Is there anything better than Golden Ears?

R

ruadmaa

Banned
Audible Difference In One Foot Of Speaker Cable????

Mudcat said:
Check out what Jon Risch wrote.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/103790.html

<b>"Through many years of experimentation, I have found that on a revealing system, one can "hear" the efects of as little as one foot of speaker cable."</b>
I seriously doubt that there is a man alive who can tell the difference between 1 foot of speaker cable. Sorry, I just plain don't believe it.
 
S

sjdgpt

Senior Audioholic
If I wash my car every day to remove the bird droppings versus once every 7 days, will I be able to determine the difference in my gas mileage due to difference achieved by improving the aerodynamics of my car?

Oh, we are talking about 1 foot of speaker wire.

Well, same difference. Bird stuff versus his ears.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Mudcat said:
Check out what Jon Risch wrote.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/103790.html

<b>"Through many years of experimentation, I have found that on a revealing system, one can "hear" the efects of as little as one foot of speaker cable."</b>

Do you know of him? He has been on the net for a very long time, selling the same old BS, hype, myth, voodoo, even in the face of jneutron showing him how wrong he is. He just continues to make unsupported claims. He had numerous chances to demonstrate his skills but, like Sylvia Brown, he is a nowshow although Sylvia has accepted an offer, Jon has not and will never accept it. He is the number 1 internet audio hypster.

Oh, he has been claiming this from day one. He cannot be believed as he has yet to show or demonstrate his ability to hear anything, let alone 1ft wire differences.
 
M

mustang_steve

Senior Audioholic
sigh....I thoguht we all knew of this guy's rep by now.

If snake oil could be used for running powerplants, he could fuel the state of california by himself. Don't get me wrong, some of his designs are interesting, but IMO, audio is an electronic signal, therefore outside of the speaker itself and the room, every single change in sound can be measured electronically.

I forgot what forum it was, but I asked him if he would desire to try to come up with a measuring system for wires...I never got a reply.

Basically those who abide by audio being some mystical thing, often end up believing so bad that they fear proving that cable X is better at an electronic level....it's just the way the hobby went.

At least to me, if your building cables, experiment with odd designs, but don't go out and pay $20,000 for speaker wires....I can't even begin with how many better upgrades could have been bought with that kind of cash....or how much more music to listen to...or heck, even a down payment on an addition to the house, a music room where you can uglify it to your heart's desire (wife accepting of course!) :)
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
Actually, under certain conditions, so can I

"Through many years of experimentation, I have found that on a revealing system, one can "hear" the efects of as little as one foot of speaker cable."

ruadmaa said:
I seriously doubt that there is a man alive who can tell the difference between 1 foot of speaker cable. Sorry, I just plain don't believe it.
If you remove that one foot of cable from the middle of the run I'll wager you I can her the difference it made. :D

Other than that, I kinds effen' doubt it. More of his smoke and mirrors.
 
J

J Risch

Enthusiast
So say you

mtrycrafts said:
Do you know of him? He has been on the net for a very long time, selling the same old BS, hype, myth, voodoo, even in the face of jneutron showing him how wrong he is. He just continues to make unsupported claims. He had numerous chances to demonstrate his skills but, like Sylvia Brown, he is a nowshow although Sylvia has accepted an offer, Jon has not and will never accept it. He is the number 1 internet audio hypster.

Oh, he has been claiming this from day one. He cannot be believed as he has yet to show or demonstrate his ability to hear anything, let alone 1ft wire differences.
I could say very much the same things about you mtry.

You never support your assertions, implied or direct, you crawl behind the "burden of proof argument" even though you have actually made many outright claims over the years. You have no real "proof" to offer, only tired old naysayer propaganda phrases and buzzwords, usually gleaned from others.

As for statements like "jneutron showing him how wrong he is", that is merely your opinion about the situation. I have shown jneutron and many others "a thing or two", but these kinds of events are ignored by the naysayers.

In point of fact, your knowledge about high performance audio stems not from direct experience, or years of exposure to such performance, but rather, comes from reading white papers about miscellaneous audio subjects, many of which do not even relate to the subjects at hand.

So why do the folks here at AH continue to let you demean and denigrate me in your posts here??

Jon Risch
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
J Risch said:
I could say very much the same things about you mtry.

You never support your assertions, implied or direct, you crawl behind the "burden of proof argument" even though you have actually made many outright claims over the years. You have no real "proof" to offer, only tired old naysayer propaganda phrases and buzzwords, usually gleaned from others.

