Audioquest DBS system for cables

WELquest · Feb 13, 2016

Jinjuku said:
I saw what you wrote but it was just conjecture... Isn't HDMI CMNR by design? You understand that inductance is effectively nulled and the math proves it.

I can run 2000 foot of 485 serial cable in an industrial environment. There is a crap load of inductance on that run. Just barge loads of it. BUT it's effectively null.

I can run a 10 foot stretch of zip cord in a home environment and there is barely any inductance on that run. And the minimal inductance on that run is so low as to be not a problem at the impedance we are talking about.

I have yet to see anything from you that supports a single point you are trying to make. If what you are insisting is true then it is describable with the universal language of mathematics, measurements, or properly conducted evaluations that trend with the theories.

I suggest taking up the speaker cable inductance issue on the Naim Audio forum ... not really, they have enough other things to discuss.

I mention Naim because most of their amplifiers, and many previous Linn and Exposure models, are very sensitive to the attached load. A 10ft parallel cable (though they prefer 3.5m), with it's relatively high inductance, is required in order to partially isolate the amplifier output from the reactance of the load. Depending on the speaker, the amp will heat-up and sound terrible in the treble using twisted-pair cable, but sound fine using parallel cable.

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 13, 2016

amirm said:
Bill, you just said you can't say that but then you proceed to say it . There are two possibilities here:

1. There is a difference there and I am unable to hear it.

2. There is no difference and hence the reason I don't hear it.

You can't just make one of these true with no data whatsoever.

And by data I don't mean theories. Let's say I tell you that when electrons move in the wire, they cause it to microscopically to move. And that fact disturbs the rest of the cable and hence as the signal goes down the wire the signal is distorted. Therefore I conclude that the wire must be encapsulated in concrete and any wire that is not is causing distortion. I build such a cable and it indeed makes a difference to me. I then show it a bunch of people and they in turn say the same.

Please tell me if you believe the above theory and proof points I have provided.

And now I patiently await someone to introduce wire encased in concrete, marketed based on this theory.

Tim

Jinjuku · Feb 13, 2016

WELquest said:
I suggest taking up the speaker cable inductance issue on the Naim Audio forum ... not really, they have enough other things to discuss.

I mention Naim because most of their amplifiers, and many previous Linn and Exposure models, are very sensitive to the attached load. A 10ft parallel cable (though they prefer 3.5m), with it's relatively high inductance, is required in order to partially isolate the amplifier output from the reactance of the load. Depending on the speaker, the amp will heat-up and sound terrible in the treble using twisted-pair cable, but sound fine using parallel cable.

Or I can reasonably omit Naim from a long list of amplifiers that I could look at for future purchase and not be any poorer for it.

My next setup will be 100% active so I'll be presenting transducers directly to the amp with out any worries about phase angle, reactive loading, passive loss, skewed damping.

I'll get all the advantages and be able to use commodity parts ta boot.

Gregadd · Feb 13, 2016

Bill for some time scientist doubted the existence of the curve ball saying it was an optical illusion. The advance in slow motion photography made this claim more and more difficult to sustain. Even worse technology emerged that allows one to actually track the path of the ball.

Rather than admit they were wrong they announced the breaking ball was indeed a myth. There was no break just a gradual curve that begun when the ball left the pitchers hand.
One can only hope measuremts will catch up with what cables do.

Ronm1 · Feb 13, 2016

Phelonious Ponk said:
And now I patiently await someone to introduce wire encased in concrete, marketed based on this theory.

Tim

I have, sonics became heavy and have mucho weight. Crushed my lifters though!

WELquest · Feb 13, 2016

Phelonious Ponk said:
And now I patiently await someone to introduce wire encased in concrete, marketed based on this theory.

Tim

Actually -- the Japanese, who as a culture often investigate and act with remarkable single-mindedness, decades ago did create a cable encased in epoxy.

That wasn't exactly about the micro-phenonemena Amir postulated, but was about interaction between strands, and the demonstrable and well understood fact that a multi-strand conductor induces less IM when held more rigidly. I suspect any success this concept had was more at the DYI level

amirm · Feb 13, 2016

WELquest said:
I think he was weak for not being able to include what he had learned from the ABX experience, which was an important and valuable perspective, without having to deny his own previous knowledge and experience.

He had experience but not knowledge. He gained the latter after testing his ears and only his ears in evaluating amplifiers, i.e. ABX test.

I could counter your anecdotal stories with hundreds of listening tests I have been part of to determine what I hear is right or not right. I can tell you that in vast majority of sighted tests, my evaluations have been wrong. This, despite being aware of what causes that kind of bias. Our entire being and listening ability hinges on us making up what is not there. A violin sounds like a violin even in a clock radio. As a species, we are an optimistic one, more akin to believing than not. This is why even knowledge of bias is not enough to keep us from making mistaken judgements. We routinely, easily and with no effort hear improvements that are not there. It is just who we are.

I hope deep down inside you have healthy doubt as to merits of what you are speaking of here.

WELquest · Feb 13, 2016

Gregadd said:
Bill for some time scientist doubted the existence of the curve ball saying it was an optical illusion. The advance in slow motion photography made this claim more and more difficult to sustain. Even worse technology emerged that allows one to actually track the path of the ball.

Rather than admit they were wrong they announced the breaking ball was indeed a myth. There was no break just a gradual curve that begun when the ball left the pitchers hand.
One can only hope measuremts will catch up with what cables do.

Thanks for the excellent analogy -- which I see as applicable both because the original challenge was measuring at all, and because what was needing to be measured (the breaking phenomenon) was a level of detail in the physical phenomenon that was not being considered -- though was of course obvious once the photographic data forced awareness.

Hindsight makes what has been discovered seem so obvious, which to the lesser minded is taken as a sort of proof that's what not yet equally visible must not exist.

I suspect that even when humanity's time in the universe ends, thousands or billions of years from now, the dual frontiers will never have gone away: The frontier of yet to be learned questions, much less answers, and the frontier of what is already well known and understood being visible to and undeniable by all.

I can only wish that the frontier of wisdom, respect for the not-yet-known, will have progressed, though I cannot imagine that the dual phenomenon of some portion of humanity believing in ridiculous things, and another portion not believing evident truths, will have fundamentally changed.

C'est la vie -- c'est la guerre!

Sincerely, Bill

amirm · Feb 13, 2016

Phelonious Ponk said:
And now I patiently await someone to introduce wire encased in concrete, marketed based on this theory.

Tim

. Ultimately this is my problem with high-end tweeks. There has not been one theory that I know of that has been dismissed as not being correct. Every theory behind every tweak has its designer and customers backing it. How can this industry not have any flops? How can it be so unique in this manner? That every person can wake up in the morning, cook up some scheme and nothing exist to evaluate its efficacy?

WELquest · Feb 13, 2016

amirm said:
He had experience but not knowledge. He gained the latter after testing his ears and only his ears in evaluating amplifiers, i.e. ABX test.

I could counter your anecdotal stories with hundreds of listening tests I have been part of to determine what I hear is right or not right. I can tell you that in vast majority of sighted tests, my evaluations have been wrong. This, despite being aware of what causes that kind of bias. Our entire being and listening ability hinges on us making up what is not there. A violin sounds like a violin even in a clock radio. As a species, we are an optimistic one, more akin to believing than not. This is why even knowledge of bias is not enough to keep us from making mistaken judgements. We routinely, easily and with no effort hear improvements that are not there. It is just who we are.

I hope deep down inside you have healthy doubt as to merits of what you are speaking of here.

Some very nicely put points! "Knowledge of bias" isn't the end of the story, just as knowing that a placebo is a placebo doesn't stop it from having a statistically relevant effect. Proving that the drug was a placebo does not prove it can't be effective, etc.

Yes, I have doubts. The power of suggestion, the astonishing fallibility of memory, susceptibility to suggestion -- only a hint of why skepticism is fundamental to investigation. While I often see an absurd lack of methodology in my community, being flabbergasted and embarrassed when someone changes the volume and who when then questioned says that they can hear well enough to return the system to the same volume (without aid of a stepped attenuator of digital read-out) -- I see what to me are even more egregious inconsistencies among the community which are over-confident about their version of objective reality and the means by which they choose (limit) their interface.

We are both fallible humans, both embodying necessary perspectives at the moving edge of progress. I especially like Gregadd's baseball analogy because it doesn't deny the validity of the skeptics' perspective, it simply shows that it was a limited view, which is all any of us have, whether we try to reduce distortion in cable, make better wine, or work at CERN.

Jinjuku · Feb 13, 2016

Gregadd said:
Bill for some time scientist doubted the existence of the curve ball saying it was an optical illusion. The advance in slow motion photography made this claim more and more difficult to sustain. Even worse technology emerged that allows one to actually track the path of the ball.

Rather than admit they were wrong they announced the breaking ball was indeed a myth. There was no break just a gradual curve that begun when the ball left the pitchers hand.
One can only hope measuremts will catch up with what cables do.

You do realize that the audio equivalent of high speed cameras where cables are concerned have been around for a few decades...

Jinjuku · Feb 13, 2016

Gregadd said:
Bill for some time scientist doubted the existence of the curve ball saying it was an optical illusion. The advance in slow motion photography made this claim more and more difficult to sustain. Even worse technology emerged that allows one to actually track the path of the ball.

Rather than admit they were wrong they announced the breaking ball was indeed a myth. There was no break just a gradual curve that begun when the ball left the pitchers hand.
One can only hope measuremts will catch up with what cables do.

Quick reading says your wrong in your assessment. Scientists doubted the existence of 'the break'. Stating that to the perspective of the batter the ball 'broke'. They found out it was to to batters changing their vision perception:

"He explained that batters tend to switch from central to peripheral vision when the ball is about 20 feet away, or two-thirds of the way to home plate. The eye’s peripheral vision lacks the ability to separate the motions of the spinning ball, Lu said. In particular, it gets confused by the combination of the ball’s velocity and spin."

Physics tells us an thrown object never has a straight trajectory. It's an absolute and these researchers know this because physics dictates that is absolutely, 100% must be so. They don't even need to research or otherwise prove this. It's just math that they get to plug into the function/s they are utilizing. They weren't admitting anything. They proved that what batters thought was a sudden breaking motion was indeed an optical illusion.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013296

So just like a batter can fool themselves and prescribing motion to an object that doesn't actually have that motion I'm in agreement that the actual process that is going on: That is one of fooling oneself.

I guess you could chalk this up to an un-forced error on your part ;-)

amirm · Feb 13, 2016

Gregadd said:
Bill for some time scientist doubted the existence of the curve ball saying it was an optical illusion. The advance in slow motion photography made this claim more and more difficult to sustain.

I know nothing of this controversy so I did a search and this first hit showed up: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/science_or_myth_breaking_curveballs_baseball-72672

Look at the running experiment in there. It should be a sobering reminder of how wrong our senses can be.

Gregadd · Feb 13, 2016

Jinjuku said:
Quick reading says your wrong in your assessment. Scientists doubted the existence of 'the break'. Stating that to the perspective of the batter the ball 'broke'. They found out it was to to batters changing their vision perception:

"He explained that batters tend to switch from central to peripheral vision when the ball is about 20 feet away, or two-thirds of the way to home plate. The eye’s peripheral vision lacks the ability to separate the motions of the spinning ball, Lu said. In particular, it gets confused by the combination of the ball’s velocity and spin."

Physics tells us an thrown object never has a straight trajectory. It's an absolute and these researchers know this because physics dictates that is absolutely, 100% must be so. They don't even need to research or otherwise prove this. It's just math that they get to plug into the function/s they are utilizing. They weren't admitting anything. They proved that what batters thought was a sudden breaking motion was indeed an optical illusion.

http://www.american.edu/media/news/101310_Does_a_Curveball_Really_Curve.cfm

So just like a batter can fool them selves and prescribing motion to an object that doesn't actually have that motion I'm in agreement that the actual process that is going on: That is one of fooling oneself.

They were wrong on both counts. A ball that curves from the pitchers hand would be useless. The hitter must be fooled within the reaction time. The ball does break. Take a trip to the park and sit behind home plate.
Compare and contrast the knuckle ball. It is an illusion created by the lack of spin. There are plenty of videos on you tube.

Gregadd · Feb 13, 2016

Jinjuku said:
You do realize that the audio equivalent of high speed cameras where cables are concerned have been around for a few decades...

When they made their decision they thought they had all they needed also.

Jinjuku · Feb 13, 2016

Gregadd said:
They were wrong on both counts. A ball that curves from the pitchers hand would be useless. The hitter must be fooled within the reaction time. The ball does break. Take a trip to the park and sit behind home plate.
Compare and contrast the knuckle ball. It is an illusion created by the lack of spin. There are plenty of videos on you tube.

So this part of their paper is debunked?:

"“The curveball does curve, but the curve has been measured and shown to be gradual,” Shapiro said. “It’s always going to follow a parabolic path. But from a hitter’s point of view, an approaching ball can appear to break, drop or do a whole range of unusual behaviors.”

My read is they weren't arguing that a ball can't curve, they are pointing out it doesn't suddenly break.

Gregadd · Feb 13, 2016

Jinjuku said:
So this part of their paper is debunked?:

"“The curveball does curve, but the curve has been measured and shown to be gradual,” Shapiro said. “It’s always going to follow a parabolic path. But from a hitter’s point of view, an approaching ball can appear to break, drop or do a whole range of unusual behaviors.”

My read is they weren't arguing that a ball can't curve, they are pointing out it doesn't suddenly break.

You phrase your answers like a guy named j.j. you do know...,you do realize...
..
In the articles I read they e,pr3ssl

Jinjuku · Feb 13, 2016

Gregadd said:
You phrase your answers like a guy named j.j. you do know...,you do realize...
..
In the articles I read they e,pr3ssl

Is it possible for you to make a cogent point or can you simply supply some more articles that can be used against your point of view?

So is there anything you know of debunking that a thrown curve ball is parabolic instead of breaking?

Gregadd · Feb 13, 2016

amirm said:
I know nothing of this controversy so I did a search and this first hit showed up: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/science_or_myth_breaking_curveballs_baseball-72672

Look at the running experiment in there. It should be a sobering reminder of how wrong our senses can be.

And a home run or a double to the gap shows how good they can be.
Go to you tube and look up a pitcher named Mike Missina who played for The Baltimore Orioles. He threw a knuckle curve ball.
The

Jinjuku · Feb 13, 2016

Gregadd said:
And a home run or a double to the gap shows how good they can be.
Go to you tube and look up a pitcher named Mike Missina who played for The Baltimore Orioles. He threw a knuckle curve ball.
The

Knuckleball is a great documentary. Even the pitcher doesn't know what the knuckleball is going to do. They are thrown without spin so they have a large amount of air resistance that gives them a very erratic flight path. Therefore making the hard to hit.

Also has nothing to do with your misplaced example, that Mr. Low happily latched onto, and now it's backfiring on you:

Curve balls don't break suddenly. It's an illusion and their path is parabolic from the point of release and we know why and can measure.

I could imagine the path of a curve knuckleball is still going to be parabolic and not suddenly break.

Audioquest DBS system for cables

Industry Expert

New Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

Industry Expert

Banned

Industry Expert

Banned

Industry Expert

New Member

New Member

Banned

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Similar threads