Question on directional speaker cables
FLUBBER2
> :>Simply stated:
> >
> >* the current flow IS NOT unidirectional.
> >* The current that is flowing in one direction in one of the
> > two wires in a cable is exactly equal to but flowing in the
> > opposite direction of the other AT ALL TIMES.
> >* The plus wire plays just as important a role and has
> > precisely the same effect on the behavior of the system as
> > the minus wire.
> >
> >In short: the ONLY difference the arrows on a speaker cable make
> >are to the marketing and accounting department. To the electrons
> >and the voice coils, no such difference COULD exist.
Come on now. Current flow is exactly the same at all times in both
directions?
So you are telling us that the speaker (the load) makes all that
sound
but doesnt use any energy at all? Sounds like a violation of the good
old
Conservation of Energy Laws to me. Any engineer should catch tha t
problem.
To get a grasp on why there is directionality in cables, you all need
to get
away from the garden hose analogy (current travels up one wire and
down the
other) of current flow. In modern electromagnetic theory, the energy
doesnt
flow in the conductors at all. The conductors act as wave guides,
and the
energy, in the form of electric and magnetic waves flows between
the cable, at
nearly the speed of light. Because the conductors are not perfect
conductors
(super conductors actually have zero current inside the conducto r
itself), some
energy does penetrate the conductors themselves and is attenuated
at different
frequency dependent levels as it approaches the center of the
conductor (That
is what the skin effect really is). This current flow inside the
conductor is
very slow. As slow as 2 meters/sec for a 20hz signal. The reason
you dont
hear a shadow of the musical signal because of this slow current
inside the
conductor is that it is greatly attenuated almost immediately. A
perfect cable
would not exhibit directionality, but since there are granular and
other
discontinuities along the wave guides at various points, the wave
guides are no
longer symmetric. The waveform with encounter the discontinuities
at different
points, depending on which way the cable is oriented. When the
waveform
encounters the discontinuities, it is partially reflected, and
partially
absorbed, thus altering the waveform as it is conveyed along the
waveguides.
All this can be found in many physics texts. Even a couple of high
end audio
mags have adequately described why directionality exists and have
shown the
physics that support it. HiFi News has published a couple good
write-ups in the last two issues and are worth reading. Whether
or not it is audible another, even better
question....Based upon the extreme sensitivity of human hearing to
phase disparities, it is more than likey audible.
Richard D Pierce
FLUBBER2 <flub...@aol.com> wrote:
>> DPi...@world.std.com wrote
>> :>Simply stated:
>> >
>> >* the current flow IS NOT unidirectional.
>> >* The current that is flowing in one direction in one of the
>> > two wires in a cable is exactly equal to but flowing in the
>> > opposite direction of the other AT ALL TIMES.
>> >* The plus wire plays just as important a role and has
>> > precisely the same effect on the behavior of the system as
>> > the minus wire.
>> >
>> >In short: the ONLY difference the arrows on a speaker cable make
>> >are to the marketing and accounting department. To the electrons
>> >and the voice coils, no such difference COULD exist.
>
> Come on now. Current flow is exactly the same at all times in both
> directions? So you are telling us that the speaker (the load) makes
> all that sound but doesnt use any energy at all? Sounds like a
> violation of the good old Conservation of Energy Laws to me.
And precisely where did I make such a claim?
Do us all and, most especially, yourself a favor: go look up,
read and understand Kirchhoff's current law, which reads:
The sum of the currents flowing into a node is precisely
and exactly equal to the sum of the currents flowing out
of that node.
> is what the skin effect really is). This current flow inside the
> conductor is very slow. As slow as 2 meters/sec for a 20hz signal.
> The reason you dont hear a shadow of the musical signal because of
> this slow current inside the conductor is that it is greatly
> attenuated almost immediately. A perfect cable would not exhibit
> directionality, but since there are granular and other
> discontinuities along the wave guides at various points,
> the wave guides are no longer symmetric. The waveform with
> encounter the discontinuities at different points, depending on
> which way the cable is oriented. When the waveform
> encounters the discontinuities, it is partially reflected, and
> partially absorbed, thus altering the waveform as it is conveyed
> along the waveguides.
This is, without question, among the most singularily bizzare
MISinterpretations of conduction physics THIS engineer has EVER
encountered. You are clearly confusing the propogation of energy
down the conductor with electron drift velocity, and then making
some incredible but completely unconnected leap fo faith to
arrive at a conclusion that is utterly unsupported by any data.
> All this can be found in many physics texts.
Fine, then YOU should have absolutely NO difficulty in posting
the specific citations (include author, title, publisher and
date and specifi page reference).
> Even a couple of high end audio mags have adequately described
> why directionality exists and have shown the physics that support
> it.
I know of NO high-end audio mag that woiuld ever stand a chance
of being mistaken as a reliable source of physics.
> question....Based upon the extreme sensitivity of human hearing to
>phase disparities, it is more than likey audible.
Which "extreme sensitivity to phase disparities" is this? Are
you in posession of startlingly new data, data heretofore
completely unknown, that describes such "extreme sensitivity"
that completely contradicts the works of Madsden and many, many
others who have studied the field for MUCH longer than you, for
MUCH longer than ALL the people in ALL the high-end rags
COMBINED?
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Bob Edwards
>
> In article <7n6n2u$ir1$1...@nntprelay.berkeley.edu>,
> FLUBBER2 <flub...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> DPi...@world.std.com wrote
> >> :>Simply stated:
> >> >
> >> >*
>
> > conductor is very slow. As slow as 2 meters/sec for a 20hz signal.
> > The reason you dont hear a shadow of the musical signal because of
> > this slow current inside the conductor is that it is greatly
> > attenuated almost immediately. A perfect cable would not exhibit
> > directionality, but since there are granular and other
> > discontinuities along the wave guides at various points,
> > the wave guides are no longer symmetric. The waveform with
> > encounter the discontinuities at different points, depending on
> > which way the cable is oriented. When the waveform
> > encounters the discontinuities, it is partially reflected, and
> > partially absorbed, thus altering the waveform as it is conveyed
> > along the waveguides.
>
> This is, without question, among the most singularily bizzare
> MISinterpretations of conduction physics THIS engineer has EVER
> encountered. You are clearly confusing the propogation of energy
> down the conductor with electron drift velocity, and then making
> some incredible but completely unconnected leap fo faith to
> arrive at a conclusion that is utterly unsupported by any data.
I must say I'm impressed! This must be the reason why my car's
starter (a DC circuit, no less) doesn't turn over until several
seconds after I turn the key that closes the starter relay.....NOT!
A little common sense can go a long way in dissecting some of these
cable claims....IF directionality exists (not proven) THIS explanation
is not leading the pack as the likely cause!
For the record, I have never been able to hear any differences, and
yes, I do have cables with arrows. (However, my Parasound preamp
definitely sounds completely different depending on whether I have the
polarity inversion on or off. But I am not claiming to be able to
hear polarity inversion -- the preamp is sick, but since it sounds
fine with inversion on, who cares....)
Regards,
Bob
Regards,
Bob
FLUBBER2
>>> :>Simply stated:
>>> >
>>> >* the current flow IS NOT unidirectional.
>>> >* The current that is flowing in one direction in one of the
>>> > two wires in a cable is exactly equal to but flowing in the
>>> > opposite direction of the other AT ALL TIMES.
>>> >* The plus wire plays just as important a role and has
>>> > precisely the same effect on the behavior of the system as
>>> > the minus wire.
>>> >
>>> >In short: the ONLY difference the arrows on a speaker cable make
>>> >are to the marketing and accounting department. To the electrons
>>> >and the voice coils, no such difference COULD exist.
>>
>> Come on now. Current flow is exactly the same at all times in both
>> directions? So you are telling us that the speaker (the load) makes
>> all that sound but doesnt use any energy at all? Sounds like a
>> violation of the good old Conservation of Energy Laws to me.
>
>And precisely where did I make such a claim?
>
>Do us all and, most especially, yourself a favor: go look up,
>read and understand Kirchhoff's current law, which reads:
>
> The sum of the currents flowing into a node is precisely
> and exactly equal to the sum of the currents flowing out
> of that node.
A node huh? but you said current flowing in two wires in a cable were
equal but opposite? I assume you meant speaker cable. So you are
telling us now that your speaker cables end in a node? A short in
other words? How many amplifiers have you wasted? I thought a speaker
cable ended in a LOAD which uses energy. I know engineers use the
garden hose flow analogy to simplify the way they view circuits, but
in the physics world its not truly the way it happens. A paper
showing all this was even put together for Stereophile magazine in Oct
95. Before you quote Kirchhoff, better understand the difference
between a node and load first.
Greg
flub...@aol.com (FLUBBER2) wrote:
> >>> DPi...@world.std.com wrote
> > The sum of the currents flowing into a node is precisely
> > and exactly equal to the sum of the currents flowing out
> > of that node.
> A node huh? but you said current flowing in two wires in a cable were
> equal but opposite?
Do you know what a node is? Apparently not! A node is a point where 2
or more elements of a circuit connect.
> I assume you meant speaker cable. So you are
> telling us now that your speaker cables end in a node? A short in
> other words?
No! The connection point between the speaker and the wire is a node.
>How many amplifiers have you wasted? I thought a speaker
> cable ended in a LOAD which uses energy.
No again! A circuit ends where it starts, if it starts at the amplifier
that is where it ends. Current flows in loops.
> I know engineers use the
> garden hose flow analogy to simplify the way they view circuits, but
> in the physics world its not truly the way it happens.
Well sir I contend you that you in fact don’t know any engineers!
The “garden hose flow analogy “ is severely flawed and no
engineer ever uses that analogy.
>A paper showing all this was even put together for Stereophile
>magazine in Oct 95.
Which explains your ignorance to electrical theory.
> Before you quote Kirchhoff, better understand the difference
> between a node and load first.
This from someone who thinks a node is a short.
Greg
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Francis Vaughan
> A node huh? but you said current flowing in two wires in a cable were
> equal but opposite? I assume you meant speaker cable. So you are
> telling us now that your speaker cables end in a node? A short in
> other words? How many amplifiers have you wasted? I thought a speaker
> cable ended in a LOAD which uses energy. I know engineers use the
> garden hose flow analogy to simplify the way they view circuits, but
> in the physics world its not truly the way it happens. A paper
> showing all this was even put together for Stereophile magazine in Oct
> 95. Before you quote Kirchhoff, better understand the difference
> between a node and load first.
Astounding. I am convinced. This thread from Mr Flubber is a troll.
Even the last line rhymes!!!
Seriously, I really doubt anyone could get it so badly wrong without
willfull intent.
The above is so badly twisted that it defies rational unravelling.
Node is misinterpreted to mean short (Mr Flubber is perhaps trying
to suggest that a node is a connection between seperate wires and
thus must be a short, which does indicate a level of inventivness
in the warping of its definition.) Then a throw away about
destroying amplifiers. Next a rehash of the mistaken circuit
topology (clarification: speaker cables don't end in anything, they are
part of a circuit that _contains_ a load, the nodes are whereever you please.)
A quick referal to the stellar peer reviewed journal Stereophile,
and a little rhyme to end it. It is a troll.
Francis Vaughan
Dr Francis Vaughan, Director Phone: +61 8 8303 5592
South Australian Centre for _--_|\ Fax: +61 8 8303 4366
Parallel Computing / \ Home: +61 8 8364 2649
Adelaide 5005 \_.--*_/ Mobile: 0414 726247
Australia v (+61 414726247)
Lukas Louw
news:7n8ovc$r99$1...@nntprelay.berkeley.edu...
> >>> DPi...@world.std.com wrote
> >>> :>Simply stated:
> >>> >
> >>> >* the current flow IS NOT unidirectional.
> >>> >* The current that is flowing in one direction in one of the
> >>> > two wires in a cable is exactly equal to but flowing in the
> >>> > opposite direction of the other AT ALL TIMES.
> >>> >* The plus wire plays just as important a role and has
> >>> > precisely the same effect on the behavior of the system as
> >>> > the minus wire.
> >>> >
> >>> >In short: the ONLY difference the arrows on a speaker cable make
> >>> >are to the marketing and accounting department. To the electrons
> >>> >and the voice coils, no such difference COULD exist.
> >>
> >> Come on now. Current flow is exactly the same at all times in both
> >> directions? So you are telling us that the speaker (the load) makes
> >> all that sound but doesnt use any energy at all? Sounds like a
> >> violation of the good old Conservation of Energy Laws to me.
> >
> >And precisely where did I make such a claim?
> >
> >Do us all and, most especially, yourself a favor: go look up,
> >read and understand Kirchhoff's current law, which reads:
> >
> > and exactly equal to the sum of the currents flowing out
> > of that node.
>
> equal but opposite?
A node is a junction, or connection of current flows. That's all.
> I assume you meant speaker cable. So you are
> telling us now that your speaker cables end in a node? A short in
> other words?
Geez, that's not what Dick said. Think about this, you have FOUR nodes
per channel, the TWO amplifier output connnections, and the TWO
speaker connectiosn - make sense?
> How many amplifiers have you wasted? I thought a speaker
> cable ended in a LOAD which uses energy.
Exactly - the amplifier has a hot and cold output. The speaker cable
connections to those mak two nodes. The connections of the other ends
of the cable to the speaker creates two further nodes, which is the
LOAD, OK so far?
> I know engineers use the
> garden hose flow analogy to simplify the way they view circuits, but
> in the physics world its not truly the way it happens. A paper
> showing all this was even put together for Stereophile magazine in Oct
> 95. Before you quote Kirchhoff, better understand the difference
> between a node and load first.
Again, a node is a connection, or a junction. If this does not make
sense, we'll try again.
Lukas Louw
Richard D Pierce
>>
>> The sum of the currents flowing into a node is precisely
>> and exactly equal to the sum of the currents flowing out
>> of that node.
>
>A node huh? but you said current flowing in two wires in a cable were
>equal but opposite?
Yup. I say so. Kirchhoff says so.
>I assume you meant speaker cable.
Yup.
>So you are telling us now that your speaker cables end in a
>node?
No, you, in your confusion, are telling yourself that. All else
follows from that confusion, it would seem.
>A short in other words?
How do you arrive at this, other than by confusion?
>I thought a speaker cable ended in a LOAD which uses energy.
>I know engineers use the garden hose flow analogy to simplify
>the way they view circuits, but in the physics world its not
>truly the way it happens.
You may know engineers, but you certainly do not know what they
know.
On the assumption that Mr. Flubber2's technical nonsense is just
that and not some silly joke or troll, as at least one other
respondant has suggested, it might be useful for those who DON'T
know what a node is, what Kirchhoff said, and how it applies to
speakers, cables and the like to explore this all in a wee bit
more detail. Mr. Flubber2 may not want to benefit from it, but I
am sure other will.
Let's restate Kirchhoff's Current Law (a.k.a KCL) again:
The sum of the currents flowing into a node is precisely
and exactly equal to the sum of the currents flowing out
of that node.
So, what's a "node?" Simply stated, it can be ANY arbitrary
point in an electrical circuit that has at least two paths for
current to flow in and out of that node. In order for current to
flow through a node, a minimum of two paths are necessary. In
fact, you can use KCL to prove that current flow is not possible
without at least two paths connected to a node: If only one path
is connected to a node, the only way the sum of the currents
flowing into that node be equal to the sum flowing out is for no
current at all to be flowing into it. This is, in it's most
basic form, exactly why speaker cables MUST have two conductors
in them. And we'll see why in more detail now.
Schematically, KCL can be visualized as:
/---<-- i3
i2 -->---\ /
\ /
i1 --->----o
|\
| \--->-- i4
|
i5 ----<--+
Currents i1, i2 and i3 are flowing into the node, and currents
i4 and i5 are flowing out. The direction of flow is indicated by
the arrows in the schematic above. KCL states quite emphatically
that:
i1 + i2 + i3 == i4 + i5
or, equivalently:
i1 + i2 + i3 - i4 - i5 == 0
Let's apply the concept of nodes to an amplifier, cable and
loudspeakers. Imagine a schematic as follows:
1 2
o------------------------o
| |
|+ +|
amplifier speaker
|- -|
| |
o------------------------o
4 3
We've defined 4 nodes and numbered them 1 through 4 as follows:
Node Location
1 Positive terminal on the amplifier
2 Positive terminal on the speaker
3 Negative terminal on the speaker
4 Negative terminal on the amplifier
We can arbitrarily assign nodes anywhere else we like (and we
may) as long as we follow the basic requirement of defining such
a node: there must be AT LEAST 2 current paths connected to that
node.
Fine, let's see what the situation is at, say, node 1. At some
instant current flows out of the amplifier and into node 1.
Kirchhoff says that the current flowing into node 1 from the
amplifier must be EXACTLY equal to the current flowing out of
node 1, in this case down the positive side of the speaker wire
towards node 2. It does this simply because THERE IS NO PLACE
ELSE FOR THE CURRENT TO GO. There are no other current paths
connected to node 1.
Now, at node 2, the speaker's positive terminal, current is
flowing into node 2 from node 1 via the positive side of the
speaker wire. What about the current flowing out of node 2?
Well, again, Kirchhoff sas that it must be exactly equal to the
current flowing into node 2, so the same current that came from
node one via the speaker wire is now flow out of node 2 into the
speaker. It does so simply because THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE FOR
THE CURRENT TO GO. There are no other current paths connected to
node 2.
Let's move on to node 3. The current that flowed out of node 2,
via the speaker (load, if you insist), now flows into node 3.
And, once again, Kirchhoff rears his head an demands that the
current flowing OUT of node 3, into the negative side of the
speaker wire, must equal the current flowing into node 3, via
the speaker. This is simply because THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE FOR
THE CURRENT TO GO. There are no other current paths connected to
node 3.
And on on to node 4. And the current flowing into node 4 via the
negative side of the speaker wire from node 3 has to go
somewhere, and sure enough, out it goes back into the amplifier.
And when we look at the entire picture, the current flowing
through node 4 equals the current flowing through node 3, which
equals the current flowing through node 2 which, in turn, is
EXACTLY equal to the current flowing through node 1.
Take one more step: we find that if we then define a couple of
new nodes:
1 5 2
o-----------o------------o
| |
|+ +|
amplifier speaker
|- -|
| |
o-----------o------------o
4 6 3
this time, at ANY place in both the positive and negative
speaker leads, that Kirchhoff's current law applies just as well
to them. That is the current flowing into node 5 from 1 is the
same as the current flowing out of node 5 into node 2, and the
current flowing into node 6 from node 3 MUST be the same as the
current flowing out of node 6 into node 4.
And putting it ALL together, the ONLY way this can be is if the
current flowing through node 6, in the negative conductor of the
speaker cable MUST be EXACTLY EQUAL to the current flowing
through node 5 on the positive side, BUT IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION.
This is simply because THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE FOR THE CURRENT TO
GO.
And our analysis is true at any given instant you arbitrarily
choose. However, we know that the signal is AC: it alternates
from flowing in one direction (say, from node 1 to node 2) to
the opposite (from node 2 to node 1) as the polarity of the
signal changes. However, KCL still applies fully.
Q.E.D.
Now, Mr. Flubber2 DOES raise what is an oft-made intuitive
mistake among those who do not understand electrical current
flow principles (and Mr. Flubber2 is chief among that group).
How is it possible, they ask, that ALL the current entering the
speaker via the positive terminal LEAVES the speaker via the
negative (and vice versa)? If that is true, and all the current
that enters the speaker leaves, how is there any energy left
over to make sound?
The answer for this comes from the fact that many intuitively
equate CURRENT and ENERGY as being exactly equivalent. They most
assuredly are not. Current is current, and describes only the
flow of charge (by one definition). Energy, on the other hand,
is proportional to the PRODUCT of the CURRENT flowing between to
nodes and the VOLTAGE drop between those two nodes:
Energy prop current * voltage
If a current of i amps flows through a speaker (or load, for
Mr. Flubber2's benefit)whose resistance is r ohms, by Ohm's
law:
voltage = current * resistance
a voltage drop appears across that load equal to the
product of the resistance and current. Thus it is perfectly
consistent that the current going into the speaker is exactly
equally to the current coming out the other terminal, and,
because of the resistance of the speaker, energy is dissipated,
and work is done. Most of the work will simply raise the
temperature of the voice coil wire: a little will be used to
move the voice coil, the cone, the air in front and behind it
and, eventually, you ear drums: voila! Sound!
So the correct application of Kirchhoff's current law
demonstrates conclusively that WHATEVER current is flowing at
ANY instant in the positive conductor of the speaker wire, a
current that is EXACTLY equal to it but FLOWING IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION MUST BE FLOWING IN THE NEGATIVE CONDUCTOR. Indeed, as
Kirchhoff's Current Law is solidly based in the conservation
laws of energy, it must be so.
Double Q.E.D.
>A paper showing all this was even put together for
>Stereophile magazine in Oct 95.
Please, spare us.
Stereophile may well be a great magazine about hi fi. Maybe not.
It may well have the very best equipment reviews, wonderful
article about the industry and all that. But as a reference for
the physics of electrical conduction, it is, by all accounts,
one of the last references ANY engineer would choose.
You claimed that your assertions can be found in any physics
book. You were asked if that were true, that you supply us with
specific citations to such books. You apparently failed to do so
thus far. Are we, then, to conclude that, in fact, you have NO
such references and that the BEST you can do is some
self-serving, possibly poorly researched and undoubtedly poorly
quoted and understood article in Stereophile?
Please, spare us.
>Before you quote Kirchhoff, better understand the difference
>between a node and load first.
Sound advice, Mr. Flubber2, truly sound advice indeed. It's just
to bad you did not see fit to follow your own sage advice. It
may well have spared you quite a bit of embarrassment.
Mr. Flubber2 clearly suffers from confusion on several points.
He is confused, quite obviously, about the basic vocabulary of
electricity and current flow. He is confused between "node" and
"load." He is confused as to the meaning and implication of
Kirchhoff's current law and the conservation laws of energy. He
has confused current and energy. And he has confused Stereophile
with a reliable source of information regarding the physics of
electrical conduction.
He also seems to have confused some of the people he hangs around
with with engineers. Or maybe he has confused what they have
told him.
Or, maybe not. Maybe it IS all a troll. Maybe it IS a silly
prank.
Either way, Mr. Flubber2 has done NO ONE, least of all himself,
by propagating a set of completely flawed, confusing and oft
contradictory assertions regarding how electrical conduction
works.
Jonas
[snip]
In modern electromagnetic theory, the energy
> doesnt
> flow in the conductors at all. The conductors act as wave guides,
> and the
> energy, in the form of electric and magnetic waves flows between
> the cable, at
> nearly the speed of light.
[snip]
> When the waveform
> encounters the discontinuities, it is partially reflected, and
> partially
> absorbed, thus altering the waveform as it is conveyed along the
> waveguides.
> All this can be found in many physics texts.
Well, Yes. In the world of waveguides this is very true. But you have
missed one critical parameter: The signal wavelength vs. length of
cable.
For audio frequencies you don't have to worry about waveguide theory.
The length of an interconnect or speaker cable is only a fraction of
the signal wavelength.
Kind regards
Jonas
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> In article <7n8ovc$r99$1...@nntprelay.berkeley.edu>,
> FLUBBER2 <flub...@aol.com> wrote:
> >A paper showing all this was even put together for
> >Stereophile magazine in Oct 95.
>
> Are we, then, to conclude that, in fact, you have NO
> such references and that the BEST you can do is some
> self-serving, possibly poorly researched and undoubtedly poorly
> quoted and understood article in Stereophile?
FYI Mr. Pierce, the Stereophile article referenced was written by
Professor Malcolm Hawksford, an AES Fellow, and the director of the
electrical engineering department at the University of Essex in the
UK.
It will be accessible in the archives section on www.stereophile.com
later this summer.
--
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Marilyn D. Guyote
> <snip>
>
> FYI Mr. Pierce, the Stereophile article referenced was written by
> Professor Malcolm Hawksford, an AES Fellow, and the director of the
> electrical engineering department at the University of Essex in the
> UK.
>
> It will be accessible in the archives section on www.stereophile.com
> later this summer.
>
> --
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
I have read the article in question in Stereophile and cannot help
but suspect that there have either modifications or deletions from
Professor Hawksford's original writings. Certain graphs contain no
calibrations (a mortal sin in scientific arenas), certain conclusions
seem entirely incongruous with known theory. My cancelling of my
Stereophile subscription a few years ago was due to the almost
complete separation from demonstrable science which the magazine has
performed. Perhaps the purveyers of Stereophile would like to start
the old British "...no other transducer can be in the room...."
claims which floated around the U.K during the early 80s.
I formally request that Mr Atkinson invite Professor Hawksford to
lecture here in the states so that we can learn of these rather
exciting phenomena which occur in cables. I have taught at:
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, University of Denver,
USAF Academy, and Colorado Technical University. At Mr Hawsford's
request, I am relatively sure that I could obtain permission for him
to lecture an appropriate graduate class in any of these fine schools
concerning topics which -- if proven true - are revolutionary. (Prof
Hawksford, please forgive this diatribe. I really don't believe that
you are making the claims which are attributed to you. Should one of
our esteemed newsgroup members be able to contact him, please have
him post his opinions.)
I await Mr Atkinson's response.
Michael Guyote, PhD, Electrical Engineering
Done on the wife's machine (and e-mail address)
DALJHD
E.E. classes on several occassions, I concur with the comments posted
by Dick Pierce, Steve Lampen (of Belden), and others possessing
competent E.E. backgrounds.
It is too bad that so much distorted information is being disseminated
about audible and measurable properties of audiophile cables by
persons (and companies) who should know better.
The properties of electrical cables (including loudspeaker and
interconnect types) and the way electrical currents flow along them is
a subject very well known by competent electrical engineers and
physicists. There are no secrets nor new discoveries within this field
- only the "gobbledygook and flooby-dust" interpretations given the
subject by those lacking a proper grasp of the subject.
I suspect that many well-known audiophile cable companies rejoice when
reading posts that appear to concur with their advertisements
regarding such non-existent properties as "cable directivity",
etc. But without such advertising claims, I doubt they could sell many
of their expensive, hi-tech appearing cables.
At least some of the bogus advertising claims may be traced to the
fact that few, if any, audiophile cable companies have any competent
electrical/electronic engineers on their payroll. But most
audiophilie cable companies do not manufacture their own cables, the
manufacturing being accomplished by large companies such as
Belden. (And engineers working for these manufacturers, such as Steve
Lampen of Belden, do not agree with the advertising claims of the
audiophile cable companies that promote and sell the cables.)
Some audiophile magazines also deserve a bit of criticism because some
of the "technical" articles they have published appear to support such
nonsense as "cable directivity, slow-moving electrons carrying the
signal, significant audible differences between cables, and so forth".
Likewise, the contention of audiophile cable companies that "blind
listening comparisons" are invalid because they "create stress that
precludes listeners hearing audible differences between cables" is
pure nonsense. The proper "non stressful" protocol to use in
determining whether audible differences actually exist is to begin by
letting listeners know which cable is being heard - but, at a time
unknown to the listeners, the identity of the cables is switched, such
that cable "A" becomes cable "B". This protocol, though employing
deception, prevents any possible build-up of "stress" among
participants.
Anyway, the subject of "audible differences between cables" is an
important one that needs and deserves informed discussion and comment.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
Lukas Louw
> > DPi...@world.std.com wrote
> > :>Simply stated:
> > >
> > >* the current flow IS NOT unidirectional.
> > >* The current that is flowing in one direction in one of the
> > > two wires in a cable is exactly equal to but flowing in the
> > > opposite direction of the other AT ALL TIMES.
> > >* The plus wire plays just as important a role and has
> > > precisely the same effect on the behavior of the system as
> > > the minus wire.
> > >
Yes AC current is bidirectional.
> > >In short: the ONLY difference the arrows on a speaker cable make
> > >are to the marketing and accounting department. To the electrons
> > >and the voice coils, no such difference COULD exist.
Absolutely.
> Come on now. Current flow is exactly the same at all times in both
> directions?
Not at the same instant. Any AC signal alternates with varying degrees
between positive and negative current, hence "Alternating Current" =
"AC". Audio signal by nature are AC.
> So you are telling us that the speaker (the load) makes all that
> sound
> but doesnt use any energy at all? Sounds like a violation of the good
> old
> Conservation of Energy Laws to me. Any engineer should catch tha t
> problem.
Eh? A speaker is connected to the amplifier by two wires in the
speaker lead. What makes that so different from a ligtht bulb plugged
into the wall? Current flow starts at one end of the wire, travels
through the wire, then through the load, back through the 2nd wire to
the source . The DIRECTION of the electron flow varies according to
the signal, so BOTH leads or conductors have to permit bidirectional
current flow !!!!!!!!!
> To get a grasp on why there is directionality in cables, you all need
> to get
> away from the garden hose analogy (current travels up one wire and
> down the
> other) of current flow. In modern electromagnetic theory, the energy
> doesnt
> flow in the conductors at all. The conductors act as wave guides,
Waveguides - very very funny. Maybe your'e thinking of transmission
lines, but not at audio frequencies........
> and the
> energy, in the form of electric and magnetic waves flows between
> the cable, at
> nearly the speed of light. Because the conductors are not perfect
> conductors
> (super conductors actually have zero current inside the conducto r
> itself), some
> energy does penetrate the conductors themselves and is attenuated
> at different
> frequency dependent levels as it approaches the center of the
> conductor (That
> is what the skin effect really is). This current flow inside the
> conductor is
> very slow. As slow as 2 meters/sec for a 20hz signal. The reason
> you dont
Where do you get 2 meter/sec from? At that speed, you can walk from
the amplifier to the speaker, and get there before the signal gets
there? Try it.
> hear a shadow of the musical signal because of this slow current
> inside the
> conductor is that it is greatly attenuated almost immediately. A
> perfect cable
> would not exhibit directionality, but since there are granular and
> other
> discontinuities along the wave guides at various points, the wave
> guides are no
> longer symmetric. The waveform with encounter the discontinuities
> at different
> points, depending on which way the cable is oriented. When the
> waveform
> encounters the discontinuities, it is partially reflected, and
> partially
> absorbed, thus altering the waveform as it is conveyed along the
> waveguides.
Sounds like you are trying to explain why reflections and standing
waves occur in mismatched transmission lines. Transmission line theory
has been wel understood for many many years. My text book at college
in the early 70's for transmission line theory was the Handbook of
Line Communication Vol 1, first published by the Royals Signal Corps
in 1947, way way before high end audio became what it is.
> All this can be found in many physics texts. Even a couple of high
> end audio
> mags have adequately described why directionality exists and have
> shown the
> physics that support it. HiFi News has published a couple good
> write-ups in the last two issues and are worth reading. Whether
> or not it is audible another, even better
> question....Based upon the extreme sensitivity of human hearing to
> phase disparities, it is more than likey audible.
>
More than likely? You will hear what you want to hear.
Take a 110 volt ligh bulb, reverse the power cable and see if it makes
any difference.
Lukas Louw
Jack D. Wills
<Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>FYI Mr. Pierce, the Stereophile article referenced was written by
>Professor Malcolm Hawksford, an AES Fellow, and the director of the
>electrical engineering department at the University of Essex in the
>UK.
>
>It will be accessible in the archives section on www.stereophile.com
>later this summer.
>
>--
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
>
Professor Hawksford has published a lot of great stuff.
