|
Post by drbill on Nov 18, 2018 22:19:37 GMT -6
I say that's most if not all of the problem. Martin's anecdotal evidence may or may not be audible / discernible on system 1, while being completely audible / discernible on system 2. We are often measuring with coarse tools that are not designed for the job we set before them. Very true, thanks drbill, Eric. There are so many variables when it comes to audio quality, I mostly prefer the "spend some time with it approach". First impressions usually matter the most, but sometimes it takes a while for you to focus on something that you eventually hear easily. This happened to me while doing my new album, which took a few years. My ears learned to notice things that previously bugged me but I didn't know what it was exactly, now it's quite apparent immediately. Yes. Many pieces of gear (or maybe wire, I dunno - I always just use mogami and forget about it) take time to really "get it". A cursory first time glance will not reveal the unique qualities of said gear (or wire?).
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2018 0:44:17 GMT -6
Seriously?
All test gear has limiting parameters.
If a small sample of the substance being tested has an anomaly - deviance from ideal spec, cumulative distortion, cumulative error, whatever that falls outside the limits of you test gear it won't register on the output - but that doesn't mean it isn't there and it doesn't mean that it might not be detectable if a large enough quantity of the substance/ device/ whatever being tested were connected in series.
Connection in series = discrepancies are additive. Connections in parallel = discrepancies are averaged.
When discrepancies are additive they might or might not be obvious when measured in series. When measured in parallel it's less likely.
Therefore when a mile of X cable is tested for effects on the signal it far more likely that you'll detect an error than when measuring a smaller sample, OR EVEN when measuring a larger sample in parallel, which will tend to mask discrepancies.
Why wouldn't you be able to factor it in? Because NO test equipment is even remotely perfect and maybe what you're looking for is beyonmd the ability of your test gear to measure.
Sewriously, it's pretty obvious. If your distortion analyzer is accurate to 1% of THD it won't detect something with .5% THD - but is you series two of the devices under test together your analyzer might then detect that the two seriesed devices have a cumulative distortion of 1%, which is detectible to your (imperrfect) gear. And ALL test gear is imperfect.
The question of whether your ear is more sensitive to a given effect than your test gear is another question entirely. Ethan would say no. But then Ethan's ear apperas to be about as sensitive as two tin cans and a piece of string.
It's really pretty obvious.
Heheh. Welll I’m terribly sorry to be so dense as to not get your Super Obvious John Eppstein Points™️ If you mean uncertainties, it’s actually more complicated than you’re suggesting to propagate them properly. You have to use partial derivatives and add error ratios in quadrature if you want the uncertainties to end up correct after you calculate whatever it is you’re after. If you're just talking about test gear sensitivity, that's not going to effect how accurate your theory is, it'll just effect the specific degree to which a given measured quantity (and thus calculations resulting from it) is accurate. You're using "discrepancy", which would normally mean the difference between expected and measured values. Why does that, to your mind, make anything less able to be figured out? I feel like you're jumbling a few concepts together here. At any rate, none of this is what I was talking about. I was speaking generally about relationships. When there are causal relationships, even complex ones, we can often model them. And where there is error and uncertainty, we bring that along so that the model isn’t overstepping its bounds as far as what it can and can't say. None of this means you’re wrong about whatever it is you think is unable to be calculated, but it might mean it's a coincidence if you're right. I'm talking mostly about thresholds and margins of error, using the word "discrepancy" as a general catch-all term. Test gear is not perfect and generally has a threshold below which it's not useful.
Same thing goes for modeling - there's generally a point beyond which the model is not useful. People who believe that modeling is a be-all and end-all tend to say that anything that falls outside the parameters of the model isn't significant. That's wrong - it IS significant, it just doesn't fit within the parameters of the model.
Science is about pushing the limits of what is known. It's not about assuming that we already know everything and forcing everything to fit our preconceptions. That way lies pedantry and Ethan Winer.
Ethan can't hear the difference between a Soundblaster and a Lavrey Black (insert premium converter of your choice). Therefore he assumes that nobody else can and anyone who thinks they can is deluded and sets up a "test" to "prove" it. When the results don't fit his preconceptions he fudges the results to "prove" his point.
