If you can hear it, it must be measurable

[whoaru99]

Yes, you have, and so have others. My point was that those can only tell us so much. I don't think there's anything "mysterious" about it, I'm suggesting that there's a lot more to why and how cables perform beyond R, C, and L.

In the end, I don't have anything to prove to anyone. I've heard the differences, it's really not a debate for me anymore. It does surprise me that so many people still think the whole cable thing is bogus, or that we know everything there is to know about why things sound the way they do.

OK, so what other things might there be if not R, C, and L? I think the causes of affect to R, C, and L are often confused with those basic electrical properties themselves.

Some have mentioned skin effect, but basically that is a phenomena affecting the electrical properties of the cable. For example, what skin effect does is skew the (R)esistance of the cable between higher and lower frequency signals. In other words, the cable's resistance increases with the frequency of the signal thereby causing HF attenuation/rolloff.

So, while there may be any number of phenomena that can change R, C, and L, those are the fundamental electrical properties that are being affected. Put another way, skin effect is what changed R at higher frequencies, but the change in R is what influenced the change to the signal.

Nobody is suggesting anyone change what they do if they are satisfied with their process/method. I understand the thrill of the chase/hunt is part of it.

Also, the point of Audioholics, IMO, isn't to suggest that everyone buy on specs (or become "measurement uber alles"), but merely to explore claims/products and try to reconcile them with hard data...exactly in line with the topic of this thread.

 

[Spikedart]

thank you

And how exactly would we do that? What would we be looking for to explain why cables can sound different for one another? I think you missed the point of more than a few posts in this thread: just because it's possible to measure something does not mean we are currently able to do so.

Many have argued with me on threads thus far that we already know everything there is to know about [sound] and the means to measure the variables involved in audio reproduction.

Obviously I disagree with that notion.

 

[whoaru99]

What sort of things you think are the big unknowns in audio?

 

[Spikedart]

Ha

What sort of things you think are the big unknowns in audio?

Talk about an illogical question...
If I knew them...then they...wouldn't be unknown!

Why does something sound good or not is a continuing challenge which as far as I know, hasn't been conquered. The synergistic action that occurs among components. Speaker designs, electronics. There are new things being discovered all the time, often by trial and error, sometimes the "why" is not understood. The "why" may need new testing techniques to be developed in order to understand what is happening.

 

[Spikedart]

Actually,

Yes. It was mood, not the system.

It was a bad solder joint in an RC network on one of the driver cards.
Now it sounds great every day.

 

[Brett]

It was a bad solder joint in an RC network on one of the driver cards.
Now it sounds great every day.

From the quote I responded to, there was no mention of it being a technical issue. Faults are a different thing to an emotional response to something that is still performing the same.

 

[Spikedart]

I know

I was just goofing on the thread a little. No disrespect meant.

 

[Brett]

None taken.

 

[nsaspook]

Talk about an illogical question...
If I knew them...then they...wouldn't be unknown!

Why does something sound good or not is a continuing challenge which as far as I know, hasn't been conquered. The synergistic action that occurs among components. Speaker designs, electronics. There are new things being discovered all the time, often by trial and error, sometimes the "why" is not understood. The "why" may need new testing techniques to be developed in order to understand what is happening.

Sound measurements systems are far advanced in other fields. Sonar 3D imaging and characterization systems have had billions of dollars invested into R&D. The basic result is there is no magic "thing" waiting to be found.

http://www.soundmetrics.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWoWVAtAW3M&feature=related

 

[Spikedart]

Never said "magic", did I?

Sound measurements systems are far advanced in other fields. Sonar 3D imaging and characterization systems have had billions of dollars invested into R&D. The basic result is there is no magic "thing" waiting to be found.

http://www.soundmetrics.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWoWVAtAW3M&feature=related

Oh, I agree that scientists have come a long way in 50 years.

I was an analytical chemist for 17 years. You would think that we would be "done" with finding new ways to quantify or qualify materials that have been in existence forever. We haven't.

Are you so smart that you can say that "audio" quantification is complete, end of story, no more free enchiladas?

Only a fool would say that with any level of confidence.

Yes, the 3d sonar is nice, but it doesn't describe everything, does it?

Maybe we should get into a technical discussion of passive vs active measuring techniques and the problems associated with each. Think along the lines of the issues that arise when attempting to measure quantum events. There are similarities here that can't be ignored.

 

[Mr. Lin]

Oh, I agree that scientists have come a long way in 50 years.

I was an analytical chemist for 17 years. You would think that we would be "done" with finding new ways to quantify or qualify materials that have been in existence forever. We haven't.

Are you so smart that you can say that "audio" quantification is complete, end of story, no more free enchiladas?

Only a fool would say that with any level of confidence.

Yes, the 3d sonar is nice, but it doesn't describe everything, does it?

Maybe we should get into a technical discussion of passive vs active measuring techniques and the problems associated with each. Think along the lines of the issues that arise when attempting to measure quantum events. There are similarities here that can't be ignored.

Yes, suggesting there are things we don't understand, cannot yet measure, or that we cannot yet interpret those measurements, does not imply "magic."

 

[nsaspook]

Oh, I agree that scientists have come a long way in 50 years.

I was an analytical chemist for 17 years. You would think that we would be "done" with finding new ways to quantify or qualify materials that have been in existence forever. We haven't.

Are you so smart that you can say that "audio" quantification is complete, end of story, no more free enchiladas?

Only a fool would say that with any level of confidence.

