Interconnects and non-believers

Now take all that, and imagine what happens when you change the fundamental ’in situ’ physics of electron transfer and flow, with the introduction of a new carrier, like liquid metal alloy.

Where the changes are enormous and in the exact level and way that ’electrons’ in flow...function. At the atomic bonding level of the molecules and atoms, where the electrons are being dealt with in the model and in the reality.

Solids have a lattice structure and a pattern of electron interaction due to such. Electron interaction is entirely different -- in the fluid. energetically it is entirely different. Every parameter you can imagine goes dynamic, even kinetic is added in, all kinds of non repeating directions..all so different and complex, that the experimental model does not yet function in any easily calculable way.

When you add in that the current model of transmission lines and solid lattice of metals... is known to seemingly not correlate very well with what we hear, well...

I said it was the biggest change in transmission lines in 100 years. The patent attorney corrected me. He said 150 years.

The more difficult a question is to answer, the longer the question exists... the more likely there are fundamental issues in the formulation of the question.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if it's $2,000 or $200. I was just using a number to make a point.

According to Nelson Pass, when the given wire piece is less than approx 6", it tends to have little to no noticeable effect.
In this, he was talking about internal wiring of gear.

I’d just as soon not drag Nelson into this, even though I initially did.

So, straw man conjecture in Nelson’s name should probably cease, please and thank you.

Nelson, IIRC, was talking about the wire from the amp circuit board to maybe the binding post. And that if the given connection was less than 6 inches in length, then in his estimation, changes there from proper choices... to some minor outlier..were not such a big deal, sonically speaking.

Other than that, it was the only time I recall Nelson getting involved in any cable question of any kind.

deleted cuz the above was deleted...

The human ear is very "threshold/complex-harmonic/temporal-mixing/micro-differential" oriented when it comes to realizing or distinguishing signals, or more specifically distinguishing transient structure. Almost all of how the ear works is tied to complex transient structure.

(fuses,BTW, are all about transient structure, ergo, humans and their hearing hear what fuses do. As simple as breathing, if you are analyzing the correct data in the formulation of the question)

Then, this ear thing...is tied to the most complex and capable computer known to humanity, the human brain. And one of the most complex system involved, is the ear-brain system. We are far from knowing it’s full capacities and intricacies, even today. World’s finest FFT analysis system, the ear-brain is. Individual examples have large variance, so we are all different. Some are ear smart, some are ear dumb.

Part of why we are more sensitive and capable than the measuring hardware and the engineering analysis.

And the ear dumb part is why some rail against the whole high end audio package. They may have smarts, some of them, but clearly not in the ear-brain package area.

It’s an ego projection problem, not a science and engineering problem. To make that ’fixed’, you have to find a way to gently introduce to the naysayer ...that some part of what they are -or how it is currently programmed- and understood, in their mind and body, is simply not up to snuff with dealing with the issue itself.

They might fix that but only after they get past the projections. Projections are a standard full spectrum (all individuals) problem, where no one is exempt. In this case, some don’t have it in the human hearing realm as much as the next person.

We’re foolish enough to argue over this, in some cases.

They’re mistaken all the time.

And a bunch of them are also correct in what they say and hear.

So you can’t use straw man injections, accusations, and barbs-- when you want... and ignore the rest of it.

Oh. Wait. You do.

In almost every single post you make.

Alrighty then. apologies.
It’s tied to this sort of thing. Not specifically, but it does deal with some of the aspects involved in the question and answer set. Is it the data? Various forms of human related (psychology and medical, etc) research are only too aware of how data can be corrupting if not properly couched and understood. Physics, at the cutting edge, can be guilty of not dealing with this all too human problem.

Where the trinity of human, question, and answer... all have to be equal to the scenario at hand. Like a three legged chair, with one leg missing, if the human has faults in the relationship to/with the two other... the functionality becomes...non existent.