An actual scientist would investigate why many respected people disagree with him and keep an open mind. As the state of the art of measurement equipment improves (in all scientific fields) we learn that some things that had been ridiculed are, in fact, real. A scientist knows he doesn't know everything and is always asking "why?" A pedant assumes that everything worth knowing is already known and printed in a textbook. (A charlatan fudges results to fit his preconceived theory.)
Do I believe that super expensive, fancy cable make a difference? No. But I also don't believe it doesn't. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I don't know. What I DO know is that if it does make a difference that difference is sufficiently small that I don't much care about it, I've got more important things to spend my money on that will make a much more significant difference. Like more high end microphones.
I DO find it extremely amusing that some people get all bent out of shape over the issue and over "debunking" minutae in general when they dopn't have tools available to provide a firm result.
And remember - you can't prove a negative.
Also, please lay off the ad hominems.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2018 0:46:27 GMT -6
Very true, thanks drbill, Eric. There are so many variables when it comes to audio quality, I mostly prefer the "spend some time with it approach". First impressions usually matter the most, but sometimes it takes a while for you to focus on something that you eventually hear easily. This happened to me while doing my new album, which took a few years. My ears learned to notice things that previously bugged me but I didn't know what it was exactly, now it's quite apparent immediately. Yes. Many pieces of gear (or maybe wire, I dunno - I always just use mogami and forget about it) take time to really "get it". A cursory first time glance will not reveal the unique qualities of said gear (or wire?). Absolutely. The silly stuff is a big waste of time.
I'm much more interested in comparing microphones than mic cables.
To tell the truth, I generally use whatever cable is at hand and not defective.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 19, 2018 1:23:58 GMT -6
Heheh. Welll I’m terribly sorry to be so dense as to not get your Super Obvious John Eppstein Points™️ If you mean uncertainties, it’s actually more complicated than you’re suggesting to propagate them properly. You have to use partial derivatives and add error ratios in quadrature if you want the uncertainties to end up correct after you calculate whatever it is you’re after. If you're just talking about test gear sensitivity, that's not going to effect how accurate your theory is, it'll just effect the specific degree to which a given measured quantity (and thus calculations resulting from it) is accurate. You're using "discrepancy", which would normally mean the difference between expected and measured values. Why does that, to your mind, make anything less able to be figured out? I feel like you're jumbling a few concepts together here. At any rate, none of this is what I was talking about. I was speaking generally about relationships. When there are causal relationships, even complex ones, we can often model them. And where there is error and uncertainty, we bring that along so that the model isn’t overstepping its bounds as far as what it can and can't say. None of this means you’re wrong about whatever it is you think is unable to be calculated, but it might mean it's a coincidence if you're right. I'm talking mostly about thresholds and margins of error, using the word "discrepancy" as a general catch-all term. Test gear is not perfect and generally has a threshold below which it's not useful.
Same thing goes for modeling - there's generally a point beyond which the model is not useful. People who believe that modeling is a be-all and end-all tend to say that anything that falls outside the parameters of the model isn't significant. That's wrong - it IS significant, it just doesn't fit within the parameters of the model.
Science is about pushing the limits of what is known. It's not about assuming that we already know everything and forcing everything to fit our preconceptions. That way lies pedantry and Ethan Winer.
Ethan can't hear the difference between a Soundblaster and a Lavrey Black (insert premium converter of your choice). Therefore he assumes that nobody else can and anyone who thinks they can is deluded and sets up a "test" to "prove" it. When the results don't fit his preconceptions he fudges the results to "prove" his point.
An actual scientist would investigate why many respected people disagree with him and keep an open mind. As the state of the art of measurement equipment improves (in all scientific fields) we learn that some things that had been ridiculed are, in fact, real. A scientist knows he doesn't know everything and is always asking "why?" A pedant assumes that everything worth knowing is already known and printed in a textbook. (A charlatan fudges results to fit his preconceived theory.)
Do I believe that super expensive, fancy cable make a difference? No. But I also don't believe it doesn't. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I don't know. What I DO know is that if it does make a difference that difference is sufficiently small that I don't much care about it, I've got more important things to spend my money on that will make a much more significant difference. Like more high end microphones.
I DO find it extremely amusing that some people get all bent out of shape over the issue and over "debunking" minutae in general when they dopn't have tools available to provide a firm result.
And remember - you can't prove a negative.
Also, please lay off the ad hominems.
I agree with you wholeheartedly re: science in general. And re: cables for that matter. I'm comfortably agnostic about a million things and have no desire to say I know something when I don't. This subject is no exception. Do I believe cables are the actual cause of the sonic changes that some people think they hear when swapping them? No, I don't. For lots of reasons. Do I *know* the cables aren't the cause? No, of course not. Can't claim I do. But the AB comparisons (blind and otherwise) I've done along with the null tests I've done (though they, like any test, fall short of theoretical perfection) have convinced me that a functional balanced cable is a functional balanced cable is a functional balanced cable. But honestly, I'm only a couple decades into messing with audio and 1.5 years into this EE degree. I've got a helluva lot left to learn (and God willing, a few more decades to mess around with sound). May change my mind. Hell, I'd be delighted if it did. It'd be fascinating. I've no dog in the fight either way. Also, ad hominem? Where? You implied I was being [insert my favorite Jethro Tull record] for not thinking what you think. I got a chuckle out of that and pushed back on some of the theory and your tone, but I see no ad hominem anywhere. I certainly didn't intend any.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2018 1:46:55 GMT -6
Yes. Many pieces of gear (or maybe wire, I dunno - I always just use mogami and forget about it) take time to really "get it". A cursory first time glance will not reveal the unique qualities of said gear (or wire?). Absolutely. The silly stuff is a big waste of time.
I'm much more interested in comparing microphones than mic cables.
To tell the truth, I generally use whatever cable is at hand and not defective.
I don’t know the one time I heard one of Ray Kimbers Silver Mic cables the noise just disappeared, once I found out the price all hope of ever getting to that level of quiet also disappeared!
|
|
|
Post by hio on Nov 19, 2018 5:28:12 GMT -6
Sigh! I think I know what some of what this thread is about. Evelyn Wood fergot to mention that one misses out a lot of the details when one is speed reading like in what her course teaches. I took one course on the subject so I apologize in advance if I am out of order.
There are two things in life that *I* am certain of and even coming from a scientific perspective. The existence of God and that cable does matter. 🤔
The God part I will leave out because this is not the forum for it but I have studied philosophy all my life starting with Rene Descartes a 17th century philosopher. You know "I think therefore I am, therefore I was created, therefore there is a creator" bit and it took a whole book he wrote to just set this one point straight.
Anyway, maybe this is a classic example of OCD but I am compelled to chime in with my 2 cents...take it or leave it with this short story regarding cable.
Almost two decades ago I had a world class engineer visit my studio and he had been working all over the country and he is telling me that cable really does matter and I should consider this for my studio. I said yeah right, and where is the snake oil, yaddi da da da.
I thought he was confused and I questioned his reasoning so he brought over ten of his own cables and we added three of mine and we did very objective and scientific blind tests.
Canare, Mogami, Clark, Teac, Monster, Radio Shack you name it. To summate we both blindly picked the exact same cables in the order we both set up with a miss on ranking by only one with repeated tests. Some of the cables like the Canare and Mogami sounded really good and some others butt ugly by varying degrees.
I brought this up in a couple of forums like at rec.audio.pro (usenet) a long time ago with much more detail and boy did the debates begin and then ran on and on while I watched entertainingly, I mean read.
Not going to go down that road again but I just had to post this. I respect whatever you believe because my tag line for years has been:
"Opinions are like ears, and most every one has two of them and no two
ears are alike so what sounds one way to some might sound another way to
others. I call it the "Earprint Principle."
P.S. I am that guy who still thinks his $3500.00 Apogee AD16X and his Benchmark converters are still good because I paid so much for them and I just won't give them up... yet, so don't take my word but with a grain of salt and I am sorry for this pure and utter drivel but, but,... I just had to.
