiconductor will always require exceeding a band gap voltage before any conduction occurs, and the differential voltage between any two close points on a wire is asymptotically 0V. No voltage, no conduction across a band gap. Don’t even try to argue a 3 port device because again, no differential voltage means no effective voltage field. Dielectrics can have non-linear effects, but you don’t just get to say "aha". Those effects have to be quantified w.r.t. the signal level (exceedingly small), and in this case the differential levels would need to quantified which would be almost non existent at audio frequencies. I don’t have to look in a book or quote to write this. See my 2nd paragraph above.
We are not idiots here i hope....
If one does not accept one's limitations w.r.t. knowledge, and yet still speaks with authority on a non subjective topic, one must be responsible for how they will be viewed. |
I don't pretend to know things I don't, a lot of this I don't really understand but I know enough to know BS when I read it. I guess I need to go back to the beginning is this about a regular copper wire a conductor or a semiconductor like silicon where the charge carriers can be controlled. |
Take this for instance , I don’t need a Nobel Prize in Physics to know it makes no sense. Nevertheless advanced audiophiles even oriented mains cables, choosing the best sound position of the plug in the socket Sound position of a plug? Is there a freeze position for my freezer? |
I've been around and doing this long enough to know there are all kinds of things that are easily heard but so far as I know impossible to measure. Directivity is only one of them. Directivity is so obvious that one time when a new cable came it sounded so bad I was complaining to the seller- until it dawned on me I was in a hurry and had not checked and sure enough had put it in backwards.
Why does my system continue to sound better and better hour after hour even after it has been on a good ten hours or more? Surely it does not take a full day to warm up? I had Chris Brady over one time, at the end of the evening he told me he was sure it sounded better than earlier. He was right, of course. But I knew he was coming, had it up and running several hours before he got there, for precisely this reason. Yet even after all that it still was getting better, and by enough that a guy like Chris could hear it.
It would be nice to know why. We ourselves seem to be sort of hard-wired to want to know why. It is a shame though when this insistence on knowing why, or maybe more to the point being the one to know why, gets in the way of being able to use and appreciate what is going on, whether we understand it or not.
|
I had Chris Brady over one time, at the end of the evening he told me he was sure it sounded better than earlier. Time + Alcohol = Change in Physics of the Universe |