High level questions with high level answers require high levels of perfection of the human in the hot seat. Thus the line of requiring to raise yourself to the level of the question, in order to reach it. That moment when Richard Feynman was asked to explain the Nobel he received to someone.. and his reply was.. they gave him the Nobel because...-he could not explain it to them.

Why do this sort of thing? The purpose is an exercise in getting a useful grip on what can go wrong. "Norman is born from the fact that the data that is used to teach a machine learning algorithm can significantly influence its behavior. So when people talk about AI algorithms being biased and unfair, the culprit is often not the algorithm itself, but the biased data that was fed to it. The same method can see very different things in an image, even sick things, if trained on the wrong (or, the right!) data set."

https://techxplore.com/news/2018-06-inkblot-ai-omg-street-stabbing.html


Once you’ve attacked, I am only properly wary. For all the right reasons.

And in better news today, spinal cords:https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-acute-spinal-cord-injury-monkeys.html
Part of how objectivity is a subset of subjective reality. All of science, with it’s expression of objectivity can be put in a jar and put inside the box of philosophy. There’s a lot going on in the science jar, sure. It forgets, though, it has learned improperly, for the vast number of adherents within science. Too many generations, too many layers, too wide a scope.. and it can be, and has been - forgotten. Too many layers of people and this all important fundamental can be lost. That it is ultimately, logically, born from and is a child of philosophy.
But that thing about cutting edge physics and how ALL of the human in the equation must be fully ’in’. (the three legged chair) And that involves human psychology had philosophy. So one had better be equal to the question, otherwise the answer will be garbled, if not worse.
And, I think I've got to lay off the coffee.
Drink a whole pot and that pile appears on the page. Whew.

Interesting, never knew that. Not the kind of thing the businesses advertise. All we get is the sunny side.

But it is critical, for a business to succeed in the audio world, to provide a clear path to curbing ’audio nervosa’, especially when dealing with the twitchy side of it.

If that is not in place, then the problems will only build as the nervosa types will quickly gather and tear generosity to pieces via abuse.

"Well, I know that you're tired of living this way
We've been trying to get high without having to pay"

'Brain Drain' -Marianne Faithfull

Ah, yes, a way has to be found to balance out the costs.

The need to have ego reflected?
We all live in that moment.

@prof

Yeah, speaker break in seems a lot more plausible to me.

I’m not sure though about the magnitude of the effects. I never noticed speaker break in on any speaker I’ve owned, (and I’m a careful listener) so I just have to infer what I can from outside information.

It simply means that you can’t hear it..

and thinking that others could not hear it... is a sin of thinking that your hearing is as good as anyone else’s... or that their hearing is not better than yours or better trained than yours.

A sin of logic omission combined with projection.

You are very smooth with your straw man projections, very nicely couched.

But make no mistake, they are still straw man projections, moments of pronounced airs of superiority in their undercurrent. The kind of subtleties that make it very obvious that you know something, at the very least, about couching speech in terms that are missed by most.. as being the linguistic subtleties that they really are -which is ’manipulative techniques’ in literary expression. Some might call it Machiavellian, even.

In some circles it’s called ’neuro linguistic programming’. You keep committing logical fallacies that are long tailed in written scope, where it takes more than a single point in analysis or thought for some to see.

@ unreceivedogma

Somebody - was it Prof? - mentioned speaker break in.

For what it it is worth, my speakers sound different depending on weather conditions: temp, humidity, air pressure etc

and somebody posted a link to The Cable Cooker. At first I thought it was an Onion thing, then I realized they were serious.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-difficulties-in-component-shootouts

I have a few posts in there that lay out the fundamentals in the logic of this whole mess about ears and hearing, and why science and measurement are still catching up to it.

It's a complex story, not a simple one. That it requires some wide ranging complex data sets to grok the true shape of the question, never mind unraveling the answer from such.

Otherwise these discussions would never take place nor remain unresolved.

Another way of saying that: the longer the complex and unresolved question  has been around.....  the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question.