Sorry, don't use em. The best cable is no cable. Ditto power cords.
|
randy-11
59 posts
10-15-2016 3:52pm
What most audiophiles want from a cable is confirmation bias.
That cannot be confirmed. |
Randy11 wrote,
For example, you see a couple of people above making bold claims, but they cannot back it up with ANY real listening tests. Post the methodology in your own double-blind tests. Or just tell us what volume of JAES or other engineering or scientific journal the test appeared in.
gosh, you mean audio Journals, AES, JAES or whoever, actually think there are audible differences among cables? WOW, they’ve really gotten progressive.
|
hifiman5
285 posts
10-28-2016 7:48pm
"My guess is that audiophiles see cables as similar to water hoses, and the goal is to increase the flow and remove the constriction. That’s at odds with reality, since we’re not dealing with electrons flowing into preamps, amps or speakers."
I hope the above is a typo! If its not electrons flowing along the cables into our components and speakers then what is it? Little fairies?
............................
sorry to put a damper on the water hose theory of cables but electrons move at a rate of only a few centimeters per minute, in AC circuits they move to and fro, with net zero gain. The audio signal itself, you know, the electromagnetic wave, on the other hand, travels at near light speed.
|
hifiman5
286 posts
10-29-2016 4:17pm
@geoffkait Might your electrons need testing for ADD/ADHD?? For gods’ sake man organize your electrons.
Look at what’s going on at the quantum level here. Is this reality or are all of us really in the Matrix?
Thnx for pointing that out as I forgot to mention - you know that electromagnetic wave I mentioned, the one that’s the audio signal? It’s not electrons, it’s photons. ;-)
Cheers
|
Hey, I’m a NASA dude, too. All electromagnetic waves are comprised of photons. Photons like the ones in X rays and audio signals don’t have to be visible. They have varying uh wavelengths. The electromagnetic spectrum is much wider than the portion that contains visible light. It also explains why electromagnetic waves travel at light speed since photons are the only thing that can go that fast. Photons must travel at the speed of light! Hel-loo!
cheeios
|
randy-11
163 posts
10-30-2016 3:27pm
"by NASA dude, you must mean you live near NASA
your above post is a mix of some truth with untruth"
what’s the diff to someone like yourself, Zippy?
|
chrisr
167 posts
11-04-2016 4:22pm
Yea thanks maybe something really big I know, but I just don’t get the use of liquid in cables as discussed above,other than maybe for having an additional layer of control over photons’ energy? I have always thought that electrons traveling down a pvc-covered (or PE) wire could not be struck by a single photon and even if they did, the photon(s) frequency could not be high enough to change electrons’ kinetic energy, not to mention eject a single one from the copper. The work function is totally insufficient in this case imo.
well, just to interject, the electrons traveling down the cable can’t have too much kinetic energy to begin with as the electrons are traveling what, around a few centimeters per minute? And as the mass of electrons is also rather small the result is hardly any kinetic energy at all.
cheers
|
chrisr
168 posts
11-04-2016 11:04pm
Well, i am not sure at this moment, but i'' ll consult with my friend albert on this one, as it may be worth to enlghten ourselves on this potential breakup of elements.
One assumes you're referring to Fat Albert.
|
Chrisr wrote,
"So basically, we could come close to the perfect cable by inserting a laser beam into the pvc jacket, which is doable with an optical fiber, preferably glass for near-zero loss. Now what copper gauge to use remains a question mark."
I found the perfect cable and perfect power cord. It’s Zero gauge cable. No, not 00 gauge, I use no cables or interconnects or power cords. As in Zero. I’m not a big fan of sub-atomic particle interactions. Think outside the box!
|
Randy-11 wrote,
- What you CAN trust is a blind listening test - both A/B and extended on familiar program material
Blind tests are just as inconclusive as any other tests. You could even say untrustworthy. Sorry to burst your bubble.
|
randy-11 wrote,
"Blind testing removes confirmation bias.
If you don’t understand that, then you are doomed to live with a tin-foil hat on your head."
Wow! If you’re worried about confirmation bias you’re in a world of hurt.
But what I’m really driving at is that if a blind test results are negative what can you conclude? Nothing. Any test blind test or otherwise is just a data point. There are many reasons why a test might have negative results. So, that’s why you actually can’t point to blinds tests as proving something doesn’t work. Conversely if a blind test's results are positive then we can say, hey, this thing might have a shot! Follow?
|
inna
2,828 posts
11-07-2016 10:38pm
If there is a floor vibration - yes. I have almost none unless the volume is very high, I don't listen at such volume level.
almost none? I wouldn't think so, you know, what with the floor vibration produced by traffic, subways, Earth crust motion, those kinds of things.
|
whitestix
I haven't seen much of GK posting, but he can be relied upon for contributing nothing but nonsense to the discussion.
What? Whoa! Where's that coming from. Oh, California. Never mind.
|
