Robert Morein
May 23rd 05, 12:21 AM
Recently, I posted a speculation that skin effect and nonlinear dielectric
performance are responsible for a difference in sound between two short
interconnects that were demonstrated to me by a friend. While I still
believe that the difference in sound is real, my speculation as to the cause
has resulted in considerable rebuttal, much of it well-founded.
Many, if not most, participants, find rec.audio.opinion useful to their
psyches as a way that they can posture, puff-up, and dominate, relying on
their overblown egos when argumentation pulls the floor from under their
feet. I have seldom seen a retraction on rec.audio.opinion. To some extent,
this is because subjective expressions are seldom to this kind of
requirement of intellectual honesty. However, when one attempts to argue
with science as a foundation, and one uses science as a shield against the
truth, one lies, but successfully, only to one's self.
My speculation as to the skin effect was based on a remembered calculation
of sigma, which is, indeed, a macroscopic quantity, even at audio
frequencies. What was not intuitively obvious, at least to me, is that this
does not lead with equal confidence to the implication that there is an
effect at audio frequencies.
Other calculations and observations imply or observe that the resonant
frequency of audio cables is far above the audio band. The burden of proof
is on individuals, who like Malcolm Hawksford, attempt quantitative models
to explain perceived differences in audio cables. I am deeply disappointed
that Professor Hawksford chose to use a steel wire in his models, thereby
introducing an entirely unnecessary complication.
In the past, I have had very little interest in the possibility that audio
cables vary widely in sound. Therefore, unlike my involvment with
amplifiers, I cannot make broad assertions through experience with wire.
However, I do believe that in this case, two short interconnects of very
different construction did sound different. For me, the question is, why?
All physicists use something called "physical intuition" to help them decide
what is worth the effort of calculation. If it's wrong, it costs only one
wasted calculation. It should not be used, as I did, to jump to a conclusion
about a mechanism. But physical intuition is a valid speculative tool, and
here, I renew my speculation as to what could explain the cause of my
observation. The possibilities include:
1. nonlinear dielectric
2. mutual inductance
3. Ohm's law with inertia
4. an interaction of bulk conductivity with one or more of the above
Naturally, my ego is slightly bruised that I made an assertion, with respect
to the skin effect, and I could not make it stick. However, I'm at least
slightly proud that I can offer something seldom seen on rec.audio.opinion:
a retraction.
As usual, with best wishes for you all (and reloading for the next
argument:)
Bob Morein
performance are responsible for a difference in sound between two short
interconnects that were demonstrated to me by a friend. While I still
believe that the difference in sound is real, my speculation as to the cause
has resulted in considerable rebuttal, much of it well-founded.
Many, if not most, participants, find rec.audio.opinion useful to their
psyches as a way that they can posture, puff-up, and dominate, relying on
their overblown egos when argumentation pulls the floor from under their
feet. I have seldom seen a retraction on rec.audio.opinion. To some extent,
this is because subjective expressions are seldom to this kind of
requirement of intellectual honesty. However, when one attempts to argue
with science as a foundation, and one uses science as a shield against the
truth, one lies, but successfully, only to one's self.
My speculation as to the skin effect was based on a remembered calculation
of sigma, which is, indeed, a macroscopic quantity, even at audio
frequencies. What was not intuitively obvious, at least to me, is that this
does not lead with equal confidence to the implication that there is an
effect at audio frequencies.
Other calculations and observations imply or observe that the resonant
frequency of audio cables is far above the audio band. The burden of proof
is on individuals, who like Malcolm Hawksford, attempt quantitative models
to explain perceived differences in audio cables. I am deeply disappointed
that Professor Hawksford chose to use a steel wire in his models, thereby
introducing an entirely unnecessary complication.
In the past, I have had very little interest in the possibility that audio
cables vary widely in sound. Therefore, unlike my involvment with
amplifiers, I cannot make broad assertions through experience with wire.
However, I do believe that in this case, two short interconnects of very
different construction did sound different. For me, the question is, why?
All physicists use something called "physical intuition" to help them decide
what is worth the effort of calculation. If it's wrong, it costs only one
wasted calculation. It should not be used, as I did, to jump to a conclusion
about a mechanism. But physical intuition is a valid speculative tool, and
here, I renew my speculation as to what could explain the cause of my
observation. The possibilities include:
1. nonlinear dielectric
2. mutual inductance
3. Ohm's law with inertia
4. an interaction of bulk conductivity with one or more of the above
Naturally, my ego is slightly bruised that I made an assertion, with respect
to the skin effect, and I could not make it stick. However, I'm at least
slightly proud that I can offer something seldom seen on rec.audio.opinion:
a retraction.
As usual, with best wishes for you all (and reloading for the next
argument:)
Bob Morein