RCA Interlinks: Influence of conductor material. MEASUREMENTS.

[LTig]

Coming late to this... Matty has a comment in that link:

"To understand us, many of them [engineers] live in the world of mathematics of Real numbers, unable to understand that there are others, such as Imaginary or Complex ones. You know: Z = R + j X(w)

That's quite an accusation . An EE who does not know about complex numbers is no EE.

 

[Punter]

This is the kind of test that allows the charlatans to say they have "proof"! If it is pointed out by someone who understands the method and result, that the "proof" is infinitesimal and inaudible, the charlatan will counter with "harmonics and intermodulation" or some other invocation that sounds plausible to the uneducated. I think we skeptics have to concede that we have lost the fight, the salesmen and snake-oil peddlers have found their rubes and can exploit them at will. The rubes will lap up the BS and lies as long as they're wrapped up in shiny, expensive looking products. Of course they'll "hear" the difference, they all do!

 

[Cbdb2]

That's quite an accusation . An EE who does not know about complex numbers is no EE.

Yea quite funny how someone who obviously never took an engineering class knows so much about engineers.
"Euler's formula relates the complex exponential to the cosine and sine functions. This formula is the most important tool in AC analysis. It is why electrical engineers need to understand complex numbers."

 

[Cbdb2]

This is the kind of test that allows the charlatans to say they have "proof"! If it is pointed out by someone who understands the method and result, that the "proof" is infinitesimal and inaudible, the charlatan will counter with "harmonics and intermodulation" or some other invocation that sounds plausible to the uneducated. I think we skeptics have to concede that we have lost the fight, the salesmen and snake-oil peddlers have found their rubes and can exploit them at will. The rubes will lap up the BS and lies as long as they're wrapped up in shiny, expensive looking products. Of course they'll "hear" the difference, they all do!

The fight is not over. ASR is the proof

 

[Ricardus]

I don't know anything about these people beyond the godawfulness of their video.

What video?

 

[ahofer]

What video?

linked in the article in the OP - https://www.youtube.com/live/QGhk-AG-ixY?feature=share

 

[maty]

That's quite an accusation . An EE who does not know about complex numbers is no EE.

It was an example to indicate that sometimes we are limited by the acquired knowledge, ignoring others that may allow us to better understand the problem.

Last night I posted another more advanced one, focused on those who see everything in the spatial or temporal domain, ignoring things like the Fourier Transform. Or believe that physics is reduced only to Newtonian, without taking into account others.

 

[alex-z]

It was an example to indicate that sometimes we are limited by the acquired knowledge, ignoring others that may allow us to better understand the problem.

Last night I posted another more advanced one, focused on those who see everything in the spatial or temporal domain, ignoring things like the Fourier Transform. Or believe that physics is reduced only to Newtonian, without taking into account others.

There is no "better understand the problem", the measurements are worthless because they are outside the audio domain. A 20kHz signal takes 50 microseconds to complete a cycle. That is 50000 nanoseconds, 2500x the duration being used in the oscilloscope results you posted.

An oscilloscope running at 20ns divisions is the kind of thing used for hunting down impedance and leakage problems in microprocessors. I don't even use that resolution when working with wireless radio boards.

Fourier Transform absolutely includes the temporal domain, I don't even think you know what you are talking about. Frequency, phase, and timing are all extracted and displayed from the original transfer function. As the name implies, the data is transformed, broken down into its constituent parts.

You aren't acquiring knowledge, you are simply trusting data collected by someone else without having the knowledge to actually interpret correctly, and apparently neither does the person who collected it.

 

[maty]

FT: always looking for the worst interpretation of my words.

They are not my measurements.

With these measurements, one would expect that there would be no difference in sound or that it would be small, but the reality is quite different, so it is evident that they are not useful. As for the oscilloscope, this inconvenience affects ALL the conductors/cables analyzed.

I am not saying that this graph explains the difference, it is simply the one that caught my attention the most. What I want to explain is that the usual tools and measurements are insufficient to explain that the 5N silver solid wire sounds much better than others, so we will have to think of another way to approach the issue.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

It was an example to indicate that sometimes we are limited by the acquired knowledge, ignoring others that may allow us to better understand the problem.

Last night I posted another more advanced one, focused on those who see everything in the spatial or temporal domain, ignoring things like the Fourier Transform. Or believe that physics is reduced only to Newtonian, without taking into account others.

What’s limited is the tester’s knowledge not the experts knowledge. The math and the conductive properties of materials are known for centuries and is being taught in every engineering course (even in ME) in the last 100 years. Stop kidding yourself you are not exploring new „territory“ or advancing science as you are creating a non-issue and claim a solution for it.