|
|
|
Post by hio on Nov 19, 2018 5:29:31 GMT -6
Do you have to have 3 or is it 4 stars by your name to be able to preview your post before submission
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2018 6:50:38 GMT -6
The God part I will leave out I wish you had
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 19, 2018 6:51:17 GMT -6
I thought I accidentally logged into gearslutz Nah then someone would have said something about somebody else’s mother or that they liked amateur colonoscopy. The amateur Colonoscopers at Gearslutz can all go and try self-intercourse.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 19, 2018 10:40:17 GMT -6
My favorite part of the video was when he roughly dialed in his wonky null knob with the music playing and said, "See, silence." But I could still hear some of the music playing. And "see silence" and there's all this noise
My second favorite part was when he got to talking about cable sellers and said, "Bullshit!" then pause, and another "BULLSHIT"
that's a real professional demeanor, and scientific to boot
he comes across as sort of a crackpot who is putting too much effort into this
not that I necessarily advocate spending money on fancy cables
I just don't like the vibe of his presentation, it's a little perverse and not entirely credible
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2018 10:54:55 GMT -6
My favorite part of the video was when he roughly dialed in his wonky null knob with the music playing and said, "See, silence." But I could still hear some of the music playing. And "see silence" and there's all this noise My second favorite part was when he got to talking about cable sellers and said, "Bullshit!" then pause, and another "BULLSHIT" that's a real professional demeanor, and scientific to boot he comes across as sort of a crackpot who is putting too much effort into this not that I necessarily advocate spending money on fancy cables I just don't like the vibe of his presentation, it's a little perverse and not entirely credible Could say a lot about his eye sight and hearing.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 19, 2018 10:56:50 GMT -6
My favorite part of the video was when he roughly dialed in his wonky null knob with the music playing and said, "See, silence." But I could still hear some of the music playing. And "see silence" and there's all this noise My second favorite part was when he got to talking about cable sellers and said, "Bullshit!" then pause, and another "BULLSHIT" that's a real professional demeanor, and scientific to boot he comes across as sort of a crackpot who is putting too much effort into this not that I necessarily advocate spending money on fancy cables I just don't like the vibe of his presentation, it's a little perverse and not entirely credible Could say a lot about his eye sight and hearing. He was blinking a lot too, like something was wrong with his eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Nov 19, 2018 11:12:54 GMT -6
I will never understand why people go wild because of someone who can proof his point. In times where people stop believing in facts just to justify thier BS anything seems to be possible? I still love facts and I hate if people want to make me believe that they don't need facts for thier arguments. ....snip.... One of my doctors and good friends literally wrote the book on surgery about 20 years ago ( former vice chair at Yale) I asked him if he thought many of his findings and methods would still be in use 30 years from now his answer “ My ego hopes so, the scientist in me prays somebody smarter comes along and discovers better methods because that’s science, many things were no longer current when the type was set, science always moves forward. How can I say I have a better idea and not except that you might have an idea better than mine ? That’s science!” ... snip... This is such a fine attitude and approach to science, as well as several other areas. Thanks for sharing this quote, ericn. -09
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2018 11:38:30 GMT -6
....snip.... One of my doctors and good friends literally wrote the book on surgery about 20 years ago ( former vice chair at Yale) I asked him if he thought many of his findings and methods would still be in use 30 years from now his answer “ My ego hopes so, the scientist in me prays somebody smarter comes along and discovers better methods because that’s science, many things were no longer current when the type was set, science always moves forward. How can I say I have a better idea and not except that you might have an idea better than mine ? That’s science!” ... snip... This is such a fine attitude and approach to science, as well as several other areas. Thanks for sharing this quote, ericn. -09 The best legacy in all things is someone taking what you have done and taking it further, The things I am proudest of are my son, the things others have done with what I the lessons & advice I have given and the burn patients I have motivated to get on with their lives.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2018 11:40:29 GMT -6
Could say a lot about his eye sight and hearing. He was blinking a lot too, like something was wrong with his eyes. Not to play arm chair MD, but with that body diabetes and all it can bring would not surprise me, says the 6 foot 2 178lb diabetic.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2018 11:49:35 GMT -6
I'm talking mostly about thresholds and margins of error, using the word "discrepancy" as a general catch-all term. Test gear is not perfect and generally has a threshold below which it's not useful.
Same thing goes for modeling - there's generally a point beyond which the model is not useful. People who believe that modeling is a be-all and end-all tend to say that anything that falls outside the parameters of the model isn't significant. That's wrong - it IS significant, it just doesn't fit within the parameters of the model.
Science is about pushing the limits of what is known. It's not about assuming that we already know everything and forcing everything to fit our preconceptions. That way lies pedantry and Ethan Winer.
Ethan can't hear the difference between a Soundblaster and a Lavrey Black (insert premium converter of your choice). Therefore he assumes that nobody else can and anyone who thinks they can is deluded and sets up a "test" to "prove" it. When the results don't fit his preconceptions he fudges the results to "prove" his point.
An actual scientist would investigate why many respected people disagree with him and keep an open mind. As the state of the art of measurement equipment improves (in all scientific fields) we learn that some things that had been ridiculed are, in fact, real. A scientist knows he doesn't know everything and is always asking "why?" A pedant assumes that everything worth knowing is already known and printed in a textbook. (A charlatan fudges results to fit his preconceived theory.)
Do I believe that super expensive, fancy cable make a difference? No. But I also don't believe it doesn't. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I don't know. What I DO know is that if it does make a difference that difference is sufficiently small that I don't much care about it, I've got more important things to spend my money on that will make a much more significant difference. Like more high end microphones.
I DO find it extremely amusing that some people get all bent out of shape over the issue and over "debunking" minutae in general when they dopn't have tools available to provide a firm result.
And remember - you can't prove a negative.
Also, please lay off the ad hominems.
I agree with you wholeheartedly re: science in general. And re: cables for that matter. I'm comfortably agnostic about a million things and have no desire to say I know something when I don't. This subject is no exception. Do I believe cables are the actual cause of the sonic changes that some people think they hear when swapping them? No, I don't. For lots of reasons. Do I *know* the cables aren't the cause? No, of course not. Can't claim I do. But the AB comparisons (blind and otherwise) I've done along with the null tests I've done (though they, like any test, fall short of theoretical perfection) have convinced me that a functional balanced cable is a functional balanced cable is a functional balanced cable. But honestly, I'm only a couple decades into messing with audio and 1.5 years into this EE degree. I've got a helluva lot left to learn (and God willing, a few more decades to mess around with sound). May change my mind. Hell, I'd be delighted if it did. It'd be fascinating. I've no dog in the fight either way. Also, ad hominem? Where? You implied I was being [insert my favorite Jethro Tull record] for not thinking what you think. I got a chuckle out of that and pushed back on some of the theory and your tone, but I see no ad hominem anywhere. I certainly didn't intend any. "Super Obvious John Eppstein", etc. etc.... perhaps I was being too sensitive.
It actually seems to me that we probably agree on mosy points here - often the internet creates an illusion of animosity when none really exists.
I think that in most cases the differences people attribute to cables are largely hallucinatory. However occasionally something makes me wonder. The reference to "miles of silver cables" was inspired by an article about a studio owned by Pink Floiyd (or maybe David Gilmour) that is on a large houseboat in the Thames and is wired entirely in silver. It was purported in the article that the cabling made an audible difference etc, etc. There have been a couple of other, similar articles I've read over the years, all involving well respected audio people. Since I have not had occasion to hear any alleged differences myself I'm not going to say there might not be something to it, who knows? It sure would be nice to have enough money to wire an entire large studio in silver. Maybe an income tax deduction for rich people? Silver IS more conductive than copper and there could be an audible cumulative difference. And conductivity is something that CAN be measured.
I do know that in some cases the quality of cable (more "normal" cables) does make a difference, but that's all about capacitance and shielding.
The "pure OFC" thing? well, alloying copper does affect conductivity slightly, but is it really enough to matter?
Interestingly, so far none of the opinions I've read on the subject have been from actual metallurgists.
As for me, until I win the lottery (and probably after) I'll continue using whatever cable is at hand and not broken. A lot of my cabling came from some large boxes of used cable given me by my local (well local when I actually lived in SF) pro audio dealer.
Who knows? Some of it might even be silver. But I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2018 11:53:18 GMT -6
Do you have to have 3 or is it 4 stars by your name to be able to preview your post before submission I use the "edit" button a lot. You shouldf see the number of typos I make.
On second thought....
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 19, 2018 12:27:27 GMT -6
Also, systematic idiosyncrasies of the connected components aside, the qualities of the cables are easy to compare whether it's a foot or 1000 miles. It's the same figures for resistance, capacitance and inductance either way. No.
Discrepancies are cumulative. So are things like noise pickup, harmonic distortion, etc.. Something that may be beyond our range of measurement is a small (short) sample may become significant over a greater length. And given that the ear is more sensitive in certain aspects than conventional test gear who's to say that a measurement that shows up with a very long sample might not have some slight audible effect in a short one? One might believe that it shouldn't, but that's making an assumption. Assumptions, of either a positive or negative type, are not scientific. A truly scientific conclusion would be "We don't know."