Unfortunately his cable paper is not one of his finer efforts. He
starts out by analyzing wave propagation, including conductor losses,
using a "separation of variables" technique. To simplify the math he
choose to work in rectangular coordinates. For the separation of
variables method to work, the boundaries must lie along constant x, y
or z coordinates only, that is they must be planar. So Hawksford
starts out studying a cable that is infinitely long (OK), has finite
thickness (OK), and is infinitely wide (WOW!). He then finds the
steady state fields everywhere in the cable, assuming a fixed
frequency sinewave excitation. His field solution is correct. He
note that there is a very slowly propagating current flow into the
cable, that is associated with conductor loss. This is also
correct. He then conjectures that if the sinewave excitation were
stopped, these slowly propagating transverse fields would eventually
come back out of the conductor, and contribute a delayed response
from the cable.
There are two main problems with this work.
1. The infinitely wide cable
2. Trying to derive the solution to a transient problem , by solving a
single frequency steady state problem and then "handwaving".
To get the correct answer you need to solve a cable having a bounded
cross section. The simplest geometry is a coaxial cable with solid
inner conductor, solid outer conductor, and a homogeneous dielectric
in between. When you work through this problem you will find that
the radial field variation is given by Bessel and Hankel functions.
You will also find that slowly propagating current flow into the
center of the cable (caused by conductor loss) vanishes at the center
of the cable! You don't have to worry about it "coming back out the
other side" because it never makes it to the center of the cable!
Hawskford's infinitely wide model misses this behavior.
Then when you get an exact fixed frequency solution, the only way to
get the right transient solution is to hook up the cable to a source
and load impedance, choose your transient pulse, expand the transient
in a Fourier series (or Fourier Integral if it's a single pulse),
check how each frequency component propagates down the cable to the
load, and then sum up (or integrate) to find the exact pulse shape at
the load. Hawksford didn't do this.
There is ZERO controversy in the electromagnetics community about how
to solve this type of problem. Everything you need to know is in
"Time Harmonic Electromagnetic Fields" by R.F Harrington, which was
published in 1961 and is still in print, and "The Fourier Transform
and its Applications" by Ronald Bracewell, published in 1965 and still
in print.
This paper would have never passed peer review in the electromagnetics
community. If it had been submitted to a peer reviewed
electromagnetics journal the problems I outlined above would have been
sent back to Professor Hawksford as reviewers comments and the paper
could have been fixed. Instead is has only served to confuse many
people.
Are you interested in publishing an exact analysis of pulse
propagation in a lossy coaxial line?
Dr. Jack Wills
BTW my doctorate was in computational electromagnetics. I am not an
AES fellow, just an AES member. I also belong to to the IEEE
Societies for Microwave Theory and Techniques as well as Antennas and
Propagation.
--
Dr. Jack Wills
Teknetics
430A South Venice Blvd.
Jonas
> Professor Hawksford has published a lot of great stuff.
> Unfortunately his cable paper is not one of his finer efforts. He
> starts out by analyzing wave propagation, including conductor losses,
> using a "separation of variables" technique.
Ah, a good old wave equation problem !
OK. The solution of the problem is correct, but the geometry is wrong.
The cable has a finite size, not infinite.
> When you work through this problem you will find that
> the radial field variation is given by Bessel and Hankel functions.
Looking at the radial part, I vote for Bessel functions only.
(Hankel functions can be used to describe a spherical wavefront.)
> Are you interested in publishing an exact analysis of pulse
> propagation in a lossy coaxial line?
>
> Dr. Jack Wills
>
> BTW my doctorate was in computational electromagnetics. I am not an
> AES fellow, just an AES member. I also belong to to the IEEE
> Societies for Microwave Theory and Techniques as well as Antennas and
> Propagation.
YES, please ! If you sit on the solution on this, post it !!
I and probably many more readers would be intresting to see an
analysis of that coax cable.
If you have access to software like HP EEsof it is a piece of cake
to numerically solve the problem.
Given a geometry and proper boundary conditions I guess you can even
do the solution by hand.
Kind regards
Jonas
DALJHD
lacking a E.E. background, that electrons travel very slowly along a conductor.
However, when elctrons are induced to flow by a "potential difference", they
create an electromagnetic field that propagates along the wire at nearly the
speed of light, slowed down only a relatively small amount by the presence of a
dielectric (insulating material) or by the diameter of the conductor if it
becomes very large.
Those posting on the Cable Group of the Audio Asylm refuse to believe this and
many other well known attributes and properties of cables and the travel of
currents and fields along them.
As a consequence of their simplistic views, many fervently hold to the belief
that the propagation of electrical currents along a cable is directional.
Oh well, Hmmm!
In general, expensive audiophile loudspeaker cables are a disgrace, of sorts,
to our hobby.
Yes, I designed (and DAL sells) a cable called the Z-6 which exhibits a
characteristic impedance at high frequenies (above the audio range) of
approximately 6 Ohms. Of course, at audio frequencies characteristic impedance
has little meaning and engineers characterise a cable using "network
parameters", such a R,L and C. However, both methods essentially "say the same
thing" and are, to some degree interchangeable. By that, if one is rigorous,
transmission-line calculations should yield the same answers as R, L and C
calculations, if resistive losses are ignored. Yes, I know this is a bit of an
over-simpification, but I state it to merely convey that their is an intimate
connection between the two.
To subjectivists, there are significant audible differences between cables that
defy measurement. However, I suspect that most competent engineers soudl
contest this view on the basis of "theory", accurate measurements, and blind
A/B comparisons within a properly operating system. To this, subjectivists
reply that blind A/B comparisons induce psychological stress that dulls the
listeners ability to discern audible diferences. Hmmm!
Any comments - (No flames)?
Best of listening, John D.
Fred Whitlock
problem with A/B testing is that it happens too rapidly to
allow detection of subtle differences. Gross differences
like loudspeakers and vacuum tubes are easily discernible in
A/B tests. Subtle differences require me, the listener, to
adjust to the sound before changes become obvious. That can
take a week or more which makes for a pretty slow A/B
comparison. I can only remember one instance in which two
pair of cables were discernible in a fast A/B test. Those
two would make it into the gross difference category for me.
The other several hundred A/B tests on cables I've done were
inconclusive for me. A change after adjusting to the sound
for a while can be discerned when subtle differences exist.
A/B tests are useful for some things and not for others, at
least for me. Incidentally I know a few competent
engineers who you would describe as subjectivists. They
have no problem with it at all. Good listening.
Fred
AudioNow!
http://www.audionow.com
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
DALJHD <dal...@cs.com> wrote:
>As a consequence of their simplistic views, many fervently hold to the belief
>that the propagation of electrical currents along a cable is directional.
John, this is how I explain it. Let's assume that we have 1 mole of
copper (about an ounce, give or take). That isn't really much in the
way of wire. Now, assume that we have to move all the free
electrons from one end of the wire to another. That's moving
6.02*10^23 free electrons (one per copper atom, yes?). That results
in about 3*10^4 AMPS if we move them all in one second. (Avagadro's
number divided by the number of electron charges in one columb.)
That is a truly huge quantity of amps.
Most of us don't have speakers with an impedence that low :-).
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
MtryCraft
>Date: Thu, 29 July 1999 11:24 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7nprmp$6...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>
>
>I suppose it could be true. It isn't in my case. My
>problem with A/B testing is that it happens too rapidly to
>allow detection of subtle differences. Gross differences
>like loudspeakers and vacuum tubes are easily discernible in
>A/B tests. Subtle differences require me, the listener, to
>adjust to the sound before changes become obvious. That can
>take a week or more which makes for a pretty slow A/B
>comparison. I can only remember one instance in which two
>pair of cables were discernible in a fast A/B test. Those
>two would make it into the gross difference category for me.
>The other several hundred A/B tests on cables I've done were
>inconclusive for me. A change after adjusting to the sound
>for a while can be discerned when subtle differences exist.