As for statements like "jneutron showing him how wrong he is", that is merely your opinion about the situation. I have shown jneutron and many others "a thing or two", but these kinds of events are ignored by the naysayers.

In point of fact, your knowledge about high performance audio stems not from direct experience, or years of exposure to such performance, but rather, comes from reading white papers about miscellaneous audio subjects, many of which do not even relate to the subjects at hand.

So why do the folks here at AH continue to let you demean and denigrate me in your posts here??

Jon Risch
BORING. Same old JR. nothing much to say, no facts, no evidence, nada. But, why would anyone expect anything different from the number 1 internet voodoo man. :eek:

You should read what a professional engineer has to say about you, Jon.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9769

But what would he know, right. Most likely he is not a 'high end' audio professional engineer, right?

Interesting reading, ROTFLMAO. :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
Well Jon, let's be honest here.

Here's the "new" rules to your asylum.

"Teh (sic) Cables Asylum is for those who have decided that audio cables make a sonic difference. If you do not feel that audio cables do sound different, then do not post here. Posts that state that audio cables sound the same, or that all one needs is zip cord and/or dimestore coax, may be deleted, re-directed or other actions taken at the sole discretion of the moderators or the Bored. If you post more than one such post, you may be banned from the Cable Asylum."

Now, how can one take seriously any discussion that is allowed in there? That's not so much a forum as a mutual admiration socicity, where no deviation from the party line is allowed.

Likewise, one would think that technical discussion would be encouraged, much like it is here, but unless it appears to bolster your case, it's verboten. Even then, it can't be questioned if there's a chance it would be proven false.

And, as far as JNeutron goes, when you extend to him the same courtsey in your domain as you are shown here, I'm sure you will be looked upon more chariatiably but until then, your immunity from being criticized, questioned and even laughed about doesn't extend too far beyond the borders of your private little feifdom.

His arguments can stand on their own and he doesn't need to delete, ban or otherwise "remove" ideas and opinions of those who disagree with him to maintain a strict mind control scenario.

And remember, when I started in AR in '98 I supported your right to state your opinions when others were dumping on you for your attitudes. Then, I had the audacity to disagree with you and experienced first hand what they were railing on about. You quickly sink to levels of personal insults. You really don't play well with others who don't see things your way.

You do have some good things to offer when you act the true scientist but you have some ideas that are straight out of the twilight zone. When your "scientific" arguments contain numerous "may" or "might" or "can possibly" instead of "does" or "will" or "causes" then more research is needed before most will accept them as fact. Until then, it's only smoke and mirrors.

...but you do have quite a sizable cult following that's ready to snap 'em up like my dog does with bacon bits. It's kinda cute that they have their own protected sanctuary where they can romp and play unimpeded and unencumbered by the realities of the real world.
 
Last edited:
J

jneutron

Senior Audioholic
J Risch said:
As for statements like "jneutron showing him how wrong he is", that is merely your opinion about the situation.
You are correct..it is his opinion..

Of course, it is quite supported by fact. At props, cables, AR, and here.

Explain how speaker wires are piezo-challenged?? Remember the analysis I did at AR?? Using total energy balance..and, bruce's data.

Explain how speaker wires are subject to motor generator?? Remember the analysis, again at AR? Energy balance equations, as you should recall..stored energy vs deflection of the wire centers..

Explain how grain boundaries "add up". Remember the analysis I did? At cables, that one was. The one about mean free path?...and how, there are already tens of millions of collisions...and how several thousand more or less is meaningless..

Explain how strand jumping works...Remember the analysis I did? AR and cables..how the radial currents affect current profile, and how I corrected the belief that radial conductivity increases skinning, while radial resistance lowers skinning and increases internal inductance...there were lots of incorrect assumptions on your part there....

Explain how YOUR cross connected coaxial arrives at it's inductance...Recall, I performed the analysis that derived it's inductance, to about 3 nH per foot...to match actual measurements. Remember, you had no clue. That analysis was at prop.

Explain how a teflon wrap over pvc alters the wire drastically, when the wires are 2 inches apart? Recall, I derived the capacitance equations dispelling your verbage? Then, asked you if you did any tests whatsoever?

And, how over the years, I have had to correct your incorrect statements about superconductivity..you seem to think (although I don't know presently if you've understood reality yet..) that all the current within a superconductor is on the surface...it isn't. It is confined to the outermost volume of super, and progresses inward as the current increases, sweeping volume at the critical current density, J<sub>C</sub>.