As an aside, one might assume that harmonic distortion should not be a factor in wire. However it is known that, e.g. carbon resistors are capable of inducing measurable distortion in some circuits. It's a very short jump from the composition of a resistor to the composition of wire - a wire is, after all, a type of resistor. I'm not saying that wire does induce significant distortion in a signal - but because we can't prove that it does (or haven't yet) doesn't mean that it does not.
It is wise to remember that all our science is actually just an approximation - which is why things are steadily updated over time; the approximation gets better and but it's still an approximation. And because it's an approximation it's possible to prove what is but it is not possible to prove what isn't unless it's a case of two possibilities that are clearly mutually exclusive.
Any conductor with a defined resistance can have Johnson-Nyquist/thermal noise, but it's an effect that is well understood, and metallic conductors are plagued less by this than conductors with crystal-type lattices such as resistors that do not use metallic windings.. This is why metal-film and metal-wound resistors have much less "resistor noise", and why conductors have almost none, at least when compared to other noise sources that dominate metallic macroconductors. However, conductor thermal noise is also random, and is white noise, so it's not imparting a "sound" on the signal, only degrading SNR. But yes, conductor physics is very, very well understood. it's just that nobody who argues about this stuff on the internet actually knows all the details that engineers deal with daily.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Nov 19, 2018 13:51:18 GMT -6
Martin, there’s no shortage of top shelf mastering guys who are into fancy cables. You’re not alone in trusting your experience over theory, or the general audio bb shit show of uninformed opinions for that matter. But, the day you realize the eq you just labored to dial in is actually in bypass, is the day you realize how easy it is to fool yourself in audio. And it’s a very common experience among AEs. Trust your gut, but question your assumptions. That’s my motto, anyway. Not all people are idiots. I'm unclear what you're trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 20, 2018 2:47:52 GMT -6
I agree with you wholeheartedly re: science in general. And re: cables for that matter. I'm comfortably agnostic about a million things and have no desire to say I know something when I don't. This subject is no exception. Do I believe cables are the actual cause of the sonic changes that some people think they hear when swapping them? No, I don't. For lots of reasons. Do I *know* the cables aren't the cause? No, of course not. Can't claim I do. But the AB comparisons (blind and otherwise) I've done along with the null tests I've done (though they, like any test, fall short of theoretical perfection) have convinced me that a functional balanced cable is a functional balanced cable is a functional balanced cable. But honestly, I'm only a couple decades into messing with audio and 1.5 years into this EE degree. I've got a helluva lot left to learn (and God willing, a few more decades to mess around with sound). May change my mind. Hell, I'd be delighted if it did. It'd be fascinating. I've no dog in the fight either way. Also, ad hominem? Where? You implied I was being [insert my favorite Jethro Tull record] for not thinking what you think. I got a chuckle out of that and pushed back on some of the theory and your tone, but I see no ad hominem anywhere. I certainly didn't intend any. "Super Obvious John Eppstein", etc. etc.... perhaps I was being too sensitive.
It actually seems to me that we probably agree on mosy points here - often the internet creates an illusion of animosity when none really exists.
I think that in most cases the differences people attribute to cables are largely hallucinatory. However occasionally something makes me wonder. The reference to "miles of silver cables" was inspired by an article about a studio owned by Pink Floiyd (or maybe David Gilmour) that is on a large houseboat in the Thames and is wired entirely in silver. It was purported in the article that the cabling made an audible difference etc, etc. There have been a couple of other, similar articles I've read over the years, all involving well respected audio people. Since I have not had occasion to hear any alleged differences myself I'm not going to say there might not be something to it, who knows? It sure would be nice to have enough money to wire an entire large studio in silver. Maybe an income tax deduction for rich people? Silver IS more conductive than copper and there could be an audible cumulative difference. And conductivity is something that CAN be measured.
I do know that in some cases the quality of cable (more "normal" cables) does make a difference, but that's all about capacitance and shielding.
The "pure OFC" thing? well, alloying copper does affect conductivity slightly, but is it really enough to matter?
Interestingly, so far none of the opinions I've read on the subject have been from actual metallurgists.
As for me, until I win the lottery (and probably after) I'll continue using whatever cable is at hand and not broken. A lot of my cabling came from some large boxes of used cable given me by my local (well local when I actually lived in SF) pro audio dealer.
Who knows? Some of it might even be silver. But I don't think so.