Yes, the 3d sonar is nice, but it doesn't describe everything, does it?

Maybe we should get into a technical discussion of passive vs active measuring techniques and the problems associated with each. Think along the lines of the issues that arise when attempting to measure quantum events. There are similarities here that can't be ignored.

Using quantized modes for audio transducers has actually been done. The theory is not new but the nano-scale structures required to create the detectors can now be easily made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acousto-optics
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13296


We don't know everything but we do know a hell of a lot about basic matter interactions to the quantum level.

For home or pro-audio that well has been tapped to the bottom. The frequencies and power levels of human hearing are just so narrow in the spectrum of current measurement capabilities.
The confidence level is high on this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density

 

[whoaru99]

Talk about an illogical question...
If I knew them...then they...wouldn't be unknown!

Why does something sound good or not is a continuing challenge which as far as I know, hasn't been conquered. The synergistic action that occurs among components. Speaker designs, electronicsThere are new things being discovered all the time, often by trial and error, sometimes the "why" is not understood. The "why" may need new testing techniques to be developed in order to understand what is happening.

You missed the point. What's in bold is the sort of thing I'm talking about. That specific point is often cited as one of the "unknowns", i.e. why Brand A seems to pair well with Brand B.

Do you think the interaction of audio components is beyond and or somehow more complex than what exists in other technologies, such as those mentioned by nsaspook? More complex than the most complex thing that humans have so far engineered or "figured out"?

 

[Spikedart]

good responses, all

I agree that the major issues regarding the quant/qualification of physics, chemistry, electronics, materials science and human physiology have probably been described. However, I believe that there is more, however small it may be. There is always more, always something that will be found, always a better way to do something. And that is the pursuit of perfection, right?

I respect your opinions and your contributions to this thread.

 

[whoaru99]

I agree there may well be more. The Higgs boson, for example, has only been predicted/theorized, never observed or measured, yet many believe it is key to explaining lots of things (things I cannot explain).

Perhaps my point was that I've never heard anyone mention the "Higgs boson" of audio, and theorize about how it may contribute to a better understanding of things we observe or measure, or don't.

 

[niklasthedol]

There will always be another influencing parameter, particle, atom as long as there is a tomorrow.
There will always be improvements in the way we measure, in the way science develops, in the way thery is understood and interpretated.

What we do not know enough, or even much, about is the human subcontiousness' impact on the perception of the senses.

This is the reason our experiences of reproduced and live music differ ............... even to an extend that makes HiFi/Audio communities existence possible.

Another POV is that many people on hifi communities, in particular, tends to think that it's all about putting things into formulas and do the calculation.
This not realistic.
The scientist have impact on the invironment that is presently under research.
Just as the relation between two people alters when a third person arrives.
Just as the circuity behaviour alters the moment you measure anything on it.

This is why objectivity never can be more than what we aim at.
Subjectivity will be the starting and standing point.

"dolph"

 

[nsaspook]

I agree there may well be more. The Higgs boson, for example, has only been predicted/theorized, never observed or measured, yetmany believe it is key to explaining lots of things (things I cannot explain).

Perhaps my point was that I've never heard anyone mention the "Higgs boson" of audio, and theorize about how it may contribute to a better understanding of things we observe or measure, or don't.

I guess we'll find out then the LHC finally gets back online and runs at full energy. The scale of the project reminds me of the old TV series "Time Tunnel". We are using energy to recreate conditions 1 second after a 'Big Bang" event. I have several low energy Ion accelerator machines at work that run up to 3Mev, this thing will top out at 7Tev.

I think the "Higgs boson" of audio is our enjoyment of all things musical.

LHC Higgs links
http://cms.web.cern.ch/cms/Physics/HuntingHiggs/CMS.html
http://atlas.ch/
https://edms.cern.ch/file/445877/4/Vol_1_Chapter_19.pdf http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1210185
http://cms.web.cern.ch/cms/Detector/WhatCMS/index.html
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

My Job. Ion Implantation http://www.casetechnology.com/links.html

 

[whoaru99]

There will always be another influencing parameter, particle, atom as long as there is a tomorrow.
There will always be improvements in the way we measure, in the way science develops, in the way thery is understood and interpretated.

What we do not know enough, or even much, about is the human subcontiousness' impact on the perception of the senses.

This is the reason our experiences of reproduced and live music differ ............... even to an extend that makes HiFi/Audio communities existence possible.

Another POV is that many people on hifi communities, in particular, tends to think that it's all about putting things into formulas and do the calculation.
This not realistic.
The scientist have impact on the invironment that is presently under research.
Just as the relation between two people alters when a third person arrives.
Just as the circuity behaviour alters the moment you measure anything on it.

This is why objectivity never can be more than what we aim at.
Subjectivity will be the starting and standing point.

"dolph"

Agreed, but again, the subject of subjectivity is not the topic at hand. It is merely "if you can hear it, it must be measurable".

Have we come to any concensus on that?

My answer is "Yes", if we can hear it, it must be measurable.

 

[Spikedart]

it must be

Agreed, but again, the subject of subjectivity is not the topic at hand. It is merely "if you can hear it, it must be measurable".

Have we come to any concensus on that?

My answer is "Yes", if we can hear it, it must be measurable.

Agreed.

 

[Spikedart]

cool job

My Job. Ion Implantation http://www.casetechnology.com/links.html

Your ion deposition device reminds me in some small way of the ICP-MS instruments I used to work with.