These examples, I either derived the equational relationships using well founded e/m field theory, or proved you wrong by actual test and results, using calibrated test equipment...or, in some cases, did both..

In all cases, your response was....""OH YAH""..""this is your last warning""...""naysayer""...""naysayer front man"". In no case, were you able to support an argument based on any sound engineering or physics principles.

Your responses are at times laughable, Jon..and at times, rather sad.

With respect to e/m field theory, you show all the earmarks of a huckster. Lots of verbage, none of the basic understandings...


J Risch said:
I have shown jneutron and many others "a thing or two", but these kinds of events are ignored by the naysayers.
You have indeed shown me a "thing or two"..

You have deleted posts which you were unable to argue with.

You have castigated me for having the audacity to disagree with you.

You have lied, you have threatened, you have badgered, you have attacked..

Lies do not become you...you can, of course, provide documentation in support of your statement??? Or, are you going to link to more of your baseless and unsupported diatribe?

You have <b> not</b>, however, shown me that you understand even the basics when it comes to e/m theory...the vast bulk of your "theories" can be easily disproven by inspection..very little thinking is required..

I look forward to your "white paper" on how "lateralization is not the whole ball of wax for High end audio".

It will be interesting to read a tome from you on a subject where you do not even understand the definitions..(lateralization is the internal visualization of an audio source along the lateral line when headphones are used...localization is the result of binaural stimulation with an open soundfield..

J Risch said:
So why do the folks here at AH continue to let you demean and denigrate me in your posts here??
I believe you will find that moderators here will lock threads down when that is the subject of the thread. And, they will warn should a thread proceed in that direction.. I concur with you, that this should not be the purpose of a thread..

I look forward to the day you also stick to that rule...instead of calling other, more science based sites such as this one...."bastions of naysaying"..

I consider your changing of rules at AA...just a simplistic attempt at controlling dialogue on a subject you have little expertise in from the basis of science..

While you continue in your attempts at controlling that domain, I continue to analyze and test and discuss...perhaps you will eventually learn that it takes two hands to clap..one hand can only flip the bird..

Cheers, John
 
Last edited:
J

J Risch

Enthusiast
Sos

mtrycrafts said:
You should read what a professional engineer has to say about you, Jon.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=9769

But what would he know, right. Most likely he is not a 'high end' audio professional engineer, right?
Actually, it appears that he does not have anything to say about me.

If he does, it seems you got the link wrong.

He is stating his opinions about audio cables, an opinion that may or may not actually be true.

Jon Risch
 
Mudcat

Mudcat

Senior Audioholic
Naw, he's got the correct link. but as usual, you did not read the entire thread or you only read very selective portions. There is a short statement about someone believing that they can hear the difference of one foot of cable. They only person who has ever said anything so incredulous is you Jon.

I'll put his entire reply in quotes for you (BTW, it's post number 4 in the thread). Read the last sentence of the first paragraph. Then read it again. Then read it again and again and again until it sinks in.


Dr Jeff said:
Experiment all you like...while there may be minute, miniscule, essentially negligible (we're talking way to the right of the decimal point) differences in the electrical characteristics in the differing cables, you would never percieve these (there is one moron out there who says he can tell the difference in 1 foot of cable).

As long as the wire is of adequate AWG, good quality copper, and not defective, you should not damage your system (unless you did something really bad like run 100W RMS low frequency signal to your HF driver).

A good quality speaker cable will be acoustically transparent, neither adding to nor subtracting from the output signal at the amp. There are many cables that color the sound in one way or another - some like it, some don't. Personally I always say save the money on high-end cables and IC's, get some well built sturdy ones but don't break the bank, and spend more on speakers, room treatments, etc. You can change a lot more through simply moving a speaker 6 inches or putting a reflective or absorptive surface on a wall than you ever could through biwiring.

Jeff
Another thing Jon, did you ever notice how much better you and your lemmings are treated here then we are treated at your dictatorship? Yeah they may get abused, but 95% of the time or better, it is from a technical standpoint - not a personnal thing. You must take personnal pleasure in denigrating Soundmind. You do it so often. Why? Does he make you feel inferior?
 
