• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

CONFESSION - about cables and interconnects

Status
Not open for further replies.
rothwellaudio said:
Prove what? That electricity is well-understood? That electrons are charged particles? That electrons orbit nuclei in distinct shells? There's a whole body of knowledge pertaining to electricity - there isn't just "a law".
Click to expand...
Physics is not a required subject in American secondary education system. Even if you take physics, it is a one-year course, which covers at best some mechanics and some electricity & magnetism. No thermodynamics, no optics, no acoustics, no quantum mechanics. The famous Feynman's physics lectures contain largely what is considered high school material in other countries. I wish my school physics had a course on electronics, even analog one, but it did not. It was at best at 1950s level, and it was algebra-based only. Good enough to mess with house wiring, but circuit diagrams with discrete electronic components are out of my level of understanding.

Having said the above, I am no better educated than those who did not take physics course. :) So, maybe someone can explain the following phenomenon. I have got a cassette deck, which I connected to my receiver with a cable having RCA connectors: line out into line in (NOT phone in or mic in). When I played several cassettes I could hear distortion, and I could hear it both on my own recordings as well as on pre-recorded tapes. I could hear it from big floor-standing speakers and from headphone output. I don't know what pushed me to try to replace the cable, because I don't believe in interconnect mumbo-jumbo. But I tried three or four cables, and one of them fixed the issue: there is no distortion anymore. Again, it is not like I am hearing better "stage" or "definition" or "clarity" or other golden-ear type stuff. I heard distortions which are usually caused when you record a tape too hot. And with the cable that works, these distortions are gone. This is not an expensive golden-plated fancy cable, quite the opposite, it looks as cheap as all my other cables, but it fixed my issue.

So... What was it, and what was different about the "good" cable?
 
Last edited:
rothwellaudio said:
Prove what? That electricity is well-understood? That electrons are charged particles? That electrons orbit nuclei in distinct shells? There's a whole body of knowledge pertaining to electricity - there isn't just "a law".
Click to expand...

Which is why I used 'Laws,' you know, more than one. BTW I was taught that electrons surround the nucleus in a cloud, not distinct shells. Well, before I was forced to take real physics in pursuit of an EE degree, we were taught that electrons lived is distinct shell. The periodic table of elements has something to do with this IIRC. There are even electron microscope images that show these clouds. I also did not imply we don't 'understand' electricity. After all, how do you think we got electric power, light bulbs, telephones, TVs, stereos, and computers in the first place? Aliens?
 
Last edited:
nailer said:
Most 'Science' is theoretical, thus highly conjecturedized way overly complicated complexified math :idea:
Click to expand...

In my previous post, I was just disputing your post where you stated that most science is theoretical and I assume you meant based on conjecture. That statement is simply not true. Most science is based on experimental facts. You can scan the scientific literature and find hundreds of thousands of publications that are based on experimental investigations. In many cases experiments have been performed to validate or dispute scientific theories and in other cases theoretical methods can be used to help understand experimental results.

I have often used theoretical ab initio Molecular Orbital calculations as well as Molecular Mechanics based on Allinger’s MM2 force field to aid in the understanding of photoemission experimental results. I have found that both theoretical and experimental methods can be used to complement each other.

nailer said:
So, you're claiming that over half of all scientific theories that apply to our hobby are Scientific Laws? For example, we know that current flows down a wire because it does, as Ben showed us way back when; but why this happens is still a theory to the best of my recollection. I could be wrong though, not being a physics nerd.
Click to expand...

I never said anything regarding scientific laws that apply to our hobby. I am not sure what you mean by that.

There are many papers dealing with the flow of electricity in a theoretical sense and many experiments have been done to validate the theory. If you scan the scientific literature, you will find numerous publications on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Lou G said:
In my previous post, I was just disputing your post where you stated that most science is theoretical and I assume you meant based on conjecture. That statement is simply not true. Most science is based on experimental facts. You can scan the scientific literature and find hundreds of thousands of publications that are based on experimental investigations. In many cases experiments have been performed to validate or dispute scientific theories and in other cases theoretical methods can be used to help understand experimental results.

I have often used theoretical ab initio Molecular Orbital calculations as well as Molecular Mechanics based on Allinger’s MM2 force field to aid in the understanding of photoemission experimental results. I have found that both theoretical and experimental methods can be used to complement each other.





I never said anything regarding scientific laws that apply to our hobby. I am not sure what you mean by that.

There are many papers dealing with the flow of electricity in a theoretical sense and many experiments have been done to validate the theory. If you scan the scientific literature, you will find numerous publications on the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've never responded to any of your posts in this thread and I think your taking what I wrote out of context. Regarding the bolded text, I don't recall saying that you did.

Newton's three Laws were theoretical when he came up with them as was Einstein's work. I think much Einstein remains theoretical, although not E=mc2, thanks to the bomb.