Just to clear up what is I think just a little syntactical misunderstanding, I wasn't saying you were 'super obvious' in general, I was lightheartedly mocking the fact that you were saying repeatedly that the correctness of your assertions should be very obvious. That's where the "Super Obvious John Eppstein Points" line came from. I didn't intend it to be a personal jab.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 20, 2018 8:22:40 GMT -6
Not all people are idiots. As we march closer to the reality espoused in the movie 'Idiocracy' (must watch, for all), I am of the belief that whilst not all people are eejits, the vast majority are leaning that way.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 20, 2018 8:26:36 GMT -6
Not all people are idiots. As we march closer to the reality espoused in the movie 'Idiocracy' (must watch, for all), I am of the belief that whilst not all people are eejits, the vast majority are leaning that way. Says every generation about the ones after it.. yet technology and knowledge keep marching onward and upward. I think it's an effect of having learned things during the brain's pliant stage, and the subsequent solidification of neural pathways that makes it harder for older folks to "understand" new things rather than a quantifiable reduction in knowledge. Kids today know more at a younger age than most adults did in high school 50 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 20, 2018 8:29:39 GMT -6
As we march closer to the reality espoused in the movie 'Idiocracy' (must watch, for all), I am of the belief that whilst not all people are eejits, the vast majority are leaning that way. Says every generation about the ones after it.. yet technology and knowledge keep marching onward and upward. I think it's an effect of having learned things during the brain's pliant stage, and the subsequent solidification of neural pathways that makes it harder for older folks to "understand" new things rather than a quantifiable reduction in knowledge. Kids today know more at a younger age than most adults did in high school 50 years ago. I'm not speaking about kids, rather people my age (just entering so-called middle age) and older. But then again, most of the brilliant people I've known are gone now. Maybe the average intellect is dumbing down because of that. Where do you fit in? Closer to 30 or 60? I'm in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 20, 2018 8:36:10 GMT -6
Says every generation about the ones after it.. yet technology and knowledge keep marching onward and upward. I think it's an effect of having learned things during the brain's pliant stage, and the subsequent solidification of neural pathways that makes it harder for older folks to "understand" new things rather than a quantifiable reduction in knowledge. Kids today know more at a younger age than most adults did in high school 50 years ago. I'm not speaking about kids, rather people my age (just entering so-called middle age) and older. But then again, most of the brilliant people I've known are gone now. Maybe the average intellect is dumbing down because of that. Where do you fit in? Closer to 30 or 60? I'm in the middle. I'm 40, so I guess the lower-mid. I don't think people are getting dumber, their beliefs are being subjected to the long-game psychological barrage of fear-based rhetoric, from all sides. As people get older, it gets obvious that the world is leaving them behind, and they cling to their beliefs more tightly as a method of damage control, or even ego/self-image protection. They can't adapt to the new world as readily as the next generation, so they resist the change using phrases like "the next generation is ruining the country" and all that nonsense. But then again, this next generation has been brought up by the last generation, so if anyone is to blame for raising children who have no understanding of personal responsibility, it's the last generation!
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 20, 2018 8:43:08 GMT -6
I'm not speaking about kids, rather people my age (just entering so-called middle age) and older. But then again, most of the brilliant people I've known are gone now. Maybe the average intellect is dumbing down because of that. Where do you fit in? Closer to 30 or 60? I'm in the middle. I'm 40, so I guess the lower-mid. I don't think people are getting dumber, their beliefs are being subjected to the long-game psychological barrage of fear-based rhetoric, from all sides. As people get older, it gets obvious that the world is leaving them behind, and they cling to their beliefs more tightly as a method of damage control, or even ego/self-image protection. They can't adapt to the new world as readily as the next generation, so they resist the change using phrases like "the next generation is ruining the country" and all that nonsense. But then again, this next generation has been brought up by the last generation, so if anyone is to blame for raising children who have no understanding of personal responsibility, it's the last generation! Further to that, svart, MORE NONSENSE: with 45% of boys raised by single mothers and 80% of school teachers being female, boys are essentially raised by women and yet feminists are claiming that boys are the problem today in society and the biggest threat facing progress. That they are misogynistic and intolerant. Yet being raised by women. This is just an indication of how stupid we are becoming. Now how does all this tie in to Ethan Winer? I would only dare to speculate, in quiet, non-verbally, to myself. Anyhow . . . way off topic.
|
|