Last edited:
J

J Risch

Enthusiast
Whose facts, which truth?

jneutron said:
Explain how speaker wires are piezo-challenged?? Remember the analysis I did at AR?? Using total energy balance..and, bruce's data.
We had been talking about audio cables, these include line level IC's. In posts at AA, you conceded that they might indeed be susceptible to piezo electric effects. Regarding speaker cables, your analysis at AR was not definitive, it was a quickie shirt-cuff kind of calculation, which you later corrected, and it still may not be accurate, or even close to the truth.
Bruce's "data" by the same token, is not gospel, or some sort of iron-clad evidence.

So, your whole premise is that you, the scientist, have shown my supositions and theories about piezo-electirc effects intruding on the audio signal, to be wrong via one person's quickie "data", and your back of a napkin calculation?

It is a simple matter of level between IC's and speaker cables, you allowed that IC's might be affected, but are now absolutely sure that speaker cables are not?
You have not provided any sort of definitive proof or evidence, and coming from someone who claims to be a scientist, that is kind of funny (or sad).

jneutron said:
Explain how speaker wires are subject to motor generator?? Remember the analysis, again at AR? Energy balance equations, as you should recall..stored energy vs deflection of the wire centers..
Again with the napkin equations at AR. What kind of proof is this? Again, nothing. However, I have directly observed motor/generator in action, and performed the experiment with sand bags to damp it. Have you tried this, have you listened? No. Your stance is all theory, none of which has been verified or even double-checked by anyone else. My data is from actual experiments and listening experiences. Yet you shrug these off as if they did not exist. Fine, but then don't try to claim that you "explained this" to anyone's satisfaction, it is merely that you THINK that you have. Not exactly the same thing as The TRVTH.

jneutron said:
Explain how grain boundaries "add up". Remember the analysis I did? At cables, that one was. The one about mean free path?...and how, there are already tens of millions of collisions...and how several thousand more or less is meaningless..
I am not the only one who thinks that there might be something of an issue with copper crystal boundariers being a problem, see:
http://www.blackdahlia.com/tipindex/tip_25/tip_25.html

In any case, this is more of the same, you are convinced that you have somehow "proved something" when in fact, you have done no such thing, only convinced YOURSELF that this is the case.
You have not cited any real evidence in favor of your claims regarding this topic, merely made claims and statements that it can not be the case.

jneutron said:
Explain how strand jumping works...Remember the analysis I did? AR and cables..how the radial currents affect current profile, and how I corrected the belief that radial conductivity increases skinning, while radial resistance lowers skinning and increases internal inductance...there were lots of incorrect assumptions on your part there....
According to you, but that is not necessarily any sort of truth either, even if we allow for YOUR interpretation of what I said or posted. You often only comment on part of what I posted or said, and act as if it is the whole of it.
Of course, taking comments out of context, and away from the whole, makes them look very weak or confusing, but it is not what actually was going on, only what you make it look like. In other words, SPIN.

In point of fact, your input to the article here at AH gave more significance to the theory of strand jumping, you might say that you highlighted and backed up the working mechanism for it to occur. So in point of fact, instead of disproving strand jumping, you actually provided more evidence for it. Of course, I am sure that neither you, nor AH wants to see it that way, but anyone who can read, can also see the implications.

jneutron said:
Explain how YOUR cross connected coaxial arrives at it's inductance...Recall, I performed the analysis that derived it's inductance, to about 3 nH per foot...to match actual measurements. Remember, you had no clue. That analysis was at prop.
I have explained how my Cross-Connect speaker cable design works, in fact, it was you who was confused at first, you did not even know what the actual geometry was for quite a while, then, FINALLY, you bothered to look at my web site (AFTER denigrating the design, and me, several times for an imagined geometry that was not used), and figured out what it was I had done. I am not impressed by your "derivation", you had the numbers before hand to look at, to make your "derivation" match up to. Not too hard to do a least squares fit to the data, so what?

As for how the cross-connect speaker cable works, I have posted sufficiently on the subject, and none of it is incorrect or wrong, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. I completely understand how the design works, why it does what it does, and why it is not perfectly ideal.

