Having a screw loose is not a verification of, or a prerequisite for, being an engineer.....maybe something else though...
Do speaker cables need a burn in period?
I have heard some say that speaker cables do need a 'burn in', and some say that its totally BS.
What say you?
What say you?
1,103 responses Add your response
For whatever it is worth... "Limited information exists to the precise identity of Mr. Young, though it’s likely that Feynman was referring to animal scientist Paul Thomas Young. Young, did, in fact, work with rats, but no study as Feynman describes is listed in his published works. So we’ll have to take Feynman’s word that the study was indeed conducted." https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/02/the_rat_experiment_you_dont_know_about_but_should.htmlNow, given that Mr. Feynman has been extensively quoted here by the likes of....(you put your favorite poster here)…., you have to decide for yourself if you will take his word on anything that is not strictly physics. |
| Post removed |
mitch2 brought up a good point. I always thought for the last 20 years that my system was good enough until I added in a new component. My system now is much better than it was 10years ago, but I still got a long way to go. When does progress stops? For example, if someone has a $100K system, can it be better? How many $100K speakers are there to purchase? Or $100K amp? I still think there are a lot of things that can be done at the recording end such as better audio format, better mixing. How about coming up with stereo recordings with surround sound format? |
"The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before." "He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it."There seems to be another variable that has been missed for the last 80 years. The one that made rats know in advance how the floor would sound when they ran over it. That may be what made them run immediately to the right door instead of tapping around searching for the right sound. |
To me, this stuff is a matter of degrees. I don't disagree that any number of small things can change how a system sounds , but at what point does it make a meaningful difference in relation to everything else going on in a system .....i.e., at what point is it worth thousands of dollars to purchase new cables, or hours of time to change fuse directions, damp capacitors, compare footers, change internal hook-up wires, or log the burn-in of speaker cables? It seems like HEA culturally conditions folks so they are never satisfied - like an approach-avoidance thing....when the system is almost dialed in then something else must need improvement. |
How do we define the flow of energy? Well energy is the product of V*I (voltage * current). So you see that current is only one variable. Votlage is the other variable. Now if you say energy flows from point A to point B then, the voltage at A is always higher than B, no exception. When the amp drives the speaker, since the energy flows from the amp end to the speakers, the voltage at the amp output is always higher than at the speakers inputs. Therefore the electrons at the amp end of the cable always subjected to a higher potential vs. at the speakers end of the cable. Diretinality is define as having a non-symmetric condition. You have two variables here : current and voltage. Current is symmetric but voltage is not symmetric. Because of the non-symmetric nature of voltage, you have directionality. This is a fairly basic concept. It's first semester of electrical engineering class. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't let your incompetency waste other people time. Nobody is going to bother collecting "data" on something this basic. They probably got better things to do. |
That’s where the Feynman quote comes in about explaining things to ordinary people. But what you stated earlier was that no one could define Higgs boson, which is not (rpt not) true. Obviously someone can define and explain Higgs boson because it has become part of the Standard Model. As far as understanding atomic physics goes, obviously many peoples’ eyes would probably glaze over, same goes for a lot of things. That’s kind of how it goes. |
@geoffkait So, i'm still waiting for your data/documentation that shows that wire directionality OR cable brake-in applies to a AC circuit. Lets set the table once again on what AC current is: Alternating Current (AC) flows one way, then the other way, continually reversing direction which would make a directional wire if it existed useless. The rate of changing direction is called the frequency of the AC and it is measured in hertz (Hz) which is the number of forwards-backwards cycles per second. |
Teo wrote We, as a group of beings we like to call humans, still don’t know what an atom is. Nice name and descriptors and all, but if you dig into it, we still can’t really define an atomic particle with any clarity. Even with all that text, effort, and minds on it. >>>That’s completely untrue, of course. I mean unless the group you’re talking about is a bunch of briar hoppers from the backwoods of Arkansas. No offense to Arkansas. Not much in the universe is *better understood* than the atom and subatomic particles. We can measure the atom, we can locate the atom, we can even photograph the atom. IBM. Particle physics - check it out. Even the Higgs Boson is understood. And gravity and gravity waves. So, I’m afraid, Teo, you probably need to edit your post to say, “I still can’t really define an atomic particle with any clarity.” Fake mystery! See a Get Smart page on particle physics at, http://theconversation.com/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-the-absolutely-amazing-theory-of-a... |
Did they manage to perform Mr. Young experiment on lab rats ... errr ... I mean lab engineers? I wonder which door they engineers would have chosen? If the door painted with Ms. Kate Upton, I'd probably run through that door every time. What happened to the rat at the end? Probably got run over they some lab equipment. |
"Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn’t have been worth the Nobel prize." ― Richard P. Feynman On the subject of audiophiles hearing differences, and those differences are dismissed by some fairly forceful voices. The problem is duplicating the conditions. To be the person themselves, in their maze. To dissect the scenario with enough clarity and complexity. To not simply dismiss it as you as an individual cannot easily reach it. One has to raise themselves to that given complexity of scenario. Dismissal is not an credible answer.: " All experiments in psychology are not of this [cargo cult] type, however. For example there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on — with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train rats to go to the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before. The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe they were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell. He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go to the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell. Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using — not what you think it’s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running. I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or of being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn’t discover anything about rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science" ----- Richard P. Feynman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To flat out say that cable differences are garbage, the listeners are insane and the items are snake oil and so on.... is to engage in the simplicity of the self---projected on to the issue, and the declaring the matter closed as the individual doing the declaring.....cannot easily reach it. Simple mind, simple view simple grasp, simple answer. Which just Just happens to be wholly wrong. The insult is to the self doing the declaring.... and overlaid as an enforced point upon others. It’s emotional, not scientific. A person who has reached some sort of limit in the self, in either the senses or reason..emotes..and then projects it as a norm and limit upon all others. And that is psychology ---not science, not the scientific method. It’s the frailty of the human condition which helms the attempt at science. And fails miserably. Eg: We, as a group of beings we like to call humans, still don't know what an atom is. Nice name and descriptors and all, but if you dig into it, we still can't really define an atomic particle with any clarity. Even with all that text, effort, and minds on it. Why not attack all that use atoms? Damned snake oil atomic particles! What's the difference, here? None, really.... |
All this time and explanation, still a lot of folks don’t seem to get what is meant by the term directionality. When did arrows start appearing on audio cables? Has it really been 25 years ago? I guess Feynman was right, after all. An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - William Burroughs “I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.” ― Richard P. Feynman |
Just want to add one more variable to "directionality". It's the propagation of energy. The energy always goes from the source to the load, or in this case from the amp to the speakers, not the other way around. Just like the energy goes from the electrical power station into your home, not your home to the electrical power station. |
There is a live album on which a performer says something to the effect of "Merle Haggard just happens to be known for probably the only bad song he ever wrote." In a similar way, on Audiogon forum, Richard Feynman is quoted way more often than necessary with probably the only quote that has no real meaning, substance, or explanation of anything. Quoter's fascination with that one single quote is revealing, though. |
After a near death experience, I've thought about "directionality" and I think I may have to agree with geoffkait. Yes, the cable is directional. For example if you send a pulse from the source to the load, the pulse travels from the sender to the load, not the other way around, which means it's asymmetric. The AC current may be symmetric (that is it travel forward and backward just the same) but the current in this case is just one variable. There are other variables that confirm there exists directionality. geoffkait will get the credit for coming up with the concept but I don't think he did a good job of explaining. As for those who insist on data, it's like asking to show the data for 2+2=4. You need some background in electrical engineering. Human concepts cannot be described in data. |
So here I am in my recliner reading the newspaper after supper listening to classical radio. What the heck, I will check my email. I come across an Audiogon discussion recap and link to this thread.As I read a few posts I get hooked, not because I have a strong opinion on the subject, but because the banter is at times informative and even more times evokes a good laugh. I start to imagine that all who have posted and others like myself who just read and are entertained went to the same high school and were in the same graduating class. During high school and ever since we have been fervent audiophiles. So here we are years later (45 for me) at our class reunion and a discussion of cables arises and spreads throughout the room. Lively, sometimes heated banter, along with rolling eyes, and gut aching laughter fills the place. It is probably good that this is only imaginary. Otherwise we may very well be a room full of bachelors. |
andy2: "Einstein was known for this thought experiments. Nobody back there was asking for data :-)" WRONG! Jeez, man o man.... His "thought" experiments, good grief! Sir, do you know anything about mathematics, like, say calculus? You are wrong. There are theoretical physicists and there are experimental physicists and they NEED EACH OTHER. Theory is nothing without data to prove or disprove the theory. Until data is produced, it remains theory. Experimental physicists need theoretical physicists to determine what experiments to design and perform. In biological sciences, they are often the same person; in physics, they are often different people. Regardless, THAT is the scientific method. Einstein’s theories were eventually proven experimentally. For example the only way this electronic messaging works is to take into account, and adjust for (geosynch communication satellites), GENERAL RELATIVITY. |
It is *misreported* on the internet in what appear to be otherwise authoritative articles on the Challenger Disaster investigation with respect to Richard Feynman. The article I just read, for example, described a hostile relationship between Rogers, the Chairman of the Rogers Commision and Feynman during the investigation. But that is incorrect. The hostile relationship was actually between Dr. Alton Keel, Executive Director of the commission, and Feynman. William Rogers was not technical and shied away from ego battles, not so with Drs. Feynman and Keel. And it was Keel who kept Feynman’s portion of the Final Report relegated to the Appendix. to whit, ”The chief conflict, according to several participants, was between Mr. Rogers and Dr. Richard P. Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist from the California Institute of Technology. They repeatedly clashed not only on how harshly to criticize NASA but also on how to conduct the investigation and deal with the press. Indeed, only last week Dr. Feynman threatened to dissent from the commission's final report unless a section that he had written, which Mr. Rogers considered too harsh and emotional, was included as he had composed it. That last-minute fracas was resolved through the mediation of Maj. Gen. Donald J. Kutyna of the Air Force, a commission member who, through the course of the proceedings, became a close friend of Dr. Feynman. General Kutyna cautioned today that the issue involved only a few words and had been resolved to the satisfaction of all. From the start, Dr. Feynman, known for his brilliant and original intellectual forays, was impatient with committee meetings, bureaucratic planning, formal hearings and detailed discussions of the best way to word reports. As far as he was concerned, the way to investigate a problem was to venture out as an individual and have long talks with the technical people who could explain everything they knew about the shuttle technology and its problems. |