Not sure what you have posted has to do with whether or not different configurations of interconnect, speaker cable and power cord does or does not have an impact on how a system sounds. The only way to find this out is through experimentation and I have posted here on this thread about my 'experiments for each of these three categories.
 
Last edited:
nailer said:
Not sure what you have posted has to do with whether or not different configurations of interconnect, speaker cable and power cord does or does not have an impact on how a system sounds. The only way to find this out is through experimentation and I have posted here on this thread about my 'experiments for each of these three categories.
Click to expand...

In my last Post #667, I was trying to enlighten you that most science is not theoretical and based on conjecture as you stated in Post #653 and I provided an example of where I used theoretical methods in conjunction with experimental results. These methods can be and have been used to study the electronic and chemical properties of the materials used in audio cables, connectors, insulators etc. When marketing claims are made regarding the exotic properties of a cable, connector or insulator that will enhance the audio signal, these studies can be used to confirm or contradict such claims.
 
The biggest problem with science (imo) is the seeming lack of philisophical awareness, there are an awful lot of 'scientists' that alter expirimental data to better align with 'theoretical methods' for any number of reasons (scientists are also human). And then there's the fact that no field of scientific knowledge is complete, therefor any 'expiriment' and data derived from it will also be limited (how can you measure/study something you are unaware of).

There's also an over reliance on statistics in popular culture, don't get me wrong they are a great tool for analysing data, but pretty useless when applied to humans on an individual level, just look at the use in this thread in regard to perceptions about hearing loss in various age groups, sure it's statistically true when talking about entire populations, but not so much on an individual level. Just look at how insidious the misconception of 'normal' is.
 
AudioAvarice said:
The biggest problem with science (imo) is the seeming lack of philisophical awareness, there are an awful lot of 'scientists' that alter expirimental data to better align with 'theoretical methods' for any number of reasons (scientists are also human). And then there's the fact that no field of scientific knowledge is complete, therefor any 'expiriment' and data derived from it will also be limited (how can you measure/study something you are unaware of).
Click to expand...

I am curious, who are the scientists that you have found that altered their experimental data to align with theoretical methods.

I have carried out research in collaboration with many scientists for over 40 years and I have never come across anyone that altered their experimental data.
 
Lou G said:
I am curious, who are the scientists that you have found that altered their experimental data to align with theoretical methods.

I have carried out research in collaboration with many scientists for over 40 years and I have never come across anyone that altered their experimental data.
Click to expand...

I've seen it personally on several occasions and it passed into the body of knowledge undetected by all but the most curious. All researchers/scientists are not for sale but research and science is available.
 
Lou G said:
Ok, that is one. I actually never heard of him, not my field of research. AudioAvarice said there are an awful lot.
Click to expand...


I have friends who work at Pacific Northwest Labs, I could never imagine any of them misrepresenting data. They live for solving puzzles of chemistry. Somewhat matter of fact too. Ask them about science fiction and Star Trek, Star Wars or whatever...their comments are "it's really bad science in those movies."

But never say never as Woo-Suk story shows.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of it is the media portrayal of science as having definitive answers, without going into the detail that those definitive answers often only apply in a limited/controlled enviroment, and that in many 'real world' situations there are too many variables (this applies to biology especially).
 
Lou G said:
In my last Post #667, I was trying to enlighten you that most science is not theoretical and based on conjecture as you stated in Post #653 and I provided an example of where I used theoretical methods in conjunction with experimental results. These methods can be and have been used to study the electronic and chemical properties of the materials used in audio cables, connectors, insulators etc. When marketing claims are made regarding the exotic properties of a cable, connector or insulator that will enhance the audio signal, these studies can be used to confirm or contradict such claims.
Click to expand...

And I tried to enlighten you as to your taking my post out of context. In addition, the reply you just made is nonresponsive to the point I made in the post that you only partially quoted. BTW if some of the methods you use are theoretical, how do you know that they have any real relevance to what you are trying to accomplish?

I think you just may be conflating science with technology, although they are integrated and do overlap.
 
Last edited:
Mister Pig said:
I have friends who work at Pacific Northwest Labs, I could never imagine any of them misrepresenting data. They live for solving puzzles of chemistry. Somewhat matter of fact too. Ask them about science fiction and Star Trek, Star Wars or whatever...their comments are "it's really bad science in those movies."

But never say never as Woo-Suk story shows.
Click to expand...

That's why it's called science fiction. :cool:
 
Lou G said:
I am curious, who are the scientists that you have found that altered their experimental data to align with theoretical methods.

I have carried out research in collaboration with many scientists for over 40 years and I have never come across anyone that altered their experimental data.
Click to expand...

Data has to be interpreted and although figures don't lie, liars can figure.
 
Lou G said:
Ok, I have seen that article before. I am not familiar with anyone on that list. The majority are not in my field of research. It seems like a lot but it is a small percentage of the active scientists in the world which is over 8 million scientists.
Click to expand...

Using simple mathematics, 2% of 8 M scientists is 160,000, which to be fair and to me, does appear to be quite a high number.

DG…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom