Audioquest DBS system for cables

JackD201 · Feb 13, 2016

What are you arguing? The only myth is the rising fastball. Even there the blogger amir quoted is plain wrong. A rising ball is a reality in golf and it can be done with a speed less than a MLB caliber fastball. It's not about speed but a function of spin rate and velocity. It can't be done in baseball because of the physical limitations of the human wrist to impart that much spin.

You also aren't taking into account wind conditions. If you are pitching or hitting a ball, golf, tennis, whatever, into the wind the loss of velocity WILL cause a non gradual break. In golf new systems using radar like the Trackman simulate data very accurately, same for Supervision (lasers) have done for baseball. As for me, I'll take the word here http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/sports/a3207/1283161/ where they actually tested real balls than Amir's blogger who was testing flat discs.

Jinjuku · Feb 13, 2016

Good read and two take-away's that relate to the paper I linked to:

For years, many scientists believed that the curveball was an optical illusion. As we shall see, this is not true. In fact, physicists have long been aware of the fact that a spinning ball curves in flight, going back to Isaac Newton, who wrote a paper on the subject in 1671. In 1852, the German physicist Gustav Magnus revived the topic when he demonstrated in an experiment that when a spinning object moves through a fluid it experiences a sideways force. This phenomenon, now known as the Magnus Effect, is the fundamental principle behind the curved flight of any spinning ball.

and

It seems pretty clear that no right-minded physicist would ever argue that a curveball is an illusion. However, as with the case of the rising fastball, we will argue that the sharp break of a curveball is illusory. While many hitters often report that a good overhand curveball breaks so sharply that it looks like it is falling off a table, the laws of aerodynamics clearly show that the Magnus force cannot suddenly increase in flight–as would be required for a sudden change in curvature–but can only get smaller as the spin and speed of the ball slow down. The explanation for this illusion has to do with how the batter perceives the flight of the ball

So the physics, as I alluded to, were already settled. If you're a scientist and not paying attention to that then that's on that particular scientist.

So again it's the 'Break' that is the optical illusion and not the curve ball. Some researchers understood the physics and using this factual basis went on to explain the Break.

What we need to know about cables, L/C/R, Dielectric absorption, are fundamentally understood, accepted, and mathematically expressed in hard terms. There isn't anything new to discover or unknown methods to be deployed to answer a lingering question as to a cables performance.

WELquest · Feb 13, 2016

Fascinating debate -- not because I am or ever will be any version of a sports fan, but as an example of how humans interpret their empirical world and what they can learn non-empiracly, and how do people reconcile both data sets.

I'm being tickled by how the conservatives, if I can use that term, are accepting the relevance of a batter's and fans' perceptions. The batters and such are not being asked to prove their personal experience of empirical reality with ABX tests -- it's being accepted that they perceive a breaking curve, and the investigation is productively about why they perceive what they perceive. Snake oil wasn't mentioned once.

I only wish the general audio debate could be equally enlightened

Gregadd · Feb 13, 2016

The truth is it breaks up, it breaks down,it breaks right it, it breaks left. Now some hitters can see it. Some can't. Some can throw it, some can't. Those who can make millions.
The reason the ball breaks sharply is the decrease in speed. I will post videos in the sports forum.
I like the golf example. They call it a draw or a fade. No need for cameras. If your ball goes straight you are in the hazard.

Jinjuku · Feb 14, 2016

WELquest said:
Fascinating debate -- not because I am or ever will be any version of a sports fan, but as an example of how humans interpret their empirical world and what they can learn non-empiracly, and how do people reconcile both data sets.

I'm being tickled by how the conservatives, if I can use that term, are accepting the relevance of a batter's and fans' perceptions. The batters and such are not being asked to prove their personal experience of empirical reality with ABX tests -- it's being accepted that they perceive a breaking curve, and the investigation is productively about why they perceive what they perceive. Snake oil wasn't mentioned once.

I only wish the general audio debate could be equally enlightened

No, it's an example of the PHYSICS being well understood and why somethings (the sudden breaking curve ball) aren't what they appear to be.

Just like the math I posted showing that at audio frequencies the stored energy your DBS system attempts to address is bonkers. That is unless like the the sports analogy you have some corroborating data.

For pete's sake the researchers where able to provide hard, reproducible data, of what is going on with the perception of a sudden breaking ball.

Where is AQ's data? Could you please just post ONE credible, peer reviewed/review-able source. Just one? Not a long diatribe but an actual honest to goodness link supporting your opinion?

Gregadd · Feb 14, 2016

Obvious break.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?20022-Curve-and-knuckle-ball

Jinjuku · Feb 14, 2016

Gregadd said:
The truth is it breaks up, it breaks down,it breaks right it, it breaks left. Now some hitters can see it. Some can't. Some can throw it, some can't. Those who can make millions.
The reason the ball breaks sharply is the decrease in speed. I will post videos in the sports forum.
I like the golf example. They call it a draw or a fade. No need for cameras. If your ball goes straight you are in the hazard.

Fire a bullet from a gun. At some point it will break sharply down. Mythbusters did an episode on this for a concrete example.

There is a knee in the trajectory because of this bleed off of energy. This has been understood for 100's of years.

Greg, you need to actually read the paper by those researchers. It's like billiards. We totally understand what is going on with the draw and masse' shots.

You keep missing the point that there is NOTHING going on with a thrown baseball that wasn't understood 200 years ago by scholars. Just like there is nothing going on with cables that we don't know about.

To stand this argument on it's head: Is there any phenomenon going on with engineered audio cables that math and physics can't make a reasonable assessment of said behavior?

Gregadd · Feb 14, 2016

When you fire a bullet it is immediately under the influence of gravity. The resultant path will reflect that.
look at the videos.