I also realize the limitations of using the commercially available coaxial cables that I specify, and have explained numerous times that I feel the materials issues outweigh the imbalance in the copper, yet you have harped and latched onto this as if it were an Achille's Heel of the design. The proof is in the pudding, and the CC89259 speaker cables sound good, and are well regarded by virtually everyone who has ever made them. Could they be better? Yes, could this be done with existing commercial coaxial cables that most folks can afford? No.
In point of fact, they continue to have one of the lowest capacitance to inductance ratios of ANY speaker cable out there, by which I am including popular DIY designs, and all commercial/retail designs, and a reasonably low inductance to boot.

jneutron said:
Explain how a teflon wrap over pvc alters the wire drastically, when the wires are 2 inches apart? Recall, I derived the capacitance equations dispelling your verbage? Then, asked you if you did any tests whatsoever?
I have modelled enough E-fields to know that if you ADD a dissimilar dielectric to a wire, it will alter the E-field geometry around that wire. This is an incontrovertable fact, and nothing you can say will change that.

And I remind you that the whole purpose of that argument in the first place, was your defending Mudcat's claim that wrapping a set of PVC insulated wires with teflon tape, would make them equivalent to a set of teflon only insulated wires. This is obviously a false statement, and can not be defended, yet you will twist heaven and earth to try and make it seem that it is true.
Why you feel compelled to do this, I can not say, but it is a symptom of your slide into full and baseless cable naysaying.

jneutron said:
And, how over the years, I have had to correct your incorrect statements about superconductivity..you seem to think (although I don't know presently if you've understood reality yet..) that all the current within a superconductor is on the surface...it isn't. It is confined to the outermost volume of super, and progresses inward as the current increases, sweeping volume at the critical current density, J<sub>C</sub>.
Actually, you recently congratulated me on my description and explanation of super-conductors:
" I will admit, Jon...your explanation w/r to supers, although from a layman, was very good..considering the things I found incorrect are by no means available to people outside a very small clique.. "

that was at:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/100082.html

I readily admit that with respect to super conductor information, that you have more experience with it than I do, and I said my posted explanation was not meant to be an in depth discourse on superconductors, it was an explanation FOR a layman, with the idea that they would need to understand it, or there would be little point in posting it.

In any case, you continue to post about the real world super-conductors, the ones with quenching materials inbetween bundles of super conductive material, while I have been talking about the classic pure super conductors, and my description would be more nearly correct for those, rather than for the real world ones. You harp on this as if it meant something, when in fact, you have been ignoring (deliberately?) the different kinds of super conductors we are talking about. I mentioned this to you at least once, but you ignored it.

Oh well, the bottom line, is, that by working hard enough at it, just about anything I post or say can be deliberately misconstrued or badly portrayed.
You have taken your cue from mtry, just post a small portion of the truth, and the folks who WANT to believe you have posted all of it, will believe what you have posted is the absolute truth.

I am not even going to begin to bring up all the topics and subjects where you made bad asumptions, and lit into me, only be shown wrong later, or where you jumped on the bandwagon, only to find there was really nothing to base it on, just the heresay of someone else who was a naysayer and out to trash me. You have had more than your share of mistakes and bad posts, yet you want to act as if they never happened, and that you have the inside track on science and the truth, while I am somehow constantly off track, hopelessly lost, and don't have a clue. You know that this is not true, yet you paint the picture all the time. Shame on you John Escallier, for being a bully and a liar to boot.

Jon Risch
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
J Risch said:
blah^1000
I wonder(seriously), how can one who could hear the type of di-electric on a wire stand to listen to recorded music? I mean, if the di-electric type used on a piece of short wire has audible coloration and/or distortions of the sound, then how can one possibly stand the sound of the hundreds of components that the original sound source must travel through before it is played back on a sound system? I mean, just think of all those op-amps, resistors, capacitors and circuit traces, not to even mention the speakers themselves, before the music gets from point A(original event) to point B(playback)!

It must be much like the sound of hell, listening to recorded music played back over speakers, for such a person.

I, for one, am glad that I am only human with flesh ears, instead of a super-human with super-ears. :D

-Chris
 
J

jneutron

Senior Audioholic
J Risch said:
We had been talking about audio cables, these include line level IC's. .... you conceded that they might indeed be susceptible to piezo electric effects.
No. My post specifically targeted speaker wires, as you stated speaker wire dielectric was susceptible.. and, I specifically stated that I certainly concurred that low level cables were well within the range where piezo was audible..

Shame on you for forgetting the actual specifics, and re-writing history..
J Risch said:
Re..speaker cables, your analysis at AR was not definitive, it was a quickie shirt-cuff kind of calculation, which you later corrected, and it still may not be accurate, or even close to the truth.
Corrected, how?? What are you referring to??

