2-Channel Analog Interconnects/Speaker Cables - Page 37

But then you move the cable and that alters the spacing and where it all touches and then it has to break in again.

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

As opposed to being difficult to hear because of the short audible memory of a trained listener? But hearing is a lossy process Joe that depends upon the rejection of audible information that is affected by a host of variable such as mood, health, hunger, disposition, and auditory focus.

Must be a university up there in the land of 'wide right' with a EE professor you can collaborate with. Of all the cable mongers, I like you the best Joe.

Originally Posted by Gizmologist

Have you ever had an EKG or EEG? If so you should have noticed that cables on the gear are usually several weeks old, have been on the floor, stepped on, cleaned with disinfectant, surrounded by other cables of different purposes etc. Yet you trust your life to these cables. Why is that? They are transmitting data in the form of millivolts and in the case of EEGs, microvolts at extremely low current.

That low voltage/current combination is used to accurately measure your body's performance, diagnose life threatening illnesses and conditions and as an indicator of the necessary drugs to prescribe. In some cases, depending on what those wires pick up and accurately transmit, you may be headed for surgery.

Do you ascribe to the same stringent wire analysis in the ER as you do for a stereo? If not, why not?

What about the wiring in your computer? extremely high current at low voltages, uber high frequency circuitry right alongside DC fans, audio and video drivers, clock generators etc. Yet all this is connected with unshielded flat ribbon cable unless upgraded to bundled cable and the reason for bundling is to reduce airflow blockage for more efficient cooling.

Misinformation or noise is not an option here either yet somehow computers seem to work just fine as far as wiring goes.

How is that possible?

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

Joe, if our hearing is so great, why do we need SPL meters to set levels accurately? That's pretty basic compared to something like soundstage, microdynamics, etc. don't you think?

Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski

Bottom line, never underestimate the power of the human mind.

Originally Posted by terry j

well, I will admit that was not the response I expected..oh I knew you would not change it nor the 'scorn' you hold for science, but I rather expected it to be along the lines of 'no replacement for ears to tell you what you like' or sumthin.

Tho it is a bit hard to actually get what you are saying. So, an apple when dropped can 'choose' to fly upwards? Is that where you are going? I mean, yes, I spose one day that could happen, there are some scientific trains of thought that allow for that possibility. Just like it IS possible for all the air molecules to end up on one side of the room only. Luckily for us that is a rare event eh?!

Not sales brochures, flim flam pseudo marketing speak (clean those quantums), but actual evidence of true audibility of cables. As you correctly hint in your answer, it must be science based and evidence based, in other words it seems we agree on the need to ignore anecdotal sighted evidence from any old JAIB on the net.

If you currently have nothing other than your own personal experiences to recount, I know (per your sig and answer) that you will agree with me that it accounts to not even a hill of beans, so what is your time frame to sit down with others and do a rigorous test and present us with the findings?

I am now glad that you stick by your sig, looking forward to your test.

Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski

A cable's capacitance should be looked upon not as a lump sum but rather an incremental. It's basically one long capacitor made up of many small capacitors in parallel. If you have ever experienced the break-in of a capacitor in any fashion in electronic, cable break-in is similar.
In my experience I have attributed the break-in characteristics of a cable to a few variables.

Break-in of a cable as it pertains to audio reproduction can be defined as any gradual change in it's sonic character over time. Typically rated in hours or days, break-in is measured from the time of first installation to the time where no appreciable change in sound is heard. This assumes the cable is left in place and not moved or disturbed. With most cables the first few hours show a much more rapid change as compared to the days following, making the process difficult to hear primarily due to the short audible memory of an untrained listener.

The cause of break-in seems to be the effect of the electrostatic field on the polarization of the dielectric material. Without a voltage applied over time, audible changes are nearly imperceivable, primarily otherwise caused by the contact resistance of the terminations or connectors.

Factors in order of importance that point toward polarization effects in which we've been able to repeatably and consistently vary the break-in characteristics include:

1. the type of dielectric used.
2. the spacing of the surface of the dielectric relative to the surface of the conductor,
3. the method of applying the dielectric to the conductor,
4. the construction of the conductor,
5. the composition of the microscopic surface layer of the conductor.


Where the conductor is in intimate contact with the dielectric, such as in a pressure extrusion process, the break-in characteristic 'swings' tend to be much greater. Since the insulation fills even microscopic voids in the surface of the conductor, this process produces the greatest, most intimate surface contact.

Tubular extrusions on the other hand can be adjusted to create a gap between the conductor and dielectric, therefore reducing surface contact to a consistent yet variable amount. Minimizing intimate contact between the conductor and dielectric tends to help minimize the break-in characteristics.

There much much more but would require a book to cover, so please take the above as a very condensed version.

Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski

In my world, hearing is a learned process which can be honed. Yes it is affected by human emotions, so what man. We are what we are. However, in time the law of averages plays out, so unless you are a very depressed or angry SOB for a very long time, in which case I would suggest talking to someone with a degree suited to your problem, you would know the difference between a good day and a bad day.

After 25 years of critical listening, I know when I'm not being an 'accurate' listener- I walk away. I would do the same when emotions affect my judgement, say during a bar fight, or when my wife pisses me off; I've learned to do this in order to save my ass. I don't need an instrument to tell me I'm in no mood to determine a logical conclusion.

For example, did you know that we humans can become 'accustomed' to the sound of a room? We can actually filter room anomalies over time, relatively quickly in fact for basic listening and testing.

I don't know the differences on an individual basis, maybe others who have understood this can ante up. In my case it takes about a month of regular listening to fully acclimate to a new listening room setting, of which I've had four different rooms long-term (now building a 5th). And by fully, I mean with all my favorite recordings and associated peculiarities I've grown accustomed to over time in the past rooms. I should note that I change system components infrequently and tend to keep gear, so have compared the same system components in different rooms in multiple combinations. My kids use my old gear in their rooms so you could add this to the equation as well.

Bottom line, never underestimate the power of the human mind.

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

What are these processes that you use to defeat what you perceive as your biases, jabber?

Originally Posted by WilliamZX11

I think you were asked before what evidence has been ignored, but as usual had no answer. Your dishonesty continues to grow.

Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber

Still mad that I thought your crotch rocket was a Yamaha receiver?

Originally Posted by WilliamZX11

Never was. The Kawasaki isn't a crotch rocket either, but I imagine you're used to being wrong all the time by now.

Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber

Crotch rocket, SkiDoo, some other penis compensation device; it's all the same I suppose.

Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber

Crotch rocket, SkiDoo, some other penis compensation device; it's all the same I suppose.

Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber

-Use a high resolution fast switcher to prevent audible memory from expiring

-Let someone unbiased perform the switching, unseen while doing so to eliminate body language tip-offs

-Let someone else select the listening material

Basically, detach myself from the process, other than listening and evaluating. Simple really. And yes, I have been really, really wrong on occasion. Other times, nearly dead-on. This can happen, but so often, the expected results are the ones that manifest. I personally think that the (cables) that "should" win do not often enough to validate the process. Of course, this happens with all types of gear, but usually the good guy wins, as one would expect.

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

Thanks for answering. I guess you used that for speaker wires and maybe interconnects. What device did you use to do this? Also, if you could get discuss the procedure after the wires were connected it would be of interest as well as the number of trials and 'successes' (depends on the procedure I guess). Thanks once again.

Originally Posted by WilliamZX11

Still can't answer the question. What a shocker.

Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber

Thank you for actually asking pointed and reasonable questions. Others should take a clue.

As I recall, the switcher was an Audio Authority device, but I do not recall the piece. Realize this was maybe 6-7 years ago or so, might have been more.

Since I didn't do the switching, I'm not sure of the actual procedure. I do know of course that the point was to "fool" the listeners, so that we would have no clue what was playing.

In terms of trials and successes, I would say that success was maybe at about 33% (1 out of 3 trials succeeded). Overall, I believe the amount of testing was in the neighborhood of 5-6 per week over year's time; it became this fun thing we would do.

Realize I don't expect that level of success with everyone. Harman's guys will tell you that it helps to have a degree of training in terms of listening, and of course having heard better (and far worse) equipment over time from that we were comparing made things a little easier. Frame of reference (this elusive "experience" thing I keep mentioning that so many here feel is unimportant) means a ton.

Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber

Thank you for actually asking pointed and reasonable questions. Others should take a clue.

Originally Posted by Chu Gai

I don't understand what you mean by trials here and how you define success. For example, was this an ABX type of test where you were first presented with A, then B, and then had to determine what X was? If so, how many times were you correct out of how many times tried?
OTOH, was it a preference test of some sort? If so, can you describe it as well as the number of 'successes' out of how many trials?

I disagree that the switcher is trying to fool you. If it's really being done randomly, and that would imply that that a random series was generated beforehand by some device (spreadsheet, coin flip, etc.) and not that the tester was deciding by himself what to do), it's nothing more than a test.

Before I forget, I also take it that you were always dealing with the same outputs on the amp. That would imply that both sets of wires were connected to the same binding posts. They were then connected to two separate terminals on the box. If so, how was the connection then made from the box to the speaker?

Originally Posted by penngray

Huh?? have you read 90% of your posts? You generally want to incite OT back and forth crap.

We keep asking you to stick to the topic and insult less but you can not. Kind of sad really.

If you are now ready to stay on topic then by all means enlighten us with your years of knowledge.