It's basically snake oil, with extremely rare possible exceptions, especially since "graphene" is often really just graphite.
Here is a very reputable manufacturer talking about using graphene to coat their magnesium drivers:
It has a section on graphene as an insulator, but this relies on the arrangement, it doesn't seem this would hold up, or ANY of the special graphene properties woud hold up on anything flexible.
Strawman alert. Electrons don’t flow. Besides, from what I can tell a few layers of Graphene will still act like Graphene, though perhaps not to the same extent as a single one molecule thick layer. So painting a very thin Graphene paste or “solution” on wire or a structural part or a solder joint or a fuse cap might not be such a terrible idea. Also, being very highly conductive, Graphene would make an excellent RFI/EMI shield, no? Not to mention the proposition by some that a percentage of the signal travels outside the conductor.
I was impressed with Joseph Audio Perspective2 Graphene speakers that I heard at AXPONA. I believe they have graphene coated Magnesium woofers. I also thought the previous version of the Perspectives sounded good too so I suspect it isn't necessarily the graphene that appeals to me. It would be interesting to A/B both versions. I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference.
Hey @three_easy_payments :
Some things to note: The Seas graphene mid-woofer has a heavily redesigned motor. If you read the Seas white paper they make most of the discussion about the corrosion reducing properties (a very important thing for Mg drivers!) and say very very little about graphene contributing to the sound.
Observation is first in science. In science, all is theory, no facts.
Facts are for engineers so they don’t build bridges based on theory.
I observe by ear, that I hear a difference in the given scenario.
There is no reason or ’law’, or ’fact’..that says it will be immediately measurable. Measurement requires that the new or unknown be known enough to figure out how to measure it, and that’s just a starting point. Then it gets complicated (many to most times).
Ergo, facts, laws, and measurements cannot dictate reality to the act of observation..
That’s science. Where observation is king, observation is the first point found or discovered. Observation of difference is in reality, a difference. Quantification is then the issue.
Problem, when it comes: the ear is different between different people. The ear is a individually built physical package where no two are the same. Where no two systems of learning about how to hear and the internal record and system of hearing are the same. All are different. There is as much individualism in hearing as there are individuals.
Next problem encountered, due to the prior problem: Those who may not hear the ’not yet known how to be measured’ thing, or ’observation’, will, in many/some cases, dismiss the observation as hyperbola, lies, manipulations or call it ’snake oil’. Or maybe some lesser level of retorted mistrust of the observation. The nature of individualism and the idea of how a human mind works, makes it so.
Science has to ’fite dem back’, and hold it’s ground against the naysayers who do not hear the observation. Naysayers who decide, empirically, for themselves.. that it is non existent... and then thrust or force that projection upon all others. Ego. Issues of the self vs others.
This is not to say that some manipulate across this area of known vs unknowns, it is a known zone for that sort of behaviour. But this does not say that observation is a lie, either. Dogma is also societal control...so it is highly valued for some. The new observation in science has a way of breaking dogma. It is a hot/contested area in human life.
One must be careful not to invoke the comfort of dogma as a thrust into the unknowns and the new, as that is not science, it is a circular dead end waiting to be lived as a dead automaton. Ie, the death of human growth and evolution.
Science, in observation, has the core duty to make sure that dogma of the text of known things, does not force the future. As that forced future is a circular dead end. The problem comes in the form of people, not science or so on. ’Scientific Laws’ are and where truly designed, from the ground up..for engineering.... and have no place in ’science’. All of science... has only theories. Facts and laws are a good guide for an opening inquiry, and for engineering, ie building things/objects....but it ends there.
The problems encountered are in people, not science. The vagaries of the mental states of humans. The forum wars are a human problem, not a scientific or engineering problem.
Eg, I observe that to me and that to others, painting a graphene solution into certain conductive situations involving audio, makes a difference than can be heard.
Quantifying and measuring that can be a problem. And is.
And that has zero to do with the validity of the observation and one would have to be illiterate or a crank, ie totally anti-science--- to deny that.
Hey, what is this? An English major convention? Of course there are facts in science. Theories can be proven. Not all theories, but many theories have been proven. Then they’re no longer theories or theorems. Mathematically, inspection, empirically - there are many ways to prove things in science. Hel-loo!. Wake up and smell the coffee! ☕️ E=mc2 I.e., mass-energy equivalence was proven to be TRUE when the first atomic bomb exploded. Some things are assumed to be nearly true based on preponderance of the evidence, like The Big Bang and Black Holes, the expansion of the universe, things of that nature. Ohms Law is a Law, not a theory. Constants in science are real and they are true. They are not theories. Like the speed of light. The value of pi. Hubble constant. On the other hand, some people cannot be convinced of anything, obviously.
If we speak about audio, and teo__audio spoke about audio, the listening experience is not reducible to an "objective fact" like a fact is a fact for a scientific falsifiable theory; then measurement in the sense of the total reduction of this subjective experience to an objective fact is not possible...Audio experience,listening music, appreciating the distance or the proximity of the audio objective signals with the musical subjective judgement is a totally unique irreducible experience for each consciousness...In audio, hearing is the absolute individually irreducible fact, a fact so absolute for each individual that it cannot be negated or replicated by a theory or by another mind, or another ears... It is what I had understand by what he says...For sure placebo effect or nocebo effect, and illusions of all kind partake of each consciousness also, and there is no measurement that will destroy that, because perception is linked to that in a positive and also negative manner...The esthetic experience of hearing a musical sound is constituted by all that, no objective measure rule the consciousness at the beginning nor at the end...Consciousness reign not science....We must be open for example to explore way to makes the sound experience more pleasing and for that we cannot wait sometimes for the correct engineering measurement procedure if this procedure exist at the times for the precise goal at hand now for us...