 

[maty]

It is obvious that the measurements of the impedance, L, R and C do not explain the big, huge difference in sound. This does not mean that they are not still very useful, but in this matter they are not.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

It is obvious that the measurements of the impedance, L, R and C do not explain the big, huge difference in sound. This does not mean that they are not still very useful, but in this matter they are not.

The measurements are absolutely useless for audio.

What difference in sound? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Facts please.

 

[amirm]

Last night I posted another more advanced one, focused on those who see everything in the spatial or temporal domain, ignoring things like the Fourier Transform.

We are ignoring it? You and the tester are ignoring it. Here is the signal they used: "Where we do see differences is in the ‘impulse behavior’. We let a tone generator send out a square wave at 100 kHz."

If this were a sine wave at 100 kHz, it would still be 5X the bandwidth of audible band. To make a 100 kHz square wave, you would have to add to it infinite odd harmonics of 100 kHz. Here is the math from Wiki for you:

See how the series goes from 1 to infinity? For that sine wave to look anything close to a square wave you need good number of those odd harmonics, easily pushing the bandwidth of this signal to megahertz range. Hence the reason the scope was set to have such high timing resolution.

The fact the author didn't correct you on any of this means they don't understand it either. As such, they should not get involved in making measurements like this. Leave it to those of us who understand both the math and engineering.

 

[amirm]

It is obvious that the measurements of the impedance, L, R and C do not explain the big, huge difference in sound.

They can't explain what the listener imagines... That much is true.

Conduct the test blind, repeat 10 times and see if you get 9 right. Then we know at least there is a difference.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

What I want to explain is that the usual tools and measurements are insufficient to explain that the 5N silver solid wire sounds much better than others, so we will have to think of another way to approach the issue.

There is another approach that is perfectly sufficient to explain the perceived difference in sound. You should try it

 

[maty]

Again: THESE ARE NOT MY MEASUREMENTS.

The mention of the FT was to explain that sometimes other mathematics than the usual ones are needed, nothing more. Other example: It is like trying to explain the limit of the speed of light with Newtonian physics.

Whoever is not able to appreciate the enormous difference is that he has a problem in his audio system. The fact is incontestable, so the measurements of R, L, C do not serve, within reasonable values, to explain the difference in audio quality, it is what I say.

We need other type of measurements. Which?

 

[SSS]

Multi test – Influence of conductor material – Silver – Copper – Graphene – Gold?
https://alpha-audio.net/review/mult...nductor-material-silver-copper-graphene-gold/

[ We used the following materials for this test:

• 1mm solid core Pure silver – 5N – coated – about 35 Euro per meter (price fluctuates)
• 1mm solid core Single crystal copper with graphene – 150 Euro per meter (price fluctuates)
• 1mm solid core Tinned copper, coated (wax / cloth) – Unknown
• 0.5mm solid core Gold/Silver (Mundorf) – not coated – 15 Euro per meter
• Standard DIY lamp wire – copper, stranded – 2 Euros per meter ]

MEASUREMENTS here

Multi test - Influence of conductor material - Silver - Copper - Graphene - Gold?

Measurements Contents 1. Intro2. The blind test3. Measurements 4. CommentsWe organised a livestream blind test on Sunday, June 4, at Alpha Audio, testing conductor materials for cables. We made a total of six cables using five types of material. One cable was some sort of hybrid. We dived into...

alpha-audio.net

View attachment 290637

One of them:

5N Silver solid 1 mm (yellow) vs Mundorf solid gold/silver 0.5 mm (blue)

View attachment 290638

It is a junky test. Of course there is overswing when using a rectangle signal and the far end of the cable is not terminated also 50 Ohm as the signal generator is. Every EE did such measurements. 100 kHz rectangle is anyway not relevant for audio signals. And further, the different RLC of the cable values will make different rectangle response. When connected to audio listening equipment then the output and input electrical parameters need to be taken in account. May be there is slight influence in sound due to this.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

We need other type of measurements. Which?

See the post above yours

 

[IAtaman]

"To understand us, many of them [engineers] live in the world of mathematics of Real numbers, unable to understand that there are others, such as Imaginary or Complex ones. You know: Z = R + j X(w)

Ha! That statement is the criminal equivalent of singing the confession with the murder weapon which also has your DNA on it.

That's quite an accusation . An EE who does not know about complex numbers is no EE.

I think EEs are the only people who use j for the imaginary unit no?

 

[alex-z]

Whoever is not able to appreciate the enormous difference is that he has a problem in his audio system. The fact is incontestable, so the measurements of R, L, C do not serve, within reasonable values, to explain the difference in audio quality, it is what I say.

We need other type of measurements. Which?

There is no difference in quality. If you believe otherwise, you lack a disturbing amount of background knowledge in basic electronics and biology.

The measurements we are capable of conducting are vastly more sensitive than the best case models of human hearing. Saying that cables make a difference to audio quality is like saying the sun is made of luminescent cheese purely because you cannot personally go and touch it.