>A/B tests are useful for some things and not for others, at
>least for me. Incidentally I know a few competent
>engineers who you would describe as subjectivists. They
>have no problem with it at all. Good listening.
>
>Fred
>AudioNow!
>http://www.audionow.com
I think it would be interesting reading the letter from a licensed
psychologis, Dr. Thomas J. Smurthwaite, in the June 99 issue of Audio,
pg 6, letters. Just a short sentence:
" Psychologists have been conducting research on human perception and
refining research techniques for more than 100 years, so there is a
wealth of knowledge that most sudiophiles are unaware of."
"Echoic memory is a brain function that holds large amounts of
incoming auditory information in storage; it has a span of about 2
seconds. After 2 seconds, echoic memory either decays or is processed
into immediate memory, which imposes significant limits on thee amount
of information that is retained. Thanks to echoic memory, humans are
exceptionally good at detecting whether two sounds presented in quick
succession are the same or different."
"When the presentation of the second tone is delayed by more than 2
seconds, the accuracy of auditory discrimination will drop." "There
is no doubt that instantaneous comparisons enhance auditory
discrimination."
"Experimental psychologists use scientific methodologies(such as
double-blind A/B testing) when examining sensory perceptions, because
100 years ofpsychological research shows that less rigorous approaches
lead to erronious conclusions."
I think you have your perception roles reversed. Subtle differences
need immediate A/B comparisons, similar to matching paint chips. You
don't look at the wall at home for days trying to memorize the color
and have it matched in the store from memory. Instantaneous
comparison.
Fred B.
Based upon my own experience.
I agree that you can detect some gross differences it A/B comparisons.
I have noticed it auditioning many items, including cables.
But as Fred W. says, time does have an effect. I have noticed this on
my new CD player. I could notice a difference using it and others
with the usual A/B comparisons. But then, after using the new CD
player for a few weeks I tried another one which I used to be happy
with, and it was really BAD. I had completely adjusted to the sound
of the new player, which is very musical. Now, using other players,
in systems and portables, I have to grit my teeth for a while until I
adjust to the "older" players.
And a side issue. I do not put psychology as a very exact science,
with total absolutes. You can spout all the theories in psychology
and engineering you desire! :) I just believe my own ears.
People get carried away sometimes in audio. For most of us, it's a
hobby....for enjoyment. Some people take pleasure in the selection
and use of equipment (gadget freaks, if you would). Some just love
music. Some a little of both.
To me, audio is subjective and objective. What my ears and brain
perceive may not be exactly measurable by psychological tests or
engineering methods. That still does not mean my perception is as
individual as I am. I believe there are sound engineering reasons for
some choices in my audio hobby, and also "gut" choices based upon my
beliefs and hearing.
Fred B.
mtry...@aol.com (MtryCraft) said-
**From: "Fred Whitlock" a...@cl-sys.com
**>Date: Thu, 29 July 1999 11:24 AM EDT
**>Message-id: <7nprmp$6...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>
**>
**>I suppose it could be true. It isn't in my case. My
**>problem with A/B testing is that it happens too rapidly to
**>allow detection of subtle differences. Gross differences
**>like loudspeakers and vacuum tubes are easily discernible in
**>A/B tests. Subtle differences require me, the listener, to
**>adjust to the sound before changes become obvious. That can
**>take a week or more which makes for a pretty slow A/B
**>comparison. I can only remember one instance in which two
**>pair of cables were discernible in a fast A/B test. Those
**>two would make it into the gross difference category for me.
**>The other several hundred A/B tests on cables I've done were
**>inconclusive for me. A change after adjusting to the sound
**>for a while can be discerned when subtle differences exist.
**>A/B tests are useful for some things and not for others, at
**>least for me. Incidentally I know a few competent
**>engineers who you would describe as subjectivists. They
**>have no problem with it at all. Good listening.
**>
**>Fred
**>AudioNow!
**>http://www.audionow.com
**
**I think it would be interesting reading the letter from a licensed
**psychologis, Dr. Thomas J. Smurthwaite, in the June 99 issue of
Audio,
**pg 6, letters. Just a short sentence:
**
**" Psychologists have been conducting research on human perception
and
**refining research techniques for more than 100 years, so there is a
**wealth of knowledge that most sudiophiles are unaware of."
**
**"Echoic memory is a brain function that holds large amounts of
**incoming auditory information in storage; it has a span of about 2
**seconds. After 2 seconds, echoic memory either decays or is
processed
**into immediate memory, which imposes significant limits on thee
amount
**of information that is retained. Thanks to echoic memory, humans are
**exceptionally good at detecting whether two sounds presented in
quick
**succession are the same or different."
**
**"When the presentation of the second tone is delayed by more than 2
**seconds, the accuracy of auditory discrimination will drop." "There
**is no doubt that instantaneous comparisons enhance auditory
**discrimination."
**
**"Experimental psychologists use scientific methodologies(such as
**double-blind A/B testing) when examining sensory perceptions,
because
**100 years ofpsychological research shows that less rigorous
approaches
**lead to erronious conclusions."
**
**I think you have your perception roles reversed. Subtle differences
**need immediate A/B comparisons, similar to matching paint chips. You
**don't look at the wall at home for days trying to memorize the color
**and have it matched in the store from memory. Instantaneous
**comparison.
**
DALJHD
during "blind A/B comparisons", the length of listening to each cable
can be extended to a week or more, without changing the results.
John D.
DALJHD
another bullet that penetrates the nonsense being stated by those who
likely mean well but lack the technical underpinnings to grasp how
cables actually perform.
All the best,
John D.
MtryCraft
>Date: Fri, 30 July 1999 11:45 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7nshbm$l...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>
John, not a chance. I am finding that no matter what information you
present, you will not change some minds. Hence, I feel that audio is
a religion to those and as you know faith is hard to battle no matter
what. As you can see, 100 years of research is not enough for them
either, then nothing will be. You think they would sit down and
demonstrate their talents? Not when a referee is around.
Mike Kim
is how exactly would it work better? music is AC, so every time the
current flows from positive to negative, it would sound great, but
when it flows from negative to positive, it would sound bad? hmm, so
half of the waveform would be extremely distorted, while the other
half is fine? bullsh*#.
or maybe they're using it to compensate for "directional air." i
guess air does not expand as quickly or easily as it compresses. my
question to people who do this is; when a live band plays in front of
you, what's happening? do they have enough skill to compensate for
every waveform that comes off of their instruments to compensate for
the "non-linearity" of air? no, so why would you try it in your
system?
please.... show me one ounce of proof that this megabuck speaker
wire sounds any different than 12 AWG zip cord.... or better yet,
prove it to me in a repeatable level-matched DBT test.... that'll be
the day.
take care,
Mike Kim
Steve Eddy
>my question to people who actually have "directional" speaker cables,
>is how exactly would it work better? music is AC, so every time the
>current flows from positive to negative, it would sound great, but
>when it flows from negative to positive, it would sound bad? hmm, so
>half of the waveform would be extremely distorted, while the other
>half is fine? bullsh*#.
Yes. It's always interesting when product claims fail even basic logic
not to mention the fundamental laws of physics.
One of the more laughable I've come across recently has been from
Bybee Technologies. Jack Bybee is alleged to be a theoretical
physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity and
is also alleged to have worked on passive sonar systems for the US
Navy.
From the Bybee Technologies web site (www.bybeetech.com):
"Electrons travel through most electrical wire at 50 to 68% the speed
of light (VP or Velocity of Propagation)."
While electromagnetic waves propagate at velocities approaching the
speed of light, electrons themselves migrate at a literal snail's
pace. This claim fails elemenatary physics.
"The ceramic elements used within the Quantum Mechanical Filter will
pass electrons at 92% VP, over a 50% gain."
That electrons do not travel at such velocities notwithstanding, the
electromagnetic waves will assume a VP determined by the medium it
encounters after leaving these magical chunks of ceramic (in this case
the lead-out wires of the filters and the subsquent wiring of the
component/speaker. This claim fails both elementary physics and logic.