I specifically derived the change of inductance that will result from changing the wire spacing, and the total energy that will be released as a result of that movement, at the peak current of a 100 wrms signal into 8 ohms..

Of course, just as you do now, you fail to even address the calculations, or present any of your own...typical..
J Risch said:
So, your whole premise is that you.. have shown my supositions and theories about piezo-electirc effects intruding on the audio signal, to be wrong via one person's quickie "data", and your back of a napkin calculation?
All that is required to dispel most of your made up stuff, is back of the napkin calculations....a very small napkin, at that.

Perhaps you have some calculations to disprove those??? I have waited, what, 2 years so far? You have produced ZERO calculations...zero test results, zero science...nothing but floob...
J Risch said:
It is a simple matter of level between IC's and speaker cables, you allowed that IC's might be affected, but are now absolutely sure that speaker cables are not?
You have not provided any sort of definitive proof or evidence, and coming from someone.. that is kind of funny (or sad).
It is a matte of total energy levels being transferred, and the total energy envelope of the disturbance signal..for speaker runs, it is, what, 9 orders of magnitude below the energy delivered to the speaker?

A scientist would not take the time to methodically, show most of your pronouncements as total garbage..

J Risch said:
However, I have directly observed motor/generator in action, and performed the experiment with sand bags to damp it. Have you tried this, have you listened? No. Your stance is all theory, none of which has been verified or even double-checked by anyone else. My data is from actual experiments ...""
You sound exactly like Clark Johnsen, with his magic chip...you know, the chip that hsas quantum dots inside, and it can see the CD spinning, re-arrange the protons within the CD, and decrement a self destruct counter..

He, claims that 100% of the people who try this chip thingy, hear a difference...how do you differ from him? He has fallen for a scam, and, you are providing such scams.
You claim motor generator is real because you saw a line cord jump..

J Risch said:
I am not the only one who thinks that there might be something of an issue with copper crystal boundariers being a problem, see:
..
Oh my god..do you actually believe all the crap that he wrote in that thing????

Look at this crap:
""The transmission speed increases slightly with signal frequency, so that the bass is slightly delayed relative to the treble. ""
"" It would in this instance take an electron on average about a day to complete a journey down a 24-foot cable! ""
""Because each grain boundary acts to scatter electrons, metallurgists over the years have invented numerous heat treatments and even a continuous casting process all designed to grow larger grains and thus minimize the number of boundaries.""

And, his skin effect diatribe???HE USES THE OLD PLANAR WAVE IMPINGING MODEL, THE ONE USED FOR E/M PULSE WARFARE..Geeze, that Hawksford paper still rears it's ugly, incorrect, head...

Do us a favor, read some of the texts I posted...It only took five minutes to see that the link you provide is hugely inaccurate...and a big load.....

If you're gonna post a link in support of your stuff, please make sure it isn't fiction. Didn't you study this in school???

J Risch said:
You have not cited any real evidence in favor of your claims regarding this topic, merely made claims and statements that it can not be the case.
As opposed to your "real evidence"? The link you provided is science fiction, totally inaccurate..and, this is the kind of garbage you use to build your "stuff"? I have repeatedly told you, half the crap you find on the internet is just that....crap..you would be better served learning what it is you are reading about through real textbooks..so that you too, will be able to distinguish garbage from reality..

J Risch said:
In point of fact, your..article here at AH gave more significance to the theory of strand jumping, instead of disproving strand jumping, you actually provided more evidence for it.
Ummmm...your memory is foggy..I hav had to correct you on what actually happens..."strand jumping", or more aptly termed, radial conduction, is required to push the current density outward...oxidized surfaces for a multistrand cable, will cause the skin depth to increase...if you understood the theory, I would not have to continually correct you..

J Risch said:
I have explained how my Cross-Connect speaker cable design works, in fact, it was you who was confused at first, you did not even know what the actual geometry was for quite a while, then, FINALLY, you bothered to look at my web site (AFTER denigrating the design, and me, several times for an imagined geometry that was not used), and figured out what it was I had done. I am not impressed by your "derivation", you had the numbers before hand to look at, to make your "derivation" match up to. Not too hard to do a least squares fit to the data, so what?
Ah, creative writing at it's best...It's actually in the public record for all to see. You of course, are relying on everyone to not bother looking...this is par for the course for you.. What I could not believe was that you didn't cross them in the middle to eliminate the imbalance current based inductance addition....a silly, inadequate design...

Least squares fit???what in gods name are you talking about..
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the entire analysis, as you have no clue as to what you are talking about..

J Risch said:
As for ..cross-connect.. I completely understand how the design works, why it does what it does, and why it is not perfectly ideal.
If you understood the design, then why did you say "least squares fit"...that had nothing to do with it...

J Risch said:
In point of fact, they continue to have one of the lowest capacitance to inductance ratios of ANY speaker cable out there, by which I am including popular DIY designs, and all commercial/retail designs, and a reasonably low inductance to boot.
What are you talking about??? And, how did you arrive at "capacitance to inductance ratio", yours being among the best???.. Your making this up as you go along, aren't you....or do you have a canned speech...

J Risch said:
I have modelled enough E-fields to know that if you ADD a dissimilar dielectric to a wire, it will alter the E-field geometry around that wire.
It is insignificant when the wires are 2 inches apart..which is what I've said all along...strawman time, eh?

J Risch said:
And I remind you that the whole purpose of that argument in the first place, was your defending Mudcat's claim that wrapping a set of PVC insulated wires with teflon tape, would make them equivalent to a set of teflon only insulated wires.
umm, Jon...mudcat will of course, re-state here that you put words into his mouth.and, I did not defend a claim of his..stop making things up..for your own personal convienience...

J Risch said:
Actually, you recently congratulated me ..explanation of super-conductors:
I readily admit that with respect to super conductor information, that you have more experience with it than I do, and I said my posted explanation was not meant to be an in depth discourse on superconductors, it was an explanation FOR a layman, with the idea that they would need to understand it, or there would be little point in posting it.

In any case, you continue to post about the real world super-conductors, the ones with quenching materials inbetween bundles of super conductive material, while I have been talking about the classic pure super conductors, and my description would be more nearly correct for those, rather than for the real world ones. You harp on this as if it meant something, when in fact, you have been ignoring (deliberately?) the different kinds of super conductors we are talking about. I mentioned this to you at least once, but you ignored it.
Your posted information isn't correct for any superconductor fabricated in the world.. What you have done, is reduce the number of errors you post about them.(well, ok..you made another with this "quenching materials statement").

I felt that it was necessary to massage your formidable ego, so that you would continue to learn. That is how I deal with children, and have found it works with you..


You continue to post fiction, you continue to learn from garbage websites..

As I maintained before, you are the biggest hindrance to the understanding of audio that I am aware of. Nothing you have posted here changes my opinion of you..nor, does it cast you in a good light..

Cheers, John
 
Last edited:
J

J Risch

Enthusiast
WmAx said:
I wonder(seriously), how can one who could hear the type of di-electric on a wire stand to listen to recorded music? I mean, if the di-electric type used on a piece of short wire has audible coloration and/or distortions of the sound, then how can one possibly stand the sound of the hundreds of components that the original sound source must travel through before it is played back on a sound system? I mean, just think of all those op-amps, resistors, capacitors and circuit traces, not to even mention the speakers themselves, before the music gets from point A(original event) to point B(playback)!
-Chris
You are looking at it backwards.

See:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/30013.html

If the recording studio all but uses up the error budget, what we are left with is a unusually high sensitivity to very minute changes and signal abberations in the home playback situation.

BTW, I do find much of recorded audio to be awful, but I have learned to tune it out, although most car stereo systems and TV set audio still drive me to distraction.

Jon Risch
 
N

Nick250

Audioholic Samurai
I don't see the purpose of entering into a debate with Risch. He is a nut case and no one is going to alter his beliefs. It is an exercise in futility. Let him think what he wants to think and us get on with topics that really matter like speakers and room treatments etc., things that acutally have effect on the sound we hear in our homes.

IMHO, YMMV yadda, yadda
 
Mudcat

Mudcat

Senior Audioholic
Nick250 said:
...... He is a nut case ........

Please please please, lets show JR how polite we are at AH, something that he is not willing to show others at his domain. Lets just beat the hell out of him on technical merit.
 
I was away for about a week... We'll need to close this thread unless it veers back to the topic at hand. How do you back up a claim to hear the effects of 1' of speaker cable on a revealing system?

Please try to address the statement, not the person - regardless of how silly and unsubstantiated/undocumented the claim may be.

Couple suggestions:

  • What is the definition of a revealing system? (equipment, etc)
  • Where and when did you conduct these tests?
  • What was the noise floor in the room you were listening? (I'd guess it had to be at least as low as 20dB ambient noise)
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top