Jinjuku · Feb 14, 2016

From the time that ball left Mussina's hand it was on a parabolic trajectory. A very pronounced and effective one but one none the less. I saw one curve to the right and another curve down.

It's absolutely impressive but I would be willing to bet it fits the model in the paper I linked to.

I think the paper is doing a better job of describing what different terms are being used to describe the same known phenomenon. Which is why it's probably not wise to bring up sports or cars as an analog to audio.

Jinjuku · Feb 14, 2016

Gregadd said:
When you fire a bullet it is immediately under the influence of gravity. The resultant path will reflect that.
look at the videos.

Everything is under the influence of gravity...

Jinjuku · Feb 14, 2016

BTW here is my understanding of what 'break' means: An object traveling along a prescribed trajectory, under only it's own momentum, suddenly changing trajectory on any one of the 3 axis with no external influences.

It's not what I'm seeing on the video in the other thread. A slow speed shot that one could plot points on would be interesting.

Gregadd · Feb 14, 2016

Both the gun and pitcher account for the drop due to gravity . The sight on the gun. The pitcher stands on the mound.
No inanimate object changes trajectory on its own momentum. External forces have to act on it.
It's clear you don't want to be convinced. That's OK with me.

Jinjuku · Feb 14, 2016

Gregadd said:
Both the gun and pitcher account for the drop due to gravity . The sight on the gun. The pitcher stands on the mound.
No inanimate object changes trajectory on its own momentum. External forces have to act on it.
It's clear you don't want to be convinced. That's OK with me.

To the contrary. I'm looking for some explanation that we don't already understand. Even a well formed hypothesis is fine. It's the entire reason you brought it up as some sort of explanation that we may not understand theoretically and in practice what goes on with a cable.

You trotted out an argument, I read the scholarly article when I did a search, and the article makes really good sense and my take away is they aren't saying the curve ball is an illusion. They explain why the ball appears to break. It's very cool.

What's the point again?

JackD201 · Feb 15, 2016

The point is people were thinking basic telemetry because the math was used primarily for weapons. In weapons there is no vertical spin. So the assumption by laymen was that all objects would be parabola like. Radar and lasers (no high speed cameras that I know of can track and focus on a ball in flight, only as it passes within the frame) showed not just one curve but often two. The reason being that the decline in velocity and that of spin while simultaneous do so at different rates. If the drop in velocity for a pitch is less than that of the spin, there will be a sharper change in the diagonal direction. If it is the other way around (loss of spin) there the ball's loss of lift will cause it to drop at a greater rate while the ball continues to slow down only gradually. The main point was that while parameters are known, direct means to observe and measure did not. It was all attributed to vision playing tricks when as it turns out, it's a combination of both. The illusion is that it breaks more than it does but the break is nonetheless real.

Gregadd · Feb 15, 2016

What he said. For the most part break is limited by the desire to keep the ball in the proximity of the strike zone. If you ever get a chance (if you have not already)go seee a good "breakojng"ball pitcher. Sit behnd home plate. This argument notwithstanding it is quite an experience.

Jinjuku · Feb 15, 2016

JackD201 said:
The point is people were thinking basic telemetry because the math was used primarily for weapons. In weapons there is no vertical spin. So the assumption by laymen was that all objects would be parabola like. Radar and lasers (no high speed cameras that I know of can track and focus on a ball in flight, only as it passes within the frame) showed not just one curve but often two. The reason being that the decline in velocity and that of spin while simultaneous do so at different rates. If the drop in velocity for a pitch is less than that of the spin, there will be a sharper change in the diagonal direction. If it is the other way around (loss of spin) there the ball's loss of lift will cause it to drop at a greater rate while the ball continues to slow down only gradually. The main point was that while parameters are known, direct means to observe and measure did not. It was all attributed to vision playing tricks when as it turns out, it's a combination of both. The illusion is that it breaks more than it does but the break is nonetheless real.

Thanks for the reply and it indeed goes back to what I thought. At some point in our history not all known physical and mathematically proven concepts were directly observable by a human sense.

But the behavior was ascribed due to fundamental understandings of different elements: Spin, Velocity, Trajectory, Resistance etc...

It's even why I said scientists (whomever they are since I haven't found one that Gregadd alluded to) that weren't taking into consideration the basic math and physics off this all are indeed part of the issue.

My reply's were based on research papers I found and I just didn't see how this applied as an analog to cables.

Otherwise I've spent way more time the past two days reading up on this than I should have but it's REALLY interesting to read about. It certainly captured my attention.

RBFC · Feb 15, 2016

Another variable is the axis of the spin in relation to gravity. Sidearm pitchers impart spin on a different axis than overhand pichers, and those curve balls act differently. The spin can "assist" the gravitational forces or "resist" them depending upon it's axis.

Lee

Gregadd · Feb 15, 2016

Underhand throw is demonstrated toward the end of the video I posted.Wicked.

treitz3 · Feb 17, 2016

Getting back on topic...

RBFC said:
Hi! With a remodel of my listening room, I now have the opportunity to shorten my analog interconnects from 5m XLR to 2m XLR. My dealer now features Audioquest cables, and many of that line are using the proprietary DBS system:

http://www2.audioquest.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/DBS.pdf

Can anyone tell me of any experience with this, and if this has any potential to improve/degrade sound quality?

Thanks,

Lee

Hello Lee and good evening to you sir. While I have zero experience with DBS on an XLR cable from AQ. I do happen to have a SC that has the 72v BP. After trying many SC's (and I do mean many), this cable did something that has has staying power within my rig only because of the silence along with the end result as to what hits my ears. In fact, I have not even wanted to bother getting another SC since it was introduced into my system. FWIW.

Tom

Audioquest DBS system for cables

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Industry Expert

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Super Moderator

Similar threads