"With the use of scanning tunneling electron microscopes that can show
electrons in motion, research consumated as to how different each
electron can be. The Bybee Quantum Mechanical Filter that was
developed from this research is a device that literally sizes, cleans,
aligns and stabilizes individual electrons and throws out the
bad/irregular electrons. The heavy and well damped mass around the
purification devices is to absorb these discarded electrons"
Pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor and go change my
pants...
Ok, where to begin? I'm having much too hard a time putting out of my
mind the image of millions of quantum-size immigrant laborers picking
through these electrons like so many pieces of bad fruit on the
conveyor at a packing plant.
And just what happens to all these "bad electrons"? Bybee claims they
are "absorbed" by the mass around the "purification devices" (is
anyone else picking up shades of Sterling Hayden in Dr. Strangelove
here?). I'm assuming that even "bad electrons" carry a charge. Does
the excess charge from all these "bad electrons" continue to build up
indefinitely in this mass? Or does it eventually reach a certain
threshold and discharge back into your system in a bright blue flash
and the smell of ozone?
That's it for now. I'm off to enjoy a glass of pure rain water and
check my precious audio signals for signs of fluoridation.
se
Richard D Pierce
This Bybee stuff is GREAT!
>"Electrons travel through most electrical wire at 50 to 68% the speed
>of light (VP or Velocity of Propagation)."
>While electromagnetic waves propagate at velocities approaching the
>speed of light, electrons themselves migrate at a literal snail's
>pace. This claim fails elemenatary physics.
Yup. 50-68% of the speed of light is relativistic velocities, as
in high-energy particle accelerators. An electron traveling at
50% of the speed of light has (as I recall) a kinetic energy of
500,000 electron volts. Where does Mr. Bybee propose the
electrons in our wires attained such high ebergies and
velocities. Mr. Bybee claims to be a quantum physicist: if so,
where was he the day in freshman college physics when they
talked about this?
>"With the use of scanning tunneling electron microscopes that can show
>electrons in motion, research consumated as to how different each
>electron can be.
Mr. Bybee claims to be a quantum physicist. If this statement
is, in fact, that of Mr. Bybee, he is an out and out liar.
Either he is NOT such a physicist AND he has NOT seen such
results from scanning tunneling microscopes and is completely
unaware of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or he IS such a
quantum physicist, IS aware of the unceetainty principle, KNOWS
it CANNOT do what he describes, and is lying about it.
>The Bybee Quantum Mechanical Filter that was
>developed from this research is a device that literally sizes, cleans,
>aligns and stabilizes individual electrons and throws out the
>bad/irregular electrons. The heavy and well damped mass around the
>purification devices is to absorb these discarded electrons"
Pure, utter poppycock.
Fred E. Davis
...many amazing claims snipped concerning:
From the Bybee Technologies web site (www.bybeetech.com):
You left out the best part, Steve:
Quote from www.bybeetech.com:
"New technology such as that utilized by the purifiers is virtually
impossible to measure and quantify. It is at least one generation
ahead of the available technology for measuring."
So if you can't measure to see if it's doing anything, how does their
QC department know that it's working correctly (or properly 'burned
in')? Mr. Bybee, meet Mr. Tice...
Steve Eddy
wrote:
Touche. Amazing how these geniuses are able to invent devices which
are a generation ahead of available measurement technology yet are
seemingly incapable of inventing that measurement technology. Doesn't
even offer a theoretical mathematical model.
I think this excerpt from a SoundStage! review by Dave Duvall pretty
much sums it up:
"Partnered with Carl Brinkman, ad avid audiophile and savvy marketeer,
Jack [Bybee] formed Bybee Technologies, Inc. in 1997..."
I can only imagine the uproarious laughter that must echo through the
halls of Bybee Technologies whenever they receive an order for one of
their products.
se
Jonas
>
> On 3 Aug 1999 16:18:32 GMT, tre...@aol.com (Mike Kim) wrote:
>
> >my question to people who actually have "directional" speaker cables,
> >is how exactly would it work better? music is AC, so every time the
> >current flows from positive to negative, it would sound great, but
> >when it flows from negative to positive, it would sound bad? hmm, so
> >half of the waveform would be extremely distorted, while the other
> >half is fine? bullsh*#.
>
> Yes. It's always interesting when product claims fail even basic logic
> not to mention the fundamental laws of physics.
:-)
> One of the more laughable I've come across recently has been from
> Bybee Technologies. Jack Bybee is alleged to be a theoretical
> physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity and
> is also alleged to have worked on passive sonar systems for the US
> Navy.
>
> From the Bybee Technologies web site (www.bybeetech.com):
>
> "Electrons travel through most electrical wire at 50 to 68% the speed
> of light (VP or Velocity of Propagation)."
>
> While electromagnetic waves propagate at velocities approaching the
> speed of light, electrons themselves migrate at a literal snail's
> pace. This claim fails elemenatary physics.
Perhaps he means waves rather than electrons ? Electromagnetic waves
in a coax cable ususally travels with 60% of the speed of light.
> "The ceramic elements used within the Quantum Mechanical Filter will
> pass electrons at 92% VP, over a 50% gain."
>
> That electrons do not travel at such velocities notwithstanding, the
> electromagnetic waves will assume a VP determined by the medium it
> encounters after leaving these magical chunks of ceramic (in this case
> the lead-out wires of the filters and the subsquent wiring of the
> component/speaker. This claim fails both elementary physics and logic.
I don't know what VP stands for.
In fact, many of these things would work if you cool them down to some
milli Kelvin. (Yes, thats almost zero temperature) But it seems like
Jack Bybee has forgotten that it is very hard for humans to stay alive
at these temperatures to enjoy music :-)
How they think this Quantum Mechanical Filter will work on devices at
room temperature beats me.
Kind regards
Jonas
Richard D Pierce
>> One of the more laughable I've come across recently has been from
>> Bybee Technologies. Jack Bybee is alleged to be a theoretical
>> physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity and
>> is also alleged to have worked on passive sonar systems for the US
>> Navy.
>> of light (VP or Velocity of Propagation)."
>>
>> While electromagnetic waves propagate at velocities approaching the
>> speed of light, electrons themselves migrate at a literal snail's
>> pace. This claim fails elemenatary physics.
>Perhaps he means waves rather than electrons ? Electromagnetic waves
>in a coax cable ususally travels with 60% of the speed of light.
Jack Bybee CLAIMS to be, to quote Bybee's literature directly, a
physicist:
"Jack Bybee is a theoretical physicist who has specialized
in quantum mechanics and supeconductivity."
IF he IS a physicist as described, he's SUPPOSED to KNOW the
difference between the velocity of an electron in a conductor
(known as the elctron drift velocity) and the velocity of
propogation of electromagnetic waves. They are two different
phenomenon. I NEVER came across a physicist that meant one thing
and said the other, ESPECIALLY when asked to write it down and
review it before publishing it.
So, he either IS a physicist, knows the difference, and is
hoping his audience doesn't have a clue, or he is NOT a
physicist, does not know the difference, and thus himself does
not have a clue.
>> "The ceramic elements used within the Quantum Mechanical Filter will
>> pass electrons at 92% VP, over a 50% gain."
>>
>> That electrons do not travel at such velocities notwithstanding, the
>> electromagnetic waves will assume a VP determined by the medium it
>> encounters after leaving these magical chunks of ceramic (in this case
>> the lead-out wires of the filters and the subsquent wiring of the
>> component/speaker. This claim fails both elementary physics and logic.
>I don't know what VP stands for.
According to the Bybee site:
"VP or Velocity of Propagation"
a term that is NOT used in physics. The term for velocity is
almost universally "c," as in E=mc^2. Quite consistantly, "c" is
also used in acoustics to denote the propogation velocity of
sound.
And the term to describe the difference in electromagnetic
propogation velocity in a vacuum and in a conductor is the
velocity factor.
>In fact, many of these things would work if you cool them down to some
>milli Kelvin. (Yes, thats almost zero temperature) But it seems like
>Jack Bybee has forgotten that it is very hard for humans to stay alive
>at these temperatures to enjoy music :-)
>
>How they think this Quantum Mechanical Filter will work on
>devices at room temperature beats me.
The Bybee site makes the following extraordinary claim:
"It has also been found that certain ceramics when mixed with
precise amounts of rare earth metals, (zirconium, yttrium,
neodymium, praesadoyium, and lanthanum oxides) become
extraordinarily conductive even at room temperatures"
If this extraordinary claim is true, Bybee Technology holds the
record for, by far, evidence of the highest temperature by far
of near-superconductivity to date. The VERY best that has been
achieved so far in so-called "room-temperature
superconductivity" is at liquid nitrogen temperatures (77.4
Kelvin, -195.6 C, or some -320 farenheit).
If Bybee has achieved such, then why are they nothering with us
lowly audiophiles? Hell, they have a sure date for lunch with
the King of Sweden and a $500,000 prize. Yet, I'll wager a mere
$100 right here and now that we will not see a Nobel prize in
Jack Bybee's future. We won't even see a nomination.
Bunk. Absolute bunk.
Steve Eddy
wrote:
> "It has also been found that certain ceramics when mixed with
> precise amounts of rare earth metals, (zirconium, yttrium,
> neodymium, praesadoyium, and lanthanum oxides) become
> extraordinarily conductive even at room temperatures"
>
>If this extraordinary claim is true, Bybee Technology holds the
>record for, by far, evidence of the highest temperature by far
>of near-superconductivity to date. The VERY best that has been
>achieved so far in so-called "room-temperature
>superconductivity" is at liquid nitrogen temperatures (77.4
>Kelvin, -195.6 C, or some -320 farenheit).
To be fair, Bybee isn't claiming room-temperature superconduction. And
it is true that certain ceramic compounds achieve significantly
greater conductivity at room temperature than common metalic
conductors.
se
(Crossing fingers this doesn't violate the quote to text ratio...)
DALJHD
What could I possibly add to the may succinct comments I have read on
this thread concerning Jack - a huckster from way back, selling
numerous flavors of snake-oil, buzzard salve and flooby-dust.
Anyway, keep exposing the "bad guys" and their worthless products -
products that demean our wonderful pursuit of the accurate
reproduction of music and sound.
Caveat emptor!
John D.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Fred E. Davis <FED...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"New technology such as that utilized by the purifiers is virtually
>impossible to measure and quantify. It is at least one generation
>ahead of the available technology for measuring."
>So if you can't measure to see if it's doing anything, how does their
>QC department know that it's working correctly (or properly 'burned
>in')? Mr. Bybee, meet Mr. Tice...
Oh, my. We can count the arrival of individual electrons with some
equipment nowadays, so what is this fellow claiming, Fred?
I don't mention equipment and I don't review it, but um, the claim
is, well, very extraordinary, to say the least. We have something
with a charge much lower than an electron here? Lower than +1/3 e?
Something finer than a quark?
Wow, better tell the particle physicists.
Stewart Pinkerton
>In article <7o7o6o$tvh$1...@nntprelay.berkeley.edu>, Jonas <j...@telia.com> wrote:
>>I don't know what VP stands for.
>According to the Bybee site:
> "VP or Velocity of Propagation"
>a term that is NOT used in physics. The term for velocity is
>almost universally "c," as in E=mc^2. Quite consistantly, "c" is
>also used in acoustics to denote the propogation velocity of
>sound.
>And the term to describe the difference in electromagnetic
>propogation velocity in a vacuum and in a conductor is the
>velocity factor.
To be fair, Vp *is* commonly used as an abbreviation for velocity of
propagation by cable companies such as Belden etc to quantify the
velocity factor, and is generally quoted as a percentage of c. OTOH,
Bybee's 'theories' would be utterly hilarious were they not so
cynically misleading and false..............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Steve Eddy
If you liked that one, perhaps you'd enjoy pondering this one. It's
nowhere near as egregious as the Bybee Quantum Filters and there are
no real "bad guys" but it's something I've been mulling over for some
time.
I first encountered it in a "white paper" Nelson Pass wrote on the
issue of single-ended class A, published on the PassLabs web site
(www.passlabs.com/seclassa.htm). Nelson writes:
"There is one element in the chain whcih we cannot alter or improve
upon, and that is the air. Air defines sound, and serves as a natural
benchmark."
"Virtually all the amplifiers on the market are based on a push-pull
symmetry model. The push-pull symmetry topology has no particular
basis in nature."
"Is it valid to use air's characteristic as a model for designing an
amolifier? If you accept that all processing leaves its signature on
the music, the answer is yes."
Further:
"We can push on air and raise the pressure an arbitrary amount, but we
cannot pull on it. We can only let it relax and fill a space as it
will, and the pressure will never go below "0". As we push on air, the
increase in pressure is greater than the corresponding decrease when
we allow air to expand. This means that for a given motion of a
diaphragm acting on air, the positive pressure perturbations will be
slightly greater than the negative. From this we see that air is phase
sensitive."
Ok. I'm giggy wi'dat. Then:
"A very important consideration in attempting to create an amplifier
with a natural characteristic is the selection of gain devices. A
single-ended Class A topology is appropriate, and we want a
characteristic where the positive amplitude is very, very slightly
greater than the negative."
The plot thickens. This white paper isn't the only place I've seen
this notion postulated. For example, in Sam Tellig's piece on the
Plinius SA-50 in the November, 1998 Stereophile, p. 45, Sam quotes
Peter Thomson of Plinius "the NPN transistor is a far more linear and
better-sounding device than its PNP counterpart. In our circuit, we
use only the NPN in the output stage."
Sam then comments:
"The result is an asymmetrical circuit, more push than pull, that Pete
says better emulates the way sound energy behaves in nature---that is,
in air."
Sam quotes Pete Thomson once again:
"When excited by a signal, air will compress over a wide range of
velocities, but it will decompress at a slower and more narrow rate."
In an earlier Sam's Space (March, 1998, p. 49) Sam states:
"Still, common sense tells you that something about push-pull appears
to violate nature. It can't possibly help the sound."
Ok. So the idea here is that the more ideal (i.e. natural) amplifier
is one which emulates this characteristic of air by having a somewhat
greater amplitude on positive going signals with respect to negative
going signals. In other words, asymmetrical.
Hmmmm...
I don't claim to be any sort of genius, but I've always been under the
impression that a microphone's diaphragm responds to the perturbations
of the air and creates an electrical signal which is an analogue of
those perturbations.
I have also understood that the goal of preamplifiers and amplifiers
is to pass that signal from the source to the load as accurately as
possible, without imposing anything upon the signal beside a linear
increase in amplitude (barring actual signal processors of course).
So, if the microphone is functioning as I've been led to believe, then
the particular characteristic of air which is mentioned above would
have been encoded into the electrical signal at that point. And that
any amplifier which imposed this characteristic upon the signal a
second time would, by all rights, be distorting the signal (i.e. a
non-linear amplitude response).
What's interesting is that whether my reasoning holds water or not, it
still leaves something of a conundrum.
If my argument is valid, then the notion of single-ended class A vis a
vis the characteristics of air is wrong. However if my argument is
invalid, and that single-ended class A vis a vis the charateristics of
air (as embodied in the Pass Aleph series amplifiers) is right, then
the X series amplifiers must not only be wrong, but doubly so.
I say this because, as far as I am aware, each channel of an X series
amplifier employs two effectively complete amplifiers each of which
utilizes a complimentary symmetry output stage (i.e. push-pull). And
doubly so because the two amplifiers are "bridged" to create a
differential, push-pull output across the loudspeaker load.
In other words, each channel is fudamentally no different than a
stereo amplifier "bridged" for mono operation. The only real
distinction being the SuperSymmetry configuration which basically just
cross-couples the input stages of the two amplifiers via negative
feedback in an effort to impose the gain stage errors of each
amplifier onto the other so that the errors are more equal at each
amplifier's output supposedly resulting in better cancellation via the
loudspeaker's common-mode input impedance.